taxi instruction
 

Hi everyone,

Assume that, we have one runway (10-28), two taxiways (A for rwy 10 - B for rwy 28) used for entering runway. A is closed due construction work. We organise traffics via B.

So when we use rwy 10, i give the taxi instruction like that:
"ABC123, taxi to rwy 10 via B, qnh 1009. (no hold instruction for rwy 28)

1. Should a pilot hold short rwy 28 on B and ask for line up? or
2. May he line up rwy 28 without asking according to our taxi instruction?

Line up or take off should always be separate from taxi instructions.

Can’t see anything wrong with what LookingForAJob says. Do it like that & you won’t be going far wrong. Plain common sense - can’t see why he’s looking for a job !

A (now retired) ATCO at Leeds Bradford was often heard to issue this clearance, "Golf Foxtrot Charlie, cleared line-up and take-off runway 32..." It was many years ago and I don't remember any other LBA ATCOs doing the same. Maybe the rules were different then.

Mooncrest.. I've read you post over and over and I can see nothing wrong. I've been retired for 15+ years and, as you say, rules change but I used that phrase many times at Heathrow in the form "Cleared to line-up and take-off runway 28R". Was I wrong? I don't think so as my LCE didn't miss a trick!

It wouldn’t be allowed now. One is never now “cleared” to line-up. CAP413 claims to be authoritative and wants the runway in front of the clearance. Sometimes the runway entry point is mandated too. You get left with grammatically disappointing “via B runway 28R surface wind xx cleared for take-off” which takes so long and doesn’t allow runway entry until the end so expedition would probably split line-up and take-off.

I think "line-up" is superfluous if take-off clearance is given. It's not terribly prudent for a fixed wing to take-off without lining up.

HD, there was probably nothing wrong at all with that particular instruction. I'm not an ATCO so I don't have the detailed inside info. I'm just relaying what I used to hear many years ago from a single controller at one unit. I'm unable to comment as to right and wrong but that instruction did stand out.

Whilst I accept that the “Department of Change” may have outlawed this phraseology - why?, I don’t know - many ATCOS used it for many years ( without incident). Can anyone explain why it should have fallen out of favour ?

It's phraseology that's still alive and kicking today in Marrakesh. Along with "when runway in sight, cleared to land". I guess in a way that makes sense...

I seem to recall that the philosophy invented by ICAO was that the word[s] 'clear' and 'cleared' were only to be used when issuing a clearance to take-off or land. 'Clearing' in all other circumstances eg. to manoeuvre on the ground; cross runways; climb; descend etc etc all became forbidden.

The old system/phraseology did seem to work very well, but then I was only an ATCO for thirty odd years, so what do I know!!!!?

Thank you for coming back to subject. :)

So the aircraft should hold and ask for permission AGAIN for entering to runway even though the controller has given a lack intstruction.

(I know that, the clearance given above is not sufficient for safety context. We must give a holding point for the traffic for the best application.

In the phraseology mentioned in the OP, no specific 'clearance limit' is given, and is extremely ambiguous.

It effectively gives the a/c permission to enter the R/W via B and backtrack in order to get to R/W 10.

When I started in 1980, it was 'Cleared to the holding point R/W XX'.

This later became 'Taxy holding point R/W XX', with the word 'cleared' only used for T/O or Landing instructions.

Without checking CAP413, I believe the current procedure is to issue a taxy clearance to a specific holding point via a specific route?

Only in 'Angels One Five'...

Sorry Tdm,

Well spotted and a correct version has been issued.

Don't think Beeswax is a valid callsign, Zooker ;-)