Position and Hold Clearence's Not Auihorized come September

Lrjtcaptain

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Posts
927
Total Time
2000+
Just heard from my manager come september that "Position and Hold" clearences are no longer autorized unless the facitilty can justify its use and saftey. Apperently too many controllers are forgetting about people in position and landing planes over the top I.E. SJC has had numerous incidents as had LAX not including the crash many many years ago.
However airports that can justify its use can apperently get a waiver to use the clearence. Larger facilties like Atlanta and San Fran that utitilze certain ruways for departures only should not be affected however, I could see LAX, DEN, and ORD getting hurt here because they are using same runways for departures and arrivals. Although it may make the system a tad bit safer, its just gonna slow down an out of control system already.
 

User546

The Ultimate Show Stopper
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Posts
1,959
Total Time
+1500
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the authorization from only the airport's who habitually get in trouble using it?

I agree, the system is broken and slowed down enough as it is!
 

2000flyer

EASY FLYER
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
1,586
Total Time
5700+
Just go to the European clearance:

LINE UP AND WAIT! :D
 

viper548

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Posts
2,090
Total Time
6800
User997 said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the authorization from only the airport's who habitually get in trouble using it?

I agree, the system is broken and slowed down enough as it is!
Or remove it only when there are planes assigned to land on that runway. For example, usually only 747s NEED to land on 24L at LAX, so unless there is one on the approach somewhere, allow the position and hold.
 

ISaidRightTurns

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Posts
154
Total Time
1500
User997 said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the authorization from only the airport's who habitually get in trouble using it?

I agree, the system is broken and slowed down enough as it is!
The only answer for the runway problem is more concrete. Lots more. Wouldn't it be great to taxi AROUND a runway?

BTW, Lrjtcapt, did you see a copy of the FAA letter to the guy in N90? Not good.
 

TurboS7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
2,261
Total Time
19,210
That would shut down LGW. They plan to land an airplane over the top of you and you better be spooled and ready to go as soon as the airplane landing clears the runway. I think Europe has a better ATC system anyway.
 

TurboS7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
2,261
Total Time
19,210
They should just observe the experts the honey bees. All bees inbound land upside down on top, and all bees outbound takeoff on the bottom.
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
All bees inbound land upside down on top
That's one way to avoid that pesky reverse sensing on the back course...

Personally, I'm all ears and eyes when cleared into position to hold. All lights on, and I'm ready to taxi clear. If other aircraft is working that runway or a parallel, my ears are perked up and I'm not hesitant to refuse if I think there's any issue. I try to sit on the very end of the runway, not down it, such that landing aircraft are more likely to go over me than on me while I sit. I pre-spool, and I treat being on the runway like holding a weapon with the safety off, or sitting in line with a loaded firearm.

I'm not opposed to stopping position and hold clearances. I think it's a positive step toward reducing ground incursion incidents.
 

Vector4fun

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Posts
796
Total Time
1700
The silly thing about this memo going around, (if it's not short-circuited along the way), is the facilities having lots of problems and traffic will probably be allowed to continue using the procedure, and those with less traffic and squeaky-clean error rates will stop. That's the way the FAA works in their little Never-Never Land. They won't stop the procedure at places like EWR because COA's delays would skyrocket, and somebody would be calling in some serious Congressional IOUs shortly.
 

SkyBoy1981

Bring a towel!
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Posts
1,482
Total Time
5000
Perhaps I am wrong, but is there really a safety issue by holding an airplane in position at the approach end of a runway on a clear day? Even if it is forgotten about, the pilot of the landing aircraft would have to be blind not to see it there unless its a very small airplane. I know that position and hold is already restricted from being used from intersections at night, but if they are going to restrict it further they should restrict it completely during night hours and in IFR conditions. Doing away with it completely at most airports just seems a bit overboard.
 

ifleyelearz

Proud Techsan
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Posts
40
Total Time
>2600
Anyone ever heard of the clearance: "Position and Go"??
I swear I heard it the other day @ MSP...
 

UnstableAviator

Dual Given.
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Posts
303
Total Time
6000
Of course we should all be cautious when given the "position and hold" clearance, either sitting on the runway or landing on it. That's the common sense stuff you can't regulate or teach.


Anyway, I agree it is a bit overboard. I'd rather see them ban tailwind ops in the name of noise abatement. The 145 I fly is so quiet it is almost an insult to call it a jet.
 
Last edited:

Lrjtcaptain

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Posts
927
Total Time
2000+
SkyBoy1981 said:
Perhaps I am wrong, but is there really a safety issue by holding an airplane in position at the approach end of a runway on a clear day? Even if it is forgotten about, the pilot of the landing aircraft would have to be blind not to see it there unless its a very small airplane. I know that position and hold is already restricted from being used from intersections at night, but if they are going to restrict it further they should restrict it completely during night hours and in IFR conditions. Doing away with it completely at most airports just seems a bit overboard.

When I was training in Oklahoma City, one of the instructors told me about a situation where a Baron or something of that size was put into position on RWY25L and the controller forgot about him. Anyways, Planes are coming in on 25L for a good 15 minutes and not going around, they see him but they don't go around. Why, they know they can clear him and they know if they go around its 30 minute lap around Socal's airspace. The Baron finally chimmed in and said "uh tower, we are still sitting here."

The SJC incident was a Citation in position, forgotten about, a SWA cleared to land, the citation chimes in and says we are still sitting her, SWA said we wont hit him and lands over the top.
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
The 145 I fly is so quiet it is almost an insult to call it a jet.

Not much glory in saying "I fly a hiss."

Better stick with "jet."

Perhaps I am wrong, but is there really a safety issue by holding an airplane in position at the approach end of a runway on a clear day?
There certainly is.
 

Vector4fun

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Posts
796
Total Time
1700
Perhaps I am wrong, but is there really a safety issue by holding an airplane in position at the approach end of a runway on a clear day?
You wouldn't think so; (assuming IQs in the high double digits on both sides of the mike.) but I saw a PA28 land over the top of a DL B737 one afternoon when the vis was 50+ miles. Unfortunately, I didn't see it until it was too late to avoid the "deal". Fortunately, it wasn't my deal.

I also saw a Bonanza try to land opposite direction to a B737 arrival. (BZ was aligned with wrong runway) When queried why he didn't see the Boeing while short final, pilot replied he DID see the Boeing, but he was gonna land anyway.

You can't make this stuff up.....
 

2000flyer

EASY FLYER
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
1,586
Total Time
5700+
ISaidRightTurns said:
The only answer for the runway problem is more concrete. Lots more. Wouldn't it be great to taxi AROUND a runway?

BTW, Lrjtcapt, did you see a copy of the FAA letter to the guy in N90? Not good.
ISRT - They do that in Milan. GA ramp is midfield on the west side (if memory serves). Taking off to the north, you taxi north around the north end of the 9000' runway then all the way south to the end. Thats what, 13,500' of taxi, over 2-miles. It wasn't long after I was there they tried taxiing a Citation across midfield and they took out the MD80 on takeoff.

2000Flyer
 

FlyChicaga

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Posts
862
Total Time
4500
Last week, clear day in CLE, had the controller issue a position and hold clearance to us with SWA on three mile final. Luckily SWA spoke up about the time I saw him on final (my side), so we were still clear of the runway.

I'm on the fence here. While this would increase safety, I think it might be overkill. Maybe another alternative might be better.
 

91100 100 set

to the book
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Posts
694
Total Time
12,000
Instead of restricting the use of "position and hold" why not decrease the practice of having a single controller running local, ground, clearance, etc, all at once? I know budgets are tight, and manpower is probably the easiest way to stretch a buck (until an accident occurs of course), but this would be a far more effective way to increase safety.
 

Lrjtcaptain

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Posts
927
Total Time
2000+
Ive put people on the runway and forgotten about them, but that is usually when we are slower then slow can be. when its busy I don't forget a plane. This waiver shouldn't be too tough to get issued for facilities, its just a way for the FAA to make the system seem safer, slow the traffic down and then blame controllers for all the delays. Truly amazing. Lets do RVSM but do away with position and hold.
 
Top