Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Position and Hold Clearence's Not Auihorized come September

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top