Significant change to taxi procedures effective 30 Jun 2010

[Don Desfosse]

Team,

 

The FAA just issued FAA Notice 7110.528, effective 30 Jun 2010, that affects significantly the taxi procedures used when crossing runways.

 

Summary of Changes:

 

1. The phraseology "Taxi to _____" will no longer be used.

2. Aircraft are no longer automatically permitted to cross runways along their taxi route. An explicit runway crossing clearance must be issued for each runway (active/inactive or closed) crossing and requires an aircraft/vehicle to have crossed the previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued.

 

 

An example using the new terminology:

 

Note: In the following example, KBOS is using the 27/27 configuration, Local and Ground control are combined.

 

Old clearance to Runway 27 for departure, using the new taxi diagram, would sound like:

AAL123, taxi to runway 27 via Bravo, Charlie Delta.

 

 

New clearance to Runway 27 for departure, using the new taxi diagram, would sound like:

AAL123, Runway 27, taxi via Bravo, Charlie, Delta, hold short Runway 4L.

 

as AAL123 approaches Runway 4L:

AAL123, cross Runway 4L, hold short Runway 4R.

 

as AAL123 approaches Runway 4R:

AAL123, cross Runway 4R, hold short Runway 33L.

 

as AAL123 approaches Runway 33L:

AAL123, cross Runway 33L.

 

 

Yes, so on a busy day (read event), can you see the issue with this....? Can you say, "Frequency Congestion!"

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

Thanks for the heads-up.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

and i got yelled at so many times for saying it like this. i knew i was right!

 

this'll make things interesting i bet. we're goin to have a lot more incursions online until they get used to this one

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

and i got yelled at so many times for saying it like this. i knew i was right!

 

this'll make things interesting i bet. we're goin to have a lot more incursions online until they get used to this one

 

How about a sticky, or VATSIM NOTAM (email and/or forum) maybe?

[Davor Kusec 990407]

I just posted it up on my ARTCC's forum. I see how this would be more useful at busier airports but I'm not gonna complain about it's use overall.

[Ryan Geckler]

Wow, not liking this.

[Don Desfosse]

Agreed. This is really going to stink for the lone Center controller that is running his whole ARTCC combined.... If it's played RW, pilots could expect significant taxi delays as the lone CTR controller is trying to keep aircraft separated and then zoom in and out of 5 airports giving what almost amounts to "progressive taxi and hold short of every runway instructions....."

 

This is going to be bad enough for the real world, but with the way we combine positions and (attempt to) offer top down service, this is REALLY going to stink for VATSIM.

 

I just hope someone (well, the right person who has the ability to fix this) comes to their senses prior to 30 Jun 2010.....

[Ross Carlson]

Is there any rule that says we have to adopt this change on VATSIM? I mean, we compromise on realism in other areas in order to make VATSIM workable, why not this one?

 

I say leave it up to the controller's discretion ... let him issue the hold short instructions if he wants, based on workload. (Similar to how in many ARTCCs a CTR controller doesn't have to provide tower services if he doesn't want to.)

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

or just add "cross all runways" or similar in the comms. or if your not giving taxiways, you could just havem cross the runway and taxi to the ramp, runways easier to memorize then all the taxiways

 

MIA_CTR: AAL123, cross runway 30, taxi to the ramp this frequency

 

i can see how itd definitely atleast confuse pilots if center didnt do it but ground, tower etc.. did as theyd be expecting the hold short

[Jason Baxter 920557]

Is there any rule that says we have to adopt this change on VATSIM? I mean, we compromise on realism in other areas in order to make VATSIM workable, why not this one?

 

I say leave it up to the controller's discretion ... let him issue the hold short instructions if he wants, based on workload. (Similar to how in many ARTCCs a CTR controller doesn't have to provide tower services if he doesn't want to.)

 

Not a fan, that seems like a set up for misunderstanding. Simple scenario, controllers never issue the cross runway phraseology so pilots just [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume they should (the controller is busy, just trying to help...). The one time the controller will count on the pilot knowing to hold short will be exactly when the pilot will try to 'help'.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

I say leave it up to the controller's discretion ... let him issue the hold short instructions if he wants, based on workload. (Similar to how in many ARTCCs a CTR controller doesn't have to provide tower services if he doesn't want to.)

Hope not to read too far into your comments.

 

From a pilot perspective, note that I'm happy with any best effort service on a workload basis from the top-down delivery model, ... but I would like that both Ground and Tower would try to implement this new terminology.

 

That said, if the nature and variety of client behavior, and airport scenery, is such that this requirement actually appears to cause runway incursions, then the result would run counter to the intended effect, and could turn out to be even more problematic on VATSIM.

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

Is there any rule that says we have to adopt this change on VATSIM? I mean, we compromise on realism in other areas in order to make VATSIM workable, why not this one?

 

I say leave it up to the controller's discretion ... let him issue the hold short instructions if he wants, based on workload. (Similar to how in many ARTCCs a CTR controller doesn't have to provide tower services if he doesn't want to.)

 

 

Amen to that!

[Ross Carlson]

Not a fan, that seems like a set up for misunderstanding. Simple scenario, controllers never issue the cross runway phraseology so pilots just [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume they should (the controller is busy, just trying to help...). The one time the controller will count on the pilot knowing to hold short will be exactly when the pilot will try to 'help'.

 

It's not up to the pilot to remember to hold short. The controller needs to give the explicit instruction.

[Jason Baxter 920557]

But that's my point, unless they change the FARs pilots cross all runways and taxi to the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned runway, and if you allow controller discretion to choose when he's going to say so and when he won't say to hold short there'll be plenty of incursions. I think it's time for VATUSA to come up with a ruling on it for consistency.

[Ross Carlson]

Jason, are you still talking about my suggestion for VATSIM, or are you referring to the real world policy change?

[Harold Rutila 974112]

Don't like the policy? Come to Denver! All taxiways are clear of runway crossing issues. But in all seriousness...

 

Well, both as a pilot in the real world and as a virtual air traffic controller, I'm irritated at this policy simply because it requires an undue amount of frequency usage and an unnecessary level of control of the movement area.

 

With regard to not implementing it on VATSIM, we're going to put ourselves through much more trouble than we need to if we don't implement it. The first couple of months are going to be difficult, yes, (just as I'm sure the number of "incursions" under the new standard will very likely go up in the real world) but in the end people are going to start understanding this procedure.

 

On the other hand, if we don't implement this, then pilots are going to start complaining that we're not following a real world procedure. It seems odd to me that we would even want to not simulate it simply based on the amount of debate we've had on topics such as ASDE-X that do not require VATUSA-wide compliance. This is a much bigger issue than the ASDE-X situation ever will be because it involves such a fundamental aspect of ATCT operations. There is a ton of material that needs to be updated for this change.

 

From another perspective, if ARTCCs are given the choice as to whether or not they want to implement it, I would very sharply disagree with that decision. There are already discrepancies between the way ARTCCs operate, but this one is too big to be left to the ARTCCs to decide individually. VATUSA needs a division-wide standard to absolutely minimize confusion. There are other questions about this potential decision, too. How will one S1's training vary in one ARTCC compared to an S1 somewhere else? What will VATUSA say in the TRC, a centralized training docomeent?

 

Those suggesting giving ARTCCs a choice and letting pilots know what their individual policy is by putting inserts into the Controller Info: That just doesn't work. Pilots and controllers alike have already requested on this very forum that Center and Approach/Departure controllers put whether or not they control Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C and D towers when the tower is not online into the Controller Info, and besides for me on Denver Center, the guys in Cleveland Center, and maybe Los Angeles Center on occ[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ion, I see nobody else putting that information into the Controller Info. VATSIM GND/TWRs controlling what is in the real world an ASDEX-equiped airport have been requested to put into the Voice ATIS or Controller Info as to whether or not it is simulated. Again, there hasn't been much success there. Unless it's a SUP-enforced policy (and frankly that would be ridiculous to begin with), there's not much you can make any controller do by setting out a recommendation in a forum.

 

I just hope someone (well, the right person who has the ability to fix this) comes to their senses prior to 30 Jun 2010.....

...couldn't agree with you more.

 

Agreed. This is really going to stink for the lone Center controller that is running his whole ARTCC combined.... If it's played RW, pilots could expect significant taxi delays as the lone CTR controller is trying to keep aircraft separated and then zoom in and out of 5 airports giving what almost amounts to "progressive taxi and hold short of every runway instructions....."

Again, I agree.

 

VATUSA should design a policy that allows for the simulation of the runway crossing limitations in all taxi clearances to a reasonable degree. I don't believe DEP/APP nor CTR should be required to do this, but perhaps GND/TWR should. Movement area ops are hard enough already for the radar positions, but GND/TWR should be able to handle that. I would suggest what Ernesto said -- a "Cross all runways" provision for DEP/APP and CTR controllers. If it's a well-advertised policy, then we'll see a good level of pilot understanding and an even better standardization of technique throughout all of the ARTCCs in VATUSA. It's simply got to be standardized and not left up to ARTCCs.

[Jason Baxter 920557]

Jason, are you still talking about my suggestion for VATSIM, or are you referring to the real world policy change?

 

Harold made most of the points I made, mine was regarding the controller discretionarly implementation on VATSIM as the inconsistensy between controllers, let alone ARTCCs will confusion. A single adjusted policy is best.

[Ross Carlson]

I don't see where all the confusion will come from ... the controller will either issue hold short instructions or he won't. Just like it is now. What am I missing?

[Thomas Mathieu 998318]

ok, I am confused.

 

In the USA, if given taxi instructions, I must hold short ALL runways until given clearence to cross during taxi?

[Ross Carlson]

ok, I am confused.

 

In the USA, if given taxi instructions, I must hold short ALL runways until given clearence to cross during taxi?

 

No, nothing is changing as far as pilot requirements go. Just keep following ATC instructions as always. What's changing is that controllers must now issue hold short instructions for every runway, even inactive ones.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

is this going into the AIM aswell? thats where i see it may lead to miscommunication as the pilot will hold short just to cover his own rear, i can see that being done online aswell to avoid getting yelled at

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

Jason, are you still talking about my suggestion for VATSIM, or are you referring to the real world policy change?

 

I'm speaking to your suggestion. Your line of thought is the same as mine on the other VATUSA forum discussion.

 

I made the following statement in the other forum...

 

Perhaps we should ask ourselves WHY does VATUSA need to implement this change. Does VATUSA really need to update anything?

 

"Because that's how it is done in the real world" really isn't a valid answer.

 

I agree, leave it up to the controller, or better yet, don't change it. I personally don't believe that VATSIM has the same issues as the real world.

 

JV

[Ross Carlson]

Heh, sorry ... I was referring to Jason Baxter.

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

oops!

 

I was catching up, and did not see the read of the posts yet, sorry Ross.

 

JV

[Harold Rutila 974112]

Based on the explanation of change #2 in the OP's original post, it sounded to me like the FAR would be up for a change, too. I'm confused about whether or not they're going to tell pilots (via the FAR) that we have to hold short of all runways without a crossing clearance, or if they're just requiring controllers to issue the hold short instructions.

 

If they require the former (that if pilot's don't hear a crossing instruction, they must hold short), my above reply is where I stand. If they're just requiring controllers to issue the hold short instructions, then I'm for that at the GND/TWR levels but not any positions above that.