LUAW Effective Today (9/30/2010)

[Andrew Doubleday]

http://www.faa.gov/docomeentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.536.pdf

 

Entertaining listening to various tower feeds on liveatc... Lots of mess-ups. Obviously going to take time to adjust to this one, too.

 

 

-AJ

[Rodger Johnson 1052770]

I Wish I had more hands so I could give the LUAW 4 thumbs down.

 

-Rodger

[Anthony Baker 1080999]

um, 10 thumbs down

 

2 of my thumbs

2 of my big toes

2 of my dog's thumbs

2 of my dad's thumbs

2 of my dad's big toes

 

problem solved.

 

why must the FAA change

the USA needs to stop changing to everyone elses rules

[Jonas Eberle]

the USA needs to stop changing to everyone elses rules

Can you remove that, because this definitely covers politics And we do not want to talk about politics, do we?

[Ross Carlson]

the USA needs to stop changing to everyone elses rules

Can you remove that, because this definitely covers politics And we do not want to talk about politics, do we?

 

Quoting a phrase and asking the person to remove it ... I love the irony.

[Daniel Hawton]

This phraseology certain doesn't belong in the FAA [Mod - Happy Thoughts]nal. I have yet to meet a rw ATCer that likes this phrase over Position and Hold.

[Scott DeWoody]

the USA needs to stop changing to everyone elses rules

Can you remove that, because this definitely covers politics And we do not want to talk about politics, do we?

 

Quoting a phrase and asking the person to remove it ... I love the irony.

 

And he'll have to remove his, because he is talking about politics, along with my post.

[Gary Millsaps 830104]

Polliticks...schmolliticks! Sorry Anthony but this isn't our "Father's" FAA.

 

Personally, I'm sad to see it and no doubt will constantly screw the pooch and use "...position and hold..."

 

Is "...old dog, new tricks" (in my case) appro pro here?

[Anthony Baker 1080999]

Polliticks...schmolliticks! Sorry Anthony but this isn't our "Father's" FAA.

 

Personally, I'm sad to see it and no doubt will constantly screw the pooch and use "...position and hold..."

 

Is "...old dog, new tricks" (in my case) appro pro here?

Yea, it'll prob take 6months to a year for everyone to get used to it, then the FAA will change it back to P/H

 

It's not exactly political, it is simply a statement...

I can add policitial statements to me statement..

 

end the politics about political statements

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Can someone explain to me why this is controversial, why it seems to induce moral outrage on occasion? My understanding is that one phrase was changed to another to conform to an international standard. Standardization happens all the time, in every field. Why is it something to get so riled up about? The change strikes me as technical, not political.

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Well,

 

Somebody might as well get ready to remove mine, too.

 

And he'll have to remove his, because he is talking about politics, along with my post.

 

National pride is one thing. I certainly have it although some may think otherwise, but when National Pride turns to imposing National Will on others I have to disagree. The International Flight Community seems to (looking at the majority) use LUAW as opposed to PAH, so why not use it?

 

the USA needs to stop changing to everyone elses rules

 

And yet the "International aviation language seems to be English. In an odd way hasn't the "rest of the world" conformed to the USA or UK "standard"?

 

So what I'm reading here seems to be saying "it's okay if everbody else does what the USA does but don't you dare ask the US to do what almost everyone else does."

 

Don't get me wrong. I served proudly in the U.S. Air Force and tried to represent my country well all over the globe.

[Jason Baxter 920557]

National pride is one thing. I certainly have it although some may think otherwise, but when National Pride turns to imposing National Will on others I have to disagree. The International Flight Community seems to (looking at the majority) use LUAW as opposed to PAH, so why not use it?

 

And yet the "International aviation language seems to be English. In an odd way hasn't the "rest of the world" conformed to the USA or UK "standard"?

 

The international flight community may use line up and wait but in terms of number of planes the US has the unquestionable majority of flight operations in the world and shouldn't necessarily follow on a system that was created out of the need to deal with international complications and created its system of control out of what used to be America's first ATC system. Secondly the international community is a slight portion of the US air traffic to begin with, seems like making minor changes for a small portion of the population in hopes of fixing a problem that barely exists (runway incursions by mistaken transmission).

 

Secondly ICAO speaks English because at the time British colonization had spread English to the world in addition to the US and UK having the larger roles in WWII (with the exception of Russia) therefore it falls to natural selection that the countries that were occupying and protecting the majority of the world and fostered the first powered fixed wing flight would have the honour of being the language of aviation.

 

Thirdly, No the rest of the world hasn't conformed to English many countries only require English to be spoken by controllers at airports accepting international flights not speaking the native language. With the exception of most countries in Europe countries interpret being able to speak English rather liberally.

[Jonas Eberle]

Thanks for playing me the ball Would you really say that the US speaks aviation English? I have heard better aviation English in Hungary or Italy. The rest of your post is very amusing, too.

 

EDIT: Thanks Randy, I wish more where like you. It is no bad to think globally.

[Daniel Hawton]

National pride is one thing. I certainly have it although some may think otherwise, but when National Pride turns to imposing National Will on others I have to disagree. The International Flight Community seems to (looking at the majority) use LUAW as opposed to PAH, so why not use it?

 

Because even within the ICAO countries, phraseology/procedures differ even slightly. The FAA isn't ICAO, nor is ICAO FAA. I don't agree with FAA adopting ICAO phraseology just for the sake of adopting it.

 

the USA needs to stop changing to everyone elses rules

 

And yet the "International aviation language seems to be English. In an odd way hasn't the "rest of the world" conformed to the USA or UK "standard"?

 

So what I'm reading here seems to be saying "it's okay if everbody else does what the USA does but don't you dare ask the US to do what almost everyone else does."

 

USA needs to stop changing to everyone elses' rules doesn't mean that everyone else should adopt USA's rules.. rather, let them to continue to run their course. By all means it'd be nice to collaborate, sometimes things don't fit with Americanized English. For example, "Line up and wait" isn't really Americanized English. I personally dislike the phraseology because it goes against every other hold phraseology used "Hold short of Bravo" "Hold position" "Continue, traffic holding in position" etc. and it just doesn't fit with the rest of FAA's phraseology ("American Aviation Language?").

[Charan Kumar]

Notice 536 made it FAA Phraseology, it's not ICAO anymore, granted, it was adopted from there for "harmonization". You will notice that FAA didn't adopt the full LUAW that is used in ICAO with the two behinds (sorry for the way it sounds). As always, FAA picked what was being used everywhere else, and decided to use what in their best opinion is suited for US of A, as it should. We may not like it, but given that we want to follow as real as it gets, shouldn't we be adopting the new phraseology? Why complain over something that is already done and being adopted by the r/w counterparts? Or are we just venting here?? In which case, pray continue

[Dhruv Kalra]

The problem with "position and hold" has cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ically been the potential for it to be confused with "hold position" and vice versa.

 

For those of you pooh-poohing the idea of it not being a runway incursion risk, try having a solo student be instructed to hold position, misinterpret it as position and hold, and blindly taxi onto a runway with traffic on short final.

 

Complain about LUAW 'not sounding right' all you want, but anything that reduces the potential for mistakes like the above to be made is in the long run a good thing.

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

The problem with "position and hold" has cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ically been the potential for it to be confused with "hold position" and vice versa.

 

For those of you pooh-poohing the idea of it not being a runway incursion risk, try having a solo student be instructed to hold position, misinterpret it as position and hold, and blindly taxi onto a runway with traffic on short final.

 

Complain about LUAW 'not sounding right' all you want, but anything that reduces the potential for mistakes like the above to be made is in the long run a good thing.

 

Well in the USA it used to be "Taxi into Position and Hold", but you have a great point!

[Daniel Hawton]

Notice 536 made it FAA Phraseology, it's not ICAO anymore, granted, it was adopted from there for "harmonization". You will notice that FAA didn't adopt the full LUAW that is used in ICAO with the two behinds (sorry for the way it sounds). As always, FAA picked what was being used everywhere else, and decided to use what in their best opinion is suited for US of A, as it should. We may not like it, but given that we want to follow as real as it gets, shouldn't we be adopting the new phraseology? Why complain over something that is already done and being adopted by the r/w counterparts? Or are we just venting here?? In which case, pray continue

 

I disagree, it is still ICAO phraseology. FAA Notice N7110.536 is a temporary notice and is not, for now, a permanent change. Many of us real world are hoping that March 31, 2011 or before no notification comes out that does make N7110.536 a permanent change.

 

Also, not every country that utilizes ICAO phraseology allows conditional clearances (behind instructions) because they too want to avoid the possible risk of runway incursion from a misunderstood instruction.

[Charan Kumar]

I disagree, it is still ICAO phraseology. FAA Notice N7110.536 is a temporary notice and is not, for now, a permanent change. Many of us real world are hoping that March 31, 2011 or before no notification comes out that does make N7110.536 a permanent change.

 

Also, not every country that utilizes ICAO phraseology allows conditional clearances (behind instructions) because they too want to avoid the possible risk of runway incursion from a misunderstood instruction.

Wow, you guys must really hate it...I see your point about it being temporary. Agreed on the latter, which was also my point that FAA only adopted a part of ICAO phraseology, not the entire one. While the correct phraseology goes like "Hold short rwy xx"...then followed by "Taxi into position and hold"....popular usage has come down to "hold short or hold position" followed by "position and hold" contributing to the much alluded confusion. I was under the impression that changing the TIPH to LUAW was addressing this part.

[Harold Rutila 974112]

That's why the change back to "Taxi into position and hold" would have made more sense IMO.

[Jason Baxter 920557]

Dhruv I have to disagree, hold position is used in the context of a taxi clearance. The only acceptable way to tell a plane to remain clear of the runway is using the words "hold short" hold position is not the official phraseology at the hold bars.

 

In any event the FAA has been swinging and missing with TIPH operations for the last 5 years including an attempt at its total elimination (followed by offering waivers to everyone practically).

 

Charan,

Perhaps on VATSIM but in all my real world flying the only thing I've heard is hold short runway xx. Having flown to a number of airports I haven't managed to hear anything different in real life.

Even if it were true the proper recourse for those potential errors is discipline, re-writing the rules to account for non-standard instructions is logically ineffective as new rules wouldn't protect anyone from those who don't follow them in the first place.

 

In almost every discussion involving pilots the consensus was no one would be applying takeoff power after hearing "taxi into position and hold" nor would this easily be confused with "hold position".

 

My opposition isn't as a matter of national pride, more so being against unnecessary change things worked fine under taxi into position and hold. When the FAA changed the phraseology for runway crossings with hold instructions ("runway 23 taxi via A hold short runway 3) to make it unique from unrestricted taxi instructions I was right there to cheer it on and when they reverted to all taxi instructions to sounding the same I was against it as it undermined the premise of making the instructions safer. Now by changing the position and hold instructions once more it seems that the FAA is just toying with me although runway incursions are high it doesn't distinguish when these errors occur however having witnessed a few I have a sneaking suspicion that the minority of errors occur off a position and hold.

[Daniel Hawton]

Yup. LUAW wasn't put into effect because of runway incursions due to misinterpreting "Hold short runway 25" for "Runway 25, position and hold". LUAW was put into effect solely to "... the harmonization between FAA and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) [procedures]..." (REF: FAAO N7110.536)

 

If "Runway __, Position and Hold" is too close to "Hold short of runway ___", then change it back to TIPH so it sounds even more different.. tho I have yet to see an aircraft (well, it might be a year before I get the chance to see it again possibly) confuse position and hold for hold short or vica versa.. and I'm at a base that deals with students/newbies.

 

As far as the taxi phraseology, I agree. Aircraft not crossing any runway should still be issued "Taxi to". Crossing a runway, whether closed, inactive, or active I can sort of see a reason behind the "Taxi via" to help alert aircraft to the fact they are going to cross a runway and need permission. But if they're taxiing straight to a runway without crossing any runway, let me just say "Taxi to" so that there is differences to alert pilots more.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Yup. LUAW wasn't put into effect because of runway incursions due to misinterpreting "Hold short runway 25" for "Runway 25, position and hold". LUAW was put into effect solely to "... the harmonization between FAA and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) [procedures]..." (REF: FAAO N7110.536)

 

If "Runway __, Position and Hold" is too close to "Hold short of runway ___", then change it back to TIPH so it sounds even more different.. tho I have yet to see an aircraft (well, it might be a year before I get the chance to see it again possibly) confuse position and hold for hold short or vica versa.. and I'm at a base that deals with students/newbies.

 

As far as the taxi phraseology, I agree. Aircraft not crossing any runway should still be issued "Taxi to". Crossing a runway, whether closed, inactive, or active I can sort of see a reason behind the "Taxi via" to help alert aircraft to the fact they are going to cross a runway and need permission. But if they're taxiing straight to a runway without crossing any runway, let me just say "Taxi to" so that there is differences to alert pilots more.

 

Just for the record, I think Charan's reasoning was primarily with 'hold your position' or 'hold position' vs. 'position and hold'. I believe "Hold short of runway xx" is ICAO phraseology when it comes to holding short of a runway, is it not?

 

BL.

[Daniel Hawton]

Yup. LUAW wasn't put into effect because of runway incursions due to misinterpreting "Hold short runway 25" for "Runway 25, position and hold". LUAW was put into effect solely to "... the harmonization between FAA and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) [procedures]..." (REF: FAAO N7110.536)

 

If "Runway __, Position and Hold" is too close to "Hold short of runway ___", then change it back to TIPH so it sounds even more different.. tho I have yet to see an aircraft (well, it might be a year before I get the chance to see it again possibly) confuse position and hold for hold short or vica versa.. and I'm at a base that deals with students/newbies.

 

As far as the taxi phraseology, I agree. Aircraft not crossing any runway should still be issued "Taxi to". Crossing a runway, whether closed, inactive, or active I can sort of see a reason behind the "Taxi via" to help alert aircraft to the fact they are going to cross a runway and need permission. But if they're taxiing straight to a runway without crossing any runway, let me just say "Taxi to" so that there is differences to alert pilots more.

 

Just for the record, I think Charan's reasoning was primarily with 'hold your position' or 'hold position' vs. 'position and hold'. I believe "Hold short of runway xx" is ICAO phraseology when it comes to holding short of a runway, is it not?

 

BL.

 

Nope.. FAA uses "Hold position" and "Hold short of (runway/taxiway)" as well.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

The problem is that when the FAA switches to new procedures out of the blue, you just end up causing m[Mod - Happy Thoughts] confusion amongst our domestic pilots, who are by far the majority of traffic we see in the US. It's even more ridiculous when the phraseology in question was not causing any problems in the first place.

 

As I mentioned in a post when the LUAW was first being discussed, I went through the FAA accident/incident records extensively, and was unable to locate a single instance of a runway incursion or accident that happened as a result of misunderstood or misinterpreted "position and hold" or "hold position" phraseology. Not a single one.