FAA to be doing away with 'position and hold'

[Brad Littlejohn]

Due to the recent spate of runway incursions (LAX in particular), the FAA is wanting to do away with them as early as March 20th. A blurb of it showed up at Avweb over the past could of days:

 

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/588-full.html#191713

 

However, some places may still use it after 3/20, because of how efficiently traffic can be managed. So sayeth a real world controller at CMH:

 

One of our subscribers posed the question to me, "Are there any

exceptions?"

 

I received our CMH Tower briefing on this issue yesterday.

Basically, beginning on March 20th, we will still be able to use this

TIPH procedure at Port Columbus, as long as ALL FOUR POSITIONS

(Clearance Delivery, Ground Control, Local Control, & Cab Supervisor)

are properly staffed. During the time any of those positions are

combined, we will have to abstain from using TIPH.

 

TIPH is a procedure that allows us to run traffic very efficiently.

For instance, commonly we have jet aircraft landing on the same

runway at CMH, spaced at 5 mile intervals. When the arrival p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es

the end of the runway, we put a departure in position on the runway,

as we await the aircraft that just landed, to exit. TIPH is sort of

like having a gun aimed, cocked, and ready to fire.

 

Once the arrival clears the runway, we clear that departure for

takeoff. Typically, by that time, that next arrival is approximately

on a 2-mile final. That is as close as we like, because we must

ensure that we have a minimum of 6,000 ft runway separation between

that departure and that arrival.

 

Without TIPH, we will have to wait for the 1st arrival to be exiting

the runway before we can even allow the departure to taxi onto the

runway for takeoff. Without the ability to be "aimed, cocked, and

ready," the increased time needed for that departure to enter the

runway will most certainly affect the efficiency of our operation.

 

Why did this come about? GENOT 6/15 states "TIPH OPERATIONAL ERRORS

CONTINUE TO OCCUR. WE REVIEWED THESE EVENTS AND DETERMINED THAT

CHANGES TO FAAO 7210.3 ARE NEEDED TO MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT RISK

FACTORS THAT COMMONLY OCCURED (sic) IN THESE EVENTS."

 

Obviously, there have been incidents wherein the controller has been

distracted from his/her primary task, and such distractions have

resulted in unsafe situations. GENOT 6/15 is an effort to be certain

that isn't allowed to happen in the future.

 

The prevention of runway incursions has always been high on the list

of the NTSB's "MOST WANTED Transportation Safety Improvements" in

aviation...

 

http://ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/aviation_issues.htm

 

Therefore, at CMH, if you hear us using TIPH after 3/20, you'll know

that there are at least 3 controllers and 1 supervisor up there in

the cab.

 

Tom Lusch

CMH Air Traffic Controller

Aviation Safety Counselor

 

What does that mean to us? We won't know until the 20th, and need to see if any of the RL controllers here can get the updated sections of the .65 before the official update is sent out, and plan from that. But It's coming.. Don't like it, but it's coming.

 

BL.

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

It always annoys me though as a pilot when controllers tell me to "position & hold" even when there is like no other traffic inbound or outbound of the airport. My understanding was that you only use that when there is other traffic in the area...like it states in the VATUSA TOWER STUDY GUIDE:

 

8-2-1-2. The most common use for this is when waiting for a preceding arrival to exit the runway or while waiting for successive departure separation. It should not be used routinely with every departure. Whenever possible aircraft should be issued takeoff clearance when still holding short of the runway.

 

Perhaps its just a habit new controllers get into, but I guess this should put an end to it.

[Andrew Musselman]

It always annoys me though as a pilot when controllers tell me to "position & hold" even when there is like no other traffic inbound or outbound of the airport. My understanding was that you only use that when there is other traffic in the area...like it states in the VATUSA TOWER STUDY GUIDE:

 

8-2-1-2. The most common use for this is when waiting for a preceding arrival to exit the runway or while waiting for successive departure separation. It should not be used routinely with every departure. Whenever possible aircraft should be issued takeoff clearance when still holding short of the runway.

 

Perhaps its just a habit new controllers get into, but I guess this should put an end to it.

 

 

Yeah, when I do say position and hold, it is normally because my hands are full and can't open up the strip to see what departure the aircraft on. (Meaning if it gets a departure heading, or if it's an RNAV) [Atlanta] Just to keep them moving, and normally I have them rolling by the time they are in position.

 

But yes, it is frustrating when there is no traffic and controller says position and hold, you read back.... Then less than 5 seconds later you are cleared for takeoff.

[Ross Carlson]

Another reason you may be taxied into position to hold is if the tower controller is awaiting your IFR release from the departure controller. This is often used during events, and/or when the timing of departures is critical such as during oceanic events. I believe some ARTCCs such as ZLA used required IFR releases even during normal non-event times. (Not 100% sure about ZLA doing so.)

 

I agree that it is overused in some places though. At the very least, the controller should tell you why you're being positioned and held, if it's not obvious. (Such as a prior arrival just touching down.)

[Timothy Boger 942264]

It always annoys me though as a pilot when controllers tell me to "position & hold" even when there is like no other traffic inbound or outbound of the airport. My understanding was that you only use that when there is other traffic in the area...like it states in the VATUSA TOWER STUDY GUIDE:

 

8-2-1-2. The most common use for this is when waiting for a preceding arrival to exit the runway or while waiting for successive departure separation. It should not be used routinely with every departure. Whenever possible aircraft should be issued takeoff clearance when still holding short of the runway.

 

Perhaps its just a habit new controllers get into, but I guess this should put an end to it.

 

Ahahaha...ZMP never does it...mainly because we never have any separation problems...

[Andrew Musselman]

It always annoys me though as a pilot when controllers tell me to "position & hold" even when there is like no other traffic inbound or outbound of the airport. My understanding was that you only use that when there is other traffic in the area...like it states in the VATUSA TOWER STUDY GUIDE:

 

8-2-1-2. The most common use for this is when waiting for a preceding arrival to exit the runway or while waiting for successive departure separation. It should not be used routinely with every departure. Whenever possible aircraft should be issued takeoff clearance when still holding short of the runway.

 

Perhaps its just a habit new controllers get into, but I guess this should put an end to it.

 

Ahahaha...ZMP never does it...mainly because we never have any separation problems...

 

Not to get off topic, but I really hope that changes.

[Aaron Flodin 878523]

Another reason you may be taxied into position to hold is if the tower controller is awaiting your IFR release from the departure controller. This is often used during events, and/or when the timing of departures is critical such as during oceanic events. I believe some ARTCCs such as ZLA used required IFR releases even during normal non-event times. (Not 100% sure about ZLA doing so.)

 

I agree that it is overused in some places though. At the very least, the controller should tell you why you're being positioned and held, if it's not obvious. (Such as a prior arrival just touching down.)

 

ZLA uses a "rolling boundary" system, similar to the one that is used in the real world for Los Angeles International (KLAX). all other local controllers in the ZLA airspace are required to obtain an IFR release (And in some situations a release for VFR departures).

 

Here is the link to the LAX Local SOP if any of you are interested.

 

http://www.laartcc.org/operating_procedures/30/Los+Angeles+Tower+Local+Control+%28TWR%29

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Actually, I heard from Steve Perry back in October that the FAA was going to be stopping Position and Hold procedures. From what I understood, they were investigating it way back then, so I'm not surprised hearing it again now...

 

What he also told us then was that one of the preliminary plans was to permit TIPH on runways that were only used for departures. From the sound of it, the plan has obviously changed a bit, or is being adjusted per facility maybe?

[Ross Carlson]

I don't think it's changed, no, but I'm not sure. When I heard about it last year (I forget where, I think it was posted by someone on the ZBW mailing list) the deal was the same ... individual fields could apply for a waiver. If I remember right, the waiver was especially intended for fields that use departure-only runways.

[Jeff Clark]

The following isn't 7110.65, but at KBUR I was trained that it was "good form" that if I ever put someone in position to hold, you were supposed to give them the reason why you weren't clearing them for takeoff.

 

RWY 15 TAXI INTO POSITION AND HOLD, TRAFFIC LANDING RWY 8.

RWY 15 TAXI INTO POSITION AND HOLD, AWAITING IFR RELEASE.

RWY 15 TAXI INTO POSITION AND HOLD, TRAFFIC CROSSING DOWNFIELD.

 

The idea here is that it's safer to have the pilot also watching the situation and helping you out in case you forget something. If he knows that he's waiting for traffic landing on the intersecting runway, and you forget about it and clear him for takeoff, he can come back and say "what about that traffic landing rwy 8?", or "what about that traffic crossing downfield?"

 

I also dislike it when told to P&H without being told a reason, and can hear my old RL instructor yelling at me, "Why aren't you just clearing him for takeoff???" and hearing a very green me saying, "I didn't want to clear him for takeoff yet because I wasn't sure it was safe" and him coming back and saying "If you don't know what's going on, he has no business being on the runway at all."

[Steven Perry]

Last summer the FAA did announce a similar, if not identical, GENOT concerning TIPH. The prohibition was supposed to go into effect in September 2005, but it never came to be. This time it seems to be more certain. It doesn't affect VATSIM nearly as much as it does the real world [see "The Main Bang" entry dated 8 March 06]. I imagine that all the facilities which require the use of TIPH on VATSIM will also receive a waiver. It also appears that staffing determines when TIPH can or cannot be used. When VATSIM traffic levels require TIPH there are usually multiple controllers working the tower cab positions, though probably not the number necessary to comply with the FAA notice... still I don't think we should hold ourselves to the exact level the FAA is holding itself in this circomestance.

 

The waiver process no longer appears to be based on runway usage as I had thought [and perhaps posted?] last summer/fall but rather on impact on air traffic volume. I suppose the reasoning here might be that those facilities that NEED to use TIPH to avoid gridlock are comfortable enough and proficient enough with its use to continue to use it safely, while the less busy airports which only use TIPH to avoid a 5 minute delay once an hour or so might not be completely up to speed. That seems to be the only logical excuse the FAA can offer, other than to say that this supposedly safety-minded GENOT is only important so long as it doesn't affect airline on time performance.

 

As for Jeff's comments, I believe one MUST issue traffic with any TIPH instruction if an arrival is set up on the same runway. If waiting on crossing traffic or IFR release it would indeed be "good form" to tell the pilot. If the departure is just waiting on an immediately preceeding arrival to clear the runway, I would hope the pilot could figure that out without me telling him. But then again.... ...

[Timothy Boger 942264]

It always annoys me though as a pilot when controllers tell me to "position & hold" even when there is like no other traffic inbound or outbound of the airport. My understanding was that you only use that when there is other traffic in the area...like it states in the VATUSA TOWER STUDY GUIDE:

 

8-2-1-2. The most common use for this is when waiting for a preceding arrival to exit the runway or while waiting for successive departure separation. It should not be used routinely with every departure. Whenever possible aircraft should be issued takeoff clearance when still holding short of the runway.

 

Perhaps its just a habit new controllers get into, but I guess this should put an end to it.

 

Ahahaha...ZMP never does it...mainly because we never have any separation problems...

 

Not to get off topic, but I really hope that changes.

Ahh...me too...

[Brad Littlejohn]

Now that NATCA is getting involved, the plot thickens...

 

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/12_10b/leadnews/191727-1.html

 

March 9, 2006

 

By March 20, air traffic facilities that want to continue to use taxi-into-position-and-hold (TIPH) need to notify the FAA, spokeswoman Laura Brown told AVweb on Tuesday. They don't have to eliminate the procedure. "They can keep using it," she said. But they will have to conduct a safety analysis to show it can be used safely, and also show that there is a safety or capacity reason to justify its use. "They should stop using it if they don't need to," she said. "But if they want to keep using it, they need to make the case for why to use it." The National Air Traffic Controllers [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociation (NATCA), reacting to an FAA notice that went out last week, says eliminating TIPH would decrease safety, increase delays, and lower capacity. The policy will allow larger airports to get waivers and continue the procedure, while "hundreds of innocent other smaller airports" will have to abandon its use, NATCA President John Carr wrote in his blog yesterday. "This was a poorly thought out decision on the FAA's part. They are bowing to NTSB pressure because of a few high profile incidents," he wrote.

 

So I guess for now, it's business as usual.

 

BL.

[Joshua Ridderhoff 873800]

Hey BL (et. al.)

 

Just an FYI. Stopped by the local airport (KOGD / Ogden, UT) for lunch today and noticed, on the airport bulletin board, a memo from the Ogden Air Traffic Mgr.

 

The short version of the memo is that TIPH ops have been suspended at Ogden effective 3/20.

 

So, guess that takes care of any doubts!

 

Granted, Ogden is a contract TWR, not FAA, so maybe there's a different standard? Wouldn't think so though -- you'd think NATCA would be watching out for all ATCs, not just federal ATCs.

 

Interesting side-note: additional restrictions in the memo made it sound like they were doing away with LAHSO in conjunction with TIPH. Guess it kinda makes sense, but wondering if anybody's heard similar info?

 

JR

[Calvin Wood 899172]

Not all airports are doing away with the Position and Hold. At KCLT we have a waiver that allows us to use it. Depending on the runway configuration of airports they may get waviers to continue to use that command.

[Joshua Ridderhoff 873800]

Not all airports are doing away with the Position and Hold. At KCLT we have a waiver that allows us to use it. Depending on the runway configuration of airports they may get waviers to continue to use that command.

Was aware of that. Just posting because there was (at least originally) some confusion as to whether this whole "March 20th" date was really "new" news or old news being rehashed.

 

Thanks,

JR