Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA: No More "Taxi To" Instructions  
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3359 posts, RR: 46
Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

Apologies if this is a double post, didn't see it discussed.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.528.pdf

All taxi instructions must now include a specific clearance to cross runways, whereas before a "taxi to" instruction was presumed to have cleared you to cross any runway (active/inactive, or closed).

Furthermore, if there is more than one runway to be crossed, a second runway crossing clearance cannot be issued until the plane/vehicle has crossed the first one.

I have mixed feelings about this. I remember as a student pilot having to ask whether or not that instruction included a clearance to cross a runway, and thought there was certainly some room for confusion. It is definitely safer in some ways, because it was more possible to "forget" about a plane crossing, if it was done well in advance. In doing so, it was possible for a runway incursion.

On the flip side, it creates more congestion on the radios. At big airports where crossing multiple runways is often the norm (DFW, for example), it might slow things down a bit.

All in all, I think it's probably a good move.

Your thoughts?

Cheers,
Cameron

Edit: I should add, most airports should be able to issue a single crossing clearance for multiple runways, provided they are within 1,000 feet. This will cut down on the number of communications, so my "flip side" above may not be as big a deal as I initially thought.

[Edited 2010-07-02 15:04:17]

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWard86IND From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3798 times:

I think it's better this way. As it was, you already had tons of pilots confirming instructions to cross runways anyway, especially GA pilots unfamiliar with the airport. This way, if a pilot takes a wrong turn on a taxiway and comes up to a runway and controller doesn't notice, if the pilot wasn't given instructions to cross a runway he will know right away he messed up and will stop. The way it was before, that same pilot who takes a wrong turn may assume he is still on track and assume that his route takes him across a runway, creating a runway incursion. I think the new way is more straightforward and there is no question in the pilot's mind now when he/she comes up to a runway, whether he/she is supposed to cross or not.


Live your dream.
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Hmm it definitely won't help with radio congestion. With the old fashion way any proficient pilot would know that unless told otherwise you're cleared to cross all runways. And if you had any doubt, all you had to do was ring-up ATC and ask. Also seems to me that its an attempt to remove liability on ATC's side and make pilots have more responsibility while taxiing, which is fine I guess.

However it does seem it may be safer overall, specially in case like this:

Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 1):
The way it was before, that same pilot who takes a wrong turn may assume he is still on track and assume that his route takes him across a runway, creating a runway incursion. I think the new way is more straightforward and there is no question in the pilot's mind now when he/she comes up to a runway, whether he/she is supposed to cross or not.


[Edited 2010-07-02 16:19:02]

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10350 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3691 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Thread starter):
Edit: I should add, most airports should be able to issue a single crossing clearance for multiple runways, provided they are within 1,000 feet. This will cut down on the number of communications, so my "flip side" above may not be as big a deal as I initially thought.

Are you saying that you think that should be the case, or that with these rules, that will be the case?

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 2):
With the old fashion way any proficient pilot would know that unless told otherwise you're cleared to cross all runways.

I'm not a pilot, but right away, that seems like the opposite of what you'd want. Kind of like saying that if a traffic light is out, you're cleared to drive across the intersection, which is a great way to get into an accident. Instead, treat it like a 4-way stop like you're supposed to, and make sure it's clear before you go.

Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 1):
The way it was before, that same pilot who takes a wrong turn may assume he is still on track and assume that his route takes him across a runway, creating a runway incursion. I think the new way is more straightforward and there is no question in the pilot's mind now when he/she comes up to a runway, whether he/she is supposed to cross or not.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of.

At the end of the day, it'd seem to me that safety would trump slightly increased radio congestion (assuming said congestion doesn't decrease safety more).



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineWard86IND From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Are you saying that you think that should be the case, or that with these rules, that will be the case?

With the new rules, that will be the case.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
I'm not a pilot, but right away, that seems like the opposite of what you'd want. Kind of like saying that if a traffic light is out, you're cleared to drive across the intersection, which is a great way to get into an accident. Instead, treat it like a 4-way stop like you're supposed to, and make sure it's clear before you go.

Well, it's worked pretty good for a long time. The old way, if the controller issues taxi instructions, it is implied that any runways that need to be crossed during the course of the said taxi route are to be crossed, unless the controller explicitly says "hold short runway x." Every pilot should know this. However, many pilots check for confirmation upon reaching the runway anyway, whether it be because they are unfamiliar with the field, or just being extra careful. I don't see anything wrong with that. The controller could have made a mistake, you never know. With the new way, it removes any doubt in the pilot's mind, so I think it will be better and I will feel more comfortable as a pilot.



Live your dream.
User currently onlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2812 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Overall I think it's a good change. Anything that can reduce confusion and the possibility of a runway incursion gets a thumbs up from me.


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

If you ask me, about time.

Crossing a runway should be treated like crossing a freeway at grade in your car. How often does that happen?  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Its better to be specific & this does just that....The problem would be the extra chatter,but a worthy price to pay.
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinerunner13 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

I've been working with the new rules for a couple of days. I always issued runway crossings when issuing taxi instructions. The biggest change for me anyway is the phraseology. Instead of taxi to runway xxx. It's runway xxx taxi via. That's the only real change for us. I used to not issue crossing intructions when a runway was inactive while working ground but i found out about 50% of pilots would ask to cross, so I just started including crossing instructions in my taxi clearance.

User currently offlinenbgskygod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2687 times:

Quoting runner13 (Reply 8):
I've been working with the new rules for a couple of days. I always issued runway crossings when issuing taxi instructions. The biggest change for me anyway is the phraseology. Instead of taxi to runway xxx. It's runway xxx taxi via. That's the only real change for us. I used to not issue crossing intructions when a runway was inactive while working ground but i found out about 50% of pilots would ask to cross, so I just started including crossing instructions in my taxi clearance.

I've found the same thing, and have added crossing instructions for years, however, I have found with the new hold short rules, ocaisionally I have forgotten about a plane holding short of a runway, causing a bit of a back up. I'm sure its only worse at really big airports. At least until the wavers come in, then it will just be a little airport problem.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2665 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 2):
Hmm it definitely won't help with radio congestion. With the old fashion way any proficient pilot would know that unless told otherwise you're cleared to cross all runways. And if you had any doubt, all you had to do was ring-up ATC and ask. Also seems to me that its an attempt to remove liability on ATC's side and make pilots have more responsibility while taxiing, which is fine I guess.

I don't think it's about removing liability. It's about keeping everybod safe and making things more clear; IMHO. As stated by many and I hear it all the time, many pilots hold short anyway and ask for clearance. This way, you get EVEYONE on board doing the same thing. Not some pilots stopping, others following what is intended. Some controllers issuing RWY instructions and other not.



What gets measured gets done.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic FAA: No More "Taxi To" Instructions
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No More T-Tail Airplanes, Besides Regionals? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 18:36:21 by c5load
FAA CPL ME IR To JAA Atpl In London posted Sun Mar 14 2010 16:27:09 by OestbyG
LAX Taxi To 25R posted Sat Mar 13 2010 17:49:40 by peteschiller
Ailerons In Full Down Deflection On Taxi/TO Roll? posted Sat Oct 3 2009 23:31:26 by EstorilM
Why No More "thr 26L" At FRA? posted Sun Jul 26 2009 12:25:49 by DanVS
GTF More Susceptible To Bird-Strikes? posted Sat Apr 25 2009 09:27:13 by Faro
How Do You Taxi To The Runway? (pic) posted Wed Aug 15 2007 23:46:06 by Aeroflot777
Fuel For Airliners When No More Fossil Fuel!? posted Sun Mar 11 2007 12:43:34 by Aak777
Why No Douglas Competitor To The Boeing 727? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 21:51:50 by 747400sp
No More Alitalia Cargo Operated By Atlas Air? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 19:24:46 by B744F

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format