VATUSA Forums
General => The Control Room Floor => Topic started by: Don Desfosse on April 22, 2010, 09:34:54 PM
-
Team,
The FAA just issued FAA Notice 7110.528, effective 30 Jun 2010 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.528.pdf), 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....? Methinks the lawyers won, ATC and the pilots lost.....
-
Stinks when your on center and your zoomed out and can't see the taxiway/aircraft location on the field.
-
What a pain. You know how much material has to be updated for this just on VATSIM alone? I can only imagine how the real world companies feel (King Schools, Sportys, ASA). This is worse than the 2005 position and hold regulation.
-
What a pain. You know how much material has to be updated for this just on VATSIM alone? I can only imagine how the real world companies feel (King Schools, Sportys, ASA). This is worse than the 2005 position and hold regulation.
Oh yeah, all the GND up material... plus, I would imagine each ARTCC should hold some type of one time training update for all it's controllers rated GND and UP...definately a time consuming chore, maybe that's why it's no in effect until the end of June.
-
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.
Jason Vodnansky
-
All you're going to do is issue a more specific taxi clearance and mix up the order a bit. Might take some time to get used to but it's not a huge deal. Now VATSIM ground controllers actual have to work a bit
-
All you're going to do is issue a more specific taxi clearance and mix up the order a bit. Might take some time to get used to but it's not a huge deal. Now VATSIM ground controllers actual have to work a bit
Perhaps true where all your positions are manned, but 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 this is REALLY going to [stink] for VATSIM.
-
One of the instructors at ZLA pointed this out, so I thought I'd graciously steal his post and post it here.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Interesting, this requries a FAR change to make it 100% legit, but they are just going around that technicality.
Heres the FAR for those who are curious, 91.129 (i)
A clearance to “taxi to†the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to “taxi to†any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.[/quote]
So it would be interesting to see if they update the FARs for this change as well.
BL.
-
True enough. But even if they forgot... by removing the ability to use "taxi to" from 7110.65 when referring to taxiing to a takeoff runway, you'll end up with a rule in 91.129 that tells you what you can or can't do when you hear it, but you'll never hear it.
-
So it would be interesting to see if they update the FARs for this change as well.
BL.
(Holding my breath)
-
Yes it will be difficult for a center position but it can be done and once you start becoming familiar with the new procedures, it shouldn't cause too many probs. The only times this would be a big problem is during high traffic levels (weekends, events, etc...) in which case there's usually a local controller available (at least for the major facility).
Also, as many SOP's are written now (taking into consideration on the usual VATSIM configuration), there will be a "Relief" clause where you would be able to bypass the standard procedure to make a controllers scope time a little easier. I believe it is "On a workload permitting basis"
-
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.
Jason Vodnansky
Jason, I'm gonna have to disagree with your post on a technicality, it IS a valid answer to the question, but that may not be a valid reason for some
-
For all this talk the FAA does about trying to reduce delays, this is something that couldn't be further from that goal. I mean, listening to some GND frequencies on LiveATC proves that the controllers there are already significantly tied up. Every single runway regardless of its status (active, inactive, or closed) requires a clearance to cross.
In the short run I can see runway incursions going up significantly because people will probably forget about it. In the long term I'm sure that number will re-stabilize, but efficiency on the ground at some airports is going to be affected for sure.
Is NATCA responding?
-
Jason, I'm gonna have to disagree with your post on a technicality, it IS a valid answer to the question, but that may not be a valid reason for some
As is your right...
Procedures are born out of necessity right? I am simply asking if they are necessary for our purposes on VATSIM. VATSIM is not the real world, and if one is going to use "because that's the real world" as the reasoning for implementing this change, or perhaps I should change the word to I should say making it a rule as at least one ATM is doing, then at least be consistent.
Volcano erupts = Shut down air traffic
Politically Sensitive areas = Aren't they all?
TFRs = use them then
To what end?
Instead, why not this statement? "Thanks for sharing the information with the membership, but there is no real reason to change what many know and use, and make more work for a controller on VATSIM, who has a real job."
JV
-
As is your right...
Procedures are born out of necessity right? I am simply asking if they are necessary for our purposes on VATSIM. VATSIM is not the real world, and if one is going to use "because that's the real world" as the reasoning for implementing this change, or perhaps I should change the word to I should say making it a rule as at least one ATM is doing, then at least be consistent.
Volcano erupts = Shut down air traffic
Politically Sensitive areas = Aren't they all?
TFRs = use them then
To what end?
Instead, why not this statement? "Thanks for sharing the information with the membership, but there is no real reason to change what many know and use, and make more work for a controller on VATSIM, who has a real job."
JV
For the simple fact that this is a fundamental and major change to the .65, whereas TFRs and natural phenomena are not. They can fluxuate: this would be an absolute. Hence, the talk and debate about it now.
BL.
-
I didn't want to touch Jason's comments with a 10 foot stick however...VATSIM stands for Virtual Air Traffic Simulation, I would be willing to bet you all know what the first three words stand for however the definition of simulation is as fallows: imitation or enactment. Why would we not mimic real world operations. If this is how you want to do it then maybe we should scrap all rules and phraseology? You must be kidding me
-
This change was born of the Runway Safety Program, which is apparently behind the "line up and wait" ICAO phraseology adoption as well.
Here's the National Runway Safety Plan 2009-2011 (http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/publications/media/RunwaySafetyReport-kh10-plan.pdf) which is an interesting read.
Bottom line from this paragraph:
4.4 Performance Targets
Under the goal of “Increased Safety, Objective 3, Reduce the risk of runway incursions,â€
the FAA Flight Plan 2009 – 2013 contains the following performance target:
“By the end of FY 2013, reduce total runway incursions by 10 percent from the FY 2008 baseline.â€
This is a specific measurable goal which will supersede others, so expect even more FAA procedural and technological changes.
-
I responded to a parallel discussion in the VATSIM Forums in kind of a long post, but in a nutshell here's what I think:
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.
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 document?
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.
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1...77&start=15 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=48577&start=15)
-
I responded to a parallel discussion in the VATSIM Forums in kind of a long post, but in a nutshell here's what I think:
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.
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 document?
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.
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1...77&start=15 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=48577&start=15)
I honestly don't see this being treated any differently than when we could no longer just say "Taxi to runway 25R". Instead we now had to give a route with every taxi clearance so it turned into "Taxi to runway 25R via Bravo".
Some people still don't use that rule and its officially in the 7110.65 so why would this change get any other kind of special treatment?
-
I'm OK with it just as long as there IS a clause for radar controllers like "workload permitting" it can be disregarded. When I'm on NorCal combined, I really don't have the time to say "American 313 Heavy, runway 28R, taxi via Alpha Foxtrot, hold short 1L."
"American 313 Heavy, cross runway 1L, hold short 1R
American 313 Heavy, cross runway 1R hold short 28L
American 313 Heavy, cross runway 28L."
Especially if the ones aren't in use, I can just say "american 313 heavy, runway 28R, taxi via A F hold short 28L." "Cross 28L"
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both sets of parallels at SFO fall under the separated by less than 1000 ft rules that will allow you to cross them as a group.
"American 313 Heavy, runway 28R, taxi via A, F, hold short 1L"
"American 313 Heavy, cross 1L and 1R, hold short 28L"
FWIW, that's a bit of a reduction. The entire process is still asinine though.
-
Another thing to think about, as others on the main VATSIM forum and various sectors have noticed.
With taking out the 'to' (which is the significant change), this removes the implicit instruction to cross all runways on your way to the assigned runway. So you would either need to give explicit runway crossing instructions each time, or explicit hold short instructions each time.
Since the word 'to' isn't there, 91.129 (i) wouldn't be in effect, and would be more likely to be rewritten. For example, with Dhruv's example above, if winds required only the 28s to be in use (meaning 1L/R are closed/taxiways only),
"American 313 Heavy, runway 28R, taxi via A, F" now explicity requires a crossing instruction to be issued to cross 1L and 1R, whether they are in use or not.
That's a huge change, requiring much more air time than there already is. And with the FAR unchanged, you have a lot of ambiguity that will lead to 'runway' incursions (quoted, because the runway may not be active), which is what they're trying to prevent.
BL.
-
To any of our real-world controllers on these forums:
What do you think about it?
-
My own belief is that the change should be fully adopted by VATSIM, and implemented in all training. However, only a controller logged on as GND would be required to perform it to the letter. This satisfies the desire to keep VATSIM as close as possible to the real world, and a GND position would know what to expect ahead of time.
All higher positions would be permitted to issue commands as they do now, with only the addition to (rough draft) "report crossing 'inactive/closed runway'". This is still a signifigant nod to the change, while hopefully the only extra work for that controller would be a quick check and a "roger".
There has to be a compromise, as I see it, because I'm sure the FAA has already put a price-tag on this change, and is adjusting resources accordingly. VATSIM, on the other hand, can't write a check to ease the burden, nor shuffle controllers around. It's fine to take things up to the breaking point, that's all part of the simulation, but we don't want to go way beyond it.
-
I meant to add something from the pilot's perspective. While there would be two different VATSIM procedures, the line between them wouldn't be fuzzy.
If you're with a GND controller, expect to be micro-managed; all higher controllers, expect to only report.
-
However, only a controller logged on as GND would be required to perform it to the letter. This satisfies the desire to keep VATSIM as close as possible to the real world, and a GND position would know what to expect ahead of time.
In many areas the Tower controller works a combined shift of DEL, GND, and TWR or GND and TWR. I think such a policy, if one is created, should include GND/TWR on VATSIM.
All higher positions would be permitted to issue commands as they do now, with only the addition to (rough draft) "report crossing 'inactive/closed runway'". This is still a signifigant nod to the change, while hopefully the only extra work for that controller would be a quick check and a "roger".
No, this defeats the whole purpose of not requiring the upper-level controllers to say anything at all. The bottom line is excessive frequency use, and this ties it up with almost the same amount of time as the crossing instructions that some of us don't want to have to issue.
There has to be a compromise, as I see it, because I'm sure the FAA has already put a price-tag on this change, and is adjusting resources accordingly.
I highly doubt it.
-
Since the word 'to' isn't there, 91.129 (i) wouldn't be in effect, and would be more likely to be rewritten. For example, with Dhruv's example above, if winds required only the 28s to be in use (meaning 1L/R are closed/taxiways only),
BL.
I doubt 91.129 (i) would be rewritten. As you pointed out....it just would not apply. If the FAA ever reintroduces "taxi-to" they would have to rewrite 91.129(i) again.
As part of the FAA taskforce on runway incursions they are planning other changes to get the numbers lower. This change is part of the overall reassesment on how various methods work (or don't work). The FAA also just launched a new campain aimed at all pilots using interactive flash movies and recorded ATC radio tapes to depict runway incursion events. I particpated in a trial version of the program a month ago with the FAA office that is involved in improving runway safety.
For all the pilots in the group, I encourage you to take the interactive course on the FAA Safety website. It also counts for WINGS credit!
As a CFI and commerical pilot, I spend a lot of time in airplanes at various airports....in my observation, "taxi-to" has to be the most misunderstood phrase by lots of GA pilots. (even though it is an FAR) This is a good change....yes it may take some more air time on the radio, but I hope it cuts down runway incursions. I had to execute a go-around a few weeks ago because another pilot was crossing my runway in what I believe was in error.
As far as should we implement this in VATSIM...I would have no objection if my controllers starting using the new phraseology. I will for sure make them aware of it. In a practical sense, as has been said, a lone center controller may have some challeneges with this.
-
As a CFI and commerical pilot, I spend a lot of time in airplanes at various airports....in my observation, "taxi-to" has to be the most misunderstood phrase by lots of GA pilots. (even though it is an FAR)
There's no way "taxi to" is the most misunderstood phrase, and there's no way "taxi via" would solve anything if that were the case.
-
There's no way "taxi to" is the most misunderstood phrase, and there's no way "taxi via" would solve anything if that were the case.
I have to agree with this. "to" pretty much means to cross any runways on the way to your assigned runway. "via" automatically signals that there will be a hold short instruction somewhere in your instructions.
BL.
-
ICAO
-
There's no way "taxi to" is the most misunderstood phrase, and there's no way "taxi via" would solve anything if that were the case.
You would be surprised. I can't tell you the number of times I hear pilots asking if they are "clear to cross the inactive" after they have been given a "taxi to" instruction. If I put myself in the FAA's shoes, by giving an explicit instruction to cross all runways removes ambiguity. I don't know if it will work. Just offering my $.02.
-
You would be surprised. I can't tell you the number of times I hear pilots asking if they are "clear to cross the inactive" after they have been given a "taxi to" instruction.
But how is that misunderstanding causing accidents or runway incursions? It isn't. The whole thing is a matter of becoming ICAO compliant, just like the position and hold phraseology. Why we are deciding to go that way, I have no idea.
-
It's the wussification of America is what it is. (insert p for w if you wish ;D)
-ZZ
-
I just got this e-mail from the FAA. It does look like they are putting some responsibility on pilots to hold short of all runways, too. Note this message is for pilots, but I'm responding to the above comments about whether or not pilot regulations will be changed.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--][size=]Runway Crossing Procedure Change[/size]
Beginning June 30, 2010, controllers will be required to issue explicit instructions to cross or hold short of each runway that intersects a taxi route.
"Taxi to" will no longer be used when issuing taxi instructions to an assigned take-off runway.
Instructions to cross a runway will be issued one at a time. Instructions to cross multiple runways will not be issued. An aircraft or vehicle must have crossed the previous runway before another runway crossing is issued.
This applies to any runway, including inactive or closed runways.
Changes will also be made to the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and AIP to reflect the new procedures.
Never cross a hold line without explicit ATC instructions.
If in doubt ASK!
Reminder: You may not enter a runway unless you have been:
* instructed to cross that specific runway;
* cleared to take off from that runway; or
* instructed to position and hold on that specific runway.
See https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/201...FAAST_Blast.pdf (https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Jun/Runway_Crossing_Procedural_Change_FAAST_Blast.pdf) for the Runway Safety notice. Click this next link for a video of the change. http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/...3wPreloader.swf (http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/current_events/taxi_to/media/TaxiTo_V3_3wPreloader.swf) (You may have to copy and paste the links into your browser.)
For additional information, go to http://www.faa.gov/go/runwaysafety
Federal Aviation Administration
Air Traffic Organization
Office of Runway Safety
490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Suite 7225
Washington, DC 20024[/quote]
-
I gotta say, I've been trying to get some practice with this phraseology on the network, and it's tough breaking a habit...
-
Which still poses the question. What if your assigned runway doesn't intersect any other runway?
before: XXX123, Taxi to runway 25R (via Charlie).
after: XXX123, Runway 25R, taxi via Charlie.
The former didn't need the taxiway assignment as it is implied that the taxiway you use gets you to 25R. The latter now explicitly requires the taxiway assignment. however, both still do not cross any other runway.
Additionally, what if you only have one runway at the field in question?
BL.
-
Which still poses the question. What if your assigned runway doesn't intersect any other runway?
before: XXX123, Taxi to runway 25R (via Charlie).
after: XXX123, Runway 25R, taxi via Charlie.
The former didn't need the taxiway assignment as it is implied that the taxiway you use gets you to 25R. The latter now explicitly requires the taxiway assignment. however, both still do not cross any other runway.
Additionally, what if you only have one runway at the field in question?
BL.
You *always* say:
Runway (), taxi via (). This goes into effect starting tomorrow. Now, if you are taxiing aircraft and they are going to cross only one runway, the general consensus has been taxi them with "Runway 16 Center, taxi via B C, cross Runway 16 Left" assuming 16 Left is closed, inactive, or you have permission to cross them.. you do not have to hold them short of the runway all the time. However, if the runway is active, it is best practice to NOT do that.
If there is no runway crossing between taxiing from ramp to runway,
Runway 3, taxi via A B C.
Taxiing to the ramp, standard phraseology applies:
Taxi to the ramp via Bravo.
-
Daniel,
What if you have to have an inbound aircraft taxi to the ramp, but he also has to hold short of a runway? Is it proper to say "Taxi to the ramp via A B C, hold short Runway 1?"
-
Daniel,
What if you have to have an inbound aircraft taxi to the ramp, but he also has to hold short of a runway? Is it proper to say "Taxi to the ramp via A B C, hold short Runway 1?"
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of 'Taxi to'? The whole point of 'Taxi to' was that you were allowed to cross anything and everything on the way to getting to where you were going. I'm suspecting that the inevitable 7110 revision will specify something like "Terminal ramp, taxi via A, B, C, hold short rwy ##"
-
So....has anyone that's a pilot gotten the new instrcutions yet? How about line-up and wait? I have a flight tomorrow...so we shall see.
-
Line up and wait isn't enacted yet. I got a modified version of the instructions on a flight this morning. UND has an LOA specifying "Standard taxi" routes with Grand Forks Tower, so the exact control instructions up here were "Runway 17L, standard taxi" instead of "Standard taxi to runway 17L". The actual exchange, however, went something more like this:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Me: "Grand Forks Ground, Sioux 9 on Charlie ramp, VFR to the Southeast, requesting traffic advisories with Mike."
GFK Ground: "Sioux 9, Grand Forks Ground, standard ta-...correction...runway 17L, standard taxi, squawk 0174."[/quote]
Nice to know we're not the only ones who are struggling with it!
-
I've been hearing exchanges like that at all of the big airports that i've listened to... BOS, JFK, IAD, you name it.
-
No stutters from my local tower today. Go FNT!
-
Daniel,
What if you have to have an inbound aircraft taxi to the ramp, but he also has to hold short of a runway? Is it proper to say "Taxi to the ramp via A B C, hold short Runway 1?"
Yes, taxiing to the ramp is still "Taxi to the ramp/terminal/whatever via A, B, C hold short Runway 21." This phraseology change seems to only affect outbound taxiing. However, inbound taxiing does not yet have any rules saying they must hold short or receive explicit instructions to hold short of a runway.
That being said, a loop hole allows you to cross one runway at a time, right? So instead of automatically telling them to hold short of the first runway, my airfield implemented taxi instructions that include a crossing of the first inactive runway they will come across. For example:
Runway 7R, Taxi via F D A, cross runway 19.
or Runway 19, Taxi via F D B, cross runway 7 right, hold short runway 7 left.
It does save 1/2 a second doing it that way.. who knows if it is against the spirit of the new policy but it's unnecessary work at an airfield where the perpendicular runway cannot be used while the parallels are in use.
-
Are ground controllers allowed to issue crossing instructions now? Wasn't there a point in time where that wasn't allowed, and aircraft had to be with local control to cross? I don't have a lot of (VATSIM) experience with hold short instructions, since a vast majority of those in ZDV don't require aircraft to cross any runways. Just wondering.
-
It sounds like he was referring to an inactive runway...which at most airports reverts to taxiway status and hence under ground control. Local typically only own the active runways, and any other designated areas (taxiways between actives, etc).
-
Are ground controllers allowed to issue crossing instructions now? Wasn't there a point in time where that wasn't allowed, and aircraft had to be with local control to cross? I don't have a lot of (VATSIM) experience with hold short instructions, since a vast majority of those in ZDV don't require aircraft to cross any runways. Just wondering.
I was referring to the inactive runway. And an aircraft can cross an active runway with the ground controller.. this is another example where verbal communication in the tower happens. Something as simple as "Cross runway 7L at B" with Local reading it back or saying "Hold Short" and then a simple "Clear Deck 7 Left" or whatever with an acknowledgement from Local. This is giving temporary jurisdiction of the active runway to ground without making an aircraft change frequencies to cross a runway and then switch back to ground (for example, taxiing from a maintaince ramp to the terminal, etc.).
-
One of the instructors at ZLA pointed this out, so I thought I'd graciously steal his post and post it here.
So it would be interesting to see if they update the FARs for this change as well.
BL.
There was just an article in Flying Magazine that indicated in the next publication of the AIM, the new taxi instructions will be included.
-
Perhaps true where all your positions are manned, but 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 this is REALLY going to [stink] for VATSIM.
Multi-window is what VRC is good for, even if you don't have dual monitors. open a second window by clicking file>new window. in the new window create your zoomed out view of your airspace. Then in the main window, set the radar mode to 3D. when you need to switch airports, use .set3dcenter command to move to the airport of choice. You could even add that to your alias file. i.e. .kphx .set3dcenter kphx. That's just my simple take on the situation.
-
As is your right...
Procedures are born out of necessity right? I am simply asking if they are necessary for our purposes on VATSIM. VATSIM is not the real world, and if one is going to use "because that's the real world" as the reasoning for implementing this change, or perhaps I should change the word to I should say making it a rule as at least one ATM is doing, then at least be consistent.
Volcano erupts = Shut down air traffic
Politically Sensitive areas = Aren't they all?
TFRs = use them then
To what end?
Instead, why not this statement? "Thanks for sharing the information with the membership, but there is no real reason to change what many know and use, and make more work for a controller on VATSIM, who has a real job."
JV
I see both your points and raise a third, instead of everyone downing the FAA's decision, why not come up with out own way to reduce runway incursions and have an event or trial period to see if it actually works. We could be the FAA's test subjects. lol.
-
I see both your points and raise a third, instead of everyone downing the FAA's decision, why not come up with out own way to reduce runway incursions and have an event or trial period to see if it actually works. We could be the FAA's test subjects. lol.
MITRE could do that with us, actually, but I don't think the FAA is really going to have any more issues than they had with the old procedure. It would be very difficult and confusing, however, to implement our own VATUSA policy.
-
you are correct. I was mainly cracking wise on the debate over simulating real ATC or picking and choosing which FAA rules to follow on vatsim. The way i see it we're here to mirror, as closely as we can, our real counterparts. So if, and this is in another thread somewhere, a rwy is closed for resurfacing, or RNAV dep are not allowed at KPHX in the real world, we should reflect that. And if the FAA says to 86 the phrase "taxi to" then we do so.
-
you are correct. I was mainly cracking wise on the debate over simulating real ATC or picking and choosing which FAA rules to follow on vatsim. The way i see it we're here to mirror, as closely as we can, our real counterparts. So if, and this is in another thread somewhere, a rwy is closed for resurfacing, or RNAV dep are not allowed at KPHX in the real world, we should reflect that. And if the FAA says to 86 the phrase "taxi to" then we do so.
I completely agree with you on all of the examples you mention.