VATUSA Forums
General => The Control Room Floor => Topic started by: Shane VanHoven on March 15, 2018, 10:31:42 PM
-
Hey all,
At the following link you will find a change to 3-7-2 of the 7110.65.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7110.65X_Air_Traffic_Control_CHG_1.pdf
Effective March 29th, whenever taxi routes must cross a runway, you may only give the route up to the hold short. Then continue the rest of the route after the runway crossing instruction.
Yay, moar words! Just thought I'd pass along the information in case anyone wants to implement it.
-SQ
-
I'm still using "taxi to" phraseology. How does this effect me?
-
Reading the full text of 3-7-2, I'm not seeing a whole lot of deviation from current procedure. I realize it is, and what is in the changelog, but the full text still specifies allotment for "Runway 20, taxi via J M, cross runway 12" as an example.
-
Reading the full text of 3-7-2, I'm not seeing a whole lot of deviation from current procedure. I realize it is, and what is in the changelog, but the full text still specifies allotment for "Runway 20, taxi via J M, cross runway 12" as an example.
Correct. This only applies if you have to hold an aircraft short of the runway. (or intend to at least.)
Example. "Runway 20 taxi via J M, hold short of runway 12."
Then when the aircraft comes to the runway: "Cross runway 12, taxi via D, A."
As opposed to "Runway 20 taxi via J, M, D, A, hold short of runway 12 at txwy M."
-
I'm still using "taxi to" phraseology. How does this effect me?
You mean like "Taxi to position and hold" ?
-
I'm still using "taxi to" phraseology. How does this effect me?
You mean like "Taxi to position and hold" ?
Uh...I plead the fifth
-
Okay. I see the intent. Outbound taxi from the ground controller would seem to be more affected, as a local controller would be doing that anyway, just with the instruction to contact ground after the crossing. Thanks for the info.
-
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7110.65X_Air_Traffic_Control_CHG_1.pdf
Effective March 29th, whenever taxi routes must cross a runway, you may only give the route up to the hold short. Then continue the rest of the route after the runway crossing instruction.
Hey Shane, I'm definitely not the expert -- but after reading both the change summary and the revised section, it sounds like it's only required (and I quote) "when a runway hold short instruction is required." It does give this as a valid example: “Runway Three−Six Left, taxi via Charlie, cross Runway Two−Seven Left, hold short of Runway Two−Seven Right.” So if holding me short of 27L isn't required it sounds like it's okay to give that to me all at once. Your thoughts?
On the other hand, it does sound like you aren't allowed to give multiple runway crossings in the same taxi instruction anymore: "Issue a crossing clearance to aircraft for each runway their route crosses. An aircraft must have crossed a previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued." So, fun!
-
"YOU GOTTA KEEP EM SEPARATED"
-
Hey Shane, I'm definitely not the expert -- but after reading both the change summary and the revised section, it sounds like it's only required (and I quote) "when a runway hold short instruction is required." It does give this as a valid example: “Runway Three−Six Left, taxi via Charlie, cross Runway Two−Seven Left, hold short of Runway Two−Seven Right.” So if holding me short of 27L isn't required it sounds like it's okay to give that to me all at once. Your thoughts?
Well you can't cross two runways at in one instruction, so you'd still be required to hold them short of 12L. So whenever a hold short is required, you can only give taxiways up until that hold point. Then after you cross them, you can give the rest of the taxi route.
On the other hand, it does sound like you aren't allowed to give multiple runway crossings in the same taxi instruction anymore: "Issue a crossing clearance to aircraft for each runway their route crosses. An aircraft must have crossed a previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued." So, fun!
You were never allowed to do that unless the runways are 1300' apart or less AND the facility has a waver from the FAA.
-
it does sound like you aren't allowed to give multiple runway crossings in the same taxi instruction anymore:
You were never allowed to do that unless the runways are 1300' apart or less AND the facility has a waver from the FAA.
Ah. Okay. I was going to say, I've definitely heard it done -- but the noted exceptions probably applied.
Very informative for us non-ATC guys too, sir. Thank you!
-
Strangely I've always given my taxi instructions this way just because of VATSIM pilots being exceptional at hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the rest, that and runway crossings at MSP (the only place I've ever really done anything) tend to involve a transfer of control to tower when they're departing. I witnessed 2 runway incursions a couple events ago when I had the luxury of monitoring without having a fixed role at the start of the event and the full taxi instructions past the hold short seemed to encourage not holding short.
I also noticed that it wasn't 1300 feet between centrelines until 7110.65X, as the W only says 1000 feet. I wonder if that means I can use Delta at MSP to give the ole' multi runway crossing instruction now.
-
I also noticed that it wasn't 1300 feet between centrelines until 7110.65X, as the W only says 1000 feet. I wonder if that means I can use Delta at MSP to give the ole' multi runway crossing instruction now.
Well we'd still have to wait for the FAA to give them the waver... so even if the centerlines are within 1300, it'll take a year for the waver lol!
-
It would be helpful for VATUSA to give a blanket waiver to allow any ARTCC that wishes to permit controllers to authorise multiple runway crossings (where centrelines are 1300’ or less) to conduct ground operations in that way. IRL, my home field is St Augustine (KSGJ) and the cab controllers complain periodically about having to authorise crossings for the two small runways that cross the main taxiway because they are 25 feet too far apart for the multiple crossing instruction! Now they’ll have to say “cross 6, hold short of 2..... cross 2, continue on Bravo.....”..... MOAR WORDS INDEED!
Perhaps one of the VATUSA folks can sort this so ARTCCs can train accordingly?
Frank
-
It would be helpful for VATUSA to give a blanket waiver to allow any ARTCC that wishes to permit controllers to authorise multiple runway crossings (where centrelines are 1300’ or less) to conduct ground operations in that way. IRL, my home field is St Augustine (KSGJ) and the cab controllers complain periodically about having to authorise crossings for the two small runways that cross the main taxiway because they are 25 feet too far apart for the multiple crossing instruction! Now they’ll have to say “cross 6, hold short of 2..... cross 2, continue on Bravo.....”..... MOAR WORDS INDEED!
Perhaps one of the VATUSA folks can sort this so ARTCCs can train accordingly?
Frank
Facilities write procedures, VATUSA approves it. Not the other way around. ;) Contact your facility for more information.
-
It would be helpful for VATUSA to give a blanket waiver to allow any ARTCC that wishes to permit controllers to authorise multiple runway crossings (where centrelines are 1300’ or less) to conduct ground operations in that way. IRL, my home field is St Augustine (KSGJ) and the cab controllers complain periodically about having to authorise crossings for the two small runways that cross the main taxiway because they are 25 feet too far apart for the multiple crossing instruction! Now they’ll have to say “cross 6, hold short of 2..... cross 2, continue on Bravo.....”..... MOAR WORDS INDEED!
Perhaps one of the VATUSA folks can sort this so ARTCCs can train accordingly?
Frank
Makes me wonder how they would handle something like SFO or MKE, where you can have a single taxiway intersecting 2 active runways. If you tell someone, for example, at MKE, to get to 1L by saying "Runway 1L, taxi via J, H, K, T, R, hold short of runway 1R", would that still effectively give them permission to cross 31R? Or would ATC have to add in a "hold short runway 1R, hold short runway 31" and soak up more air time to handle the ambiguity?
BL.
-
Facilities write procedures, VATUSA approves it. Not the other way around. ;) Contact your facility for more information.
And I, for one, don't write "waivers" explicitly in to my procedures. Talk to your facility leadership, Frank.
-
I think I was already doing this...some pilots need the info to be served a spoon full at a time... ;D
-
Facilities write procedures, VATUSA approves it. Not the other way around. ;) Contact your facility for more information.
And I, for one, don't write "waivers" explicitly in to my procedures. Talk to your facility leadership, Frank.
The only waivers we're talking about are the ones the FAA grants to airport management in the real world. I pretty sure waivers like that aren't written for VATSIM, they're either simulated or they aren't.
-
Makes me wonder how they would handle something like SFO or MKE, where you can have a single taxiway intersecting 2 active runways. If you tell someone, for example, at MKE, to get to 1L by saying "Runway 1L, taxi via J, H, K, T, R, hold short of runway 1R", would that still effectively give them permission to cross 31R? Or would ATC have to add in a "hold short runway 1R, hold short runway 31" and soak up more air time to handle the ambiguity?
BL.
In paragraph a, you as the controllers are required to issue the hold short instructions: "If it is the intent to hold the
aircraft/vehicle short of" a runway. If you don't INTEND to actually hold them short, (like you're just waiting for the first crossing to complete) then you don't have to give the hold short instruction for the second runway.
-
Makes me wonder how they would handle something like SFO or MKE, where you can have a single taxiway intersecting 2 active runways. If you tell someone, for example, at MKE, to get to 1L by saying "Runway 1L, taxi via J, H, K, T, R, hold short of runway 1R", would that still effectively give them permission to cross 31R? Or would ATC have to add in a "hold short runway 1R, hold short runway 31" and soak up more air time to handle the ambiguity?
BL.
In paragraph a, you as the controllers are required to issue the hold short instructions: "If it is the intent to hold the
aircraft/vehicle short of" a runway. If you don't INTEND to actually hold them short, (like you're just waiting for the first crossing to complete) then you don't have to give the hold short instruction for the second runway.
I understand that completely. However, the problem that we have here is when you have an taxiway that crosses two active runways, and those runways intersect eachother. if the controller tells a pilot to hold short of one runway, does it still effectively give them permission to cross the other runway, especially if they intersect at the same location?
Again, reference KMKE: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1803/00262AD.PDF
Runway 1R/19L, 13/31, and taxiway K all intersect at the same place. By this change, would you effectively have to tell the pilot to hold short of both runways, as it now specifically states that they must get permission to cross any runway on the way to their assigned runway, let alone must explicitly be given a hold short instruction for each of those runways that need to be crossed?
BL.
-
Makes me wonder how they would handle something like SFO or MKE, where you can have a single taxiway intersecting 2 active runways. If you tell someone, for example, at MKE, to get to 1L by saying "Runway 1L, taxi via J, H, K, T, R, hold short of runway 1R", would that still effectively give them permission to cross 31R? Or would ATC have to add in a "hold short runway 1R, hold short runway 31" and soak up more air time to handle the ambiguity?
BL.
In paragraph a, you as the controllers are required to issue the hold short instructions: "If it is the intent to hold the
aircraft/vehicle short of" a runway. If you don't INTEND to actually hold them short, (like you're just waiting for the first crossing to complete) then you don't have to give the hold short instruction for the second runway.
I understand that completely. However, the problem that we have here is when you have an taxiway that crosses two active runways, and those runways intersect eachother. if the controller tells a pilot to hold short of one runway, does it still effectively give them permission to cross the other runway, especially if they intersect at the same location?
Again, reference KMKE: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1803/00262AD.PDF
Runway 1R/19L, 13/31, and taxiway K all intersect at the same place. By this change, would you effectively have to tell the pilot to hold short of both runways, as it now specifically states that they must get permission to cross any runway on the way to their assigned runway, let alone must explicitly be given a hold short instruction for each of those runways that need to be crossed?
BL.
Good observation!
Best example I can find from the 7110 is this:
PHRASEOLOGY−
“Cross (runway) at( runway/taxiway), hold short of
(runway)”, or
Cross (runways) at (runway/taxiway).
Reference that key difference, runways.
From a realistic standpoint, and pilots perspective, I don't think they would issue cross both runways when they intersect like that. It would depend on which operation the airport was in, if they were using 19L/R I would want to hear cross rwy 19L since that is applicable to the direction of traffic landing/departing.
I would assume I would hear it like this:
N123MB, cross rwy 19L at K, hold short rwy 19R
-
Makes me wonder how they would handle something like SFO or MKE, where you can have a single taxiway intersecting 2 active runways. If you tell someone, for example, at MKE, to get to 1L by saying "Runway 1L, taxi via J, H, K, T, R, hold short of runway 1R", would that still effectively give them permission to cross 31R? Or would ATC have to add in a "hold short runway 1R, hold short runway 31" and soak up more air time to handle the ambiguity?
BL.
In paragraph a, you as the controllers are required to issue the hold short instructions: "If it is the intent to hold the
aircraft/vehicle short of" a runway. If you don't INTEND to actually hold them short, (like you're just waiting for the first crossing to complete) then you don't have to give the hold short instruction for the second runway.
I understand that completely. However, the problem that we have here is when you have an taxiway that crosses two active runways, and those runways intersect eachother. if the controller tells a pilot to hold short of one runway, does it still effectively give them permission to cross the other runway, especially if they intersect at the same location?
Again, reference KMKE: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1803/00262AD.PDF
Runway 1R/19L, 13/31, and taxiway K all intersect at the same place. By this change, would you effectively have to tell the pilot to hold short of both runways, as it now specifically states that they must get permission to cross any runway on the way to their assigned runway, let alone must explicitly be given a hold short instruction for each of those runways that need to be crossed?
BL.
Good observation!
Best example I can find from the 7110 is this:
PHRASEOLOGY−
“Cross (runway) at( runway/taxiway), hold short of
(runway)”, or
Cross (runways) at (runway/taxiway).
Reference that key difference, runways.
From a realistic standpoint, and pilots perspective, I don't think they would issue cross both runways when they intersect like that. It would depend on which operation the airport was in, if they were using 19L/R I would want to hear cross rwy 19L since that is applicable to the direction of traffic landing/departing.
I would assume I would hear it like this:
N123MB, cross rwy 19L at K, hold short rwy 19R
The bold would make it sounds like a controller would have to say:
N123MB, runway 1L, taxi via J, K, H, T, R, hold short of runways 1R and 31.
Then get an explicit crossing instruction for both runways in the same call (given by the Tower controller, as the runways are active)
N123MB, cross runways 1R and 31, hold short of runway 1L.
.
.
N123MB, cross runway 1L, continue taxiing to runway 1L.
I say "continue taxiing to" in this case, because the pilot was already given the taxi instructions from ground.
BL.
-
Makes me wonder how they would handle something like SFO or MKE, where you can have a single taxiway intersecting 2 active runways. If you tell someone, for example, at MKE, to get to 1L by saying "Runway 1L, taxi via J, H, K, T, R, hold short of runway 1R", would that still effectively give them permission to cross 31R? Or would ATC have to add in a "hold short runway 1R, hold short runway 31" and soak up more air time to handle the ambiguity?
BL.
In paragraph a, you as the controllers are required to issue the hold short instructions: "If it is the intent to hold the
aircraft/vehicle short of" a runway. If you don't INTEND to actually hold them short, (like you're just waiting for the first crossing to complete) then you don't have to give the hold short instruction for the second runway.
I understand that completely. However, the problem that we have here is when you have an taxiway that crosses two active runways, and those runways intersect eachother. if the controller tells a pilot to hold short of one runway, does it still effectively give them permission to cross the other runway, especially if they intersect at the same location?
Again, reference KMKE: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1803/00262AD.PDF
Runway 1R/19L, 13/31, and taxiway K all intersect at the same place. By this change, would you effectively have to tell the pilot to hold short of both runways, as it now specifically states that they must get permission to cross any runway on the way to their assigned runway, let alone must explicitly be given a hold short instruction for each of those runways that need to be crossed?
BL.
Good observation!
Best example I can find from the 7110 is this:
PHRASEOLOGY−
“Cross (runway) at( runway/taxiway), hold short of
(runway)”, or
Cross (runways) at (runway/taxiway).
Reference that key difference, runways.
From a realistic standpoint, and pilots perspective, I don't think they would issue cross both runways when they intersect like that. It would depend on which operation the airport was in, if they were using 19L/R I would want to hear cross rwy 19L since that is applicable to the direction of traffic landing/departing.
I would assume I would hear it like this:
N123MB, cross rwy 19L at K, hold short rwy 19R
The bold would make it sounds like a controller would have to say:
N123MB, runway 1L, taxi via J, K, H, T, R, hold short of runways 1R and 31.
Then get an explicit crossing instruction for both runways in the same call (given by the Tower controller, as the runways are active)
N123MB, cross runways 1R and 31, hold short of runway 1L.
.
.
N123MB, cross runway 1L, continue taxiing to runway 1L.
I say "continue taxiing to" in this case, because the pilot was already given the taxi instructions from ground.
BL.
This would be one of those instances that MKE would probably get specific direction for that particular situation. The .65 has a lot of pages with a lot of rules, but they can't always cover everything that exists at every airport, and the taxiway markings at the real airport probably make it a little more obvious which runway they're actually holding short of. I'd refer to your management for direction on that specific procedure for MKE.
-
For what it is worth, my home field in St Augustine (KSGJ) has a pair of runways that nearly intersect just where you would exit the ramp to cross and get to a taxiway to the main runway. http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1803/00692AD.PDF
I've heard frequently from Ground: "Runway 31, taxi via D4 D B, hold short of the approach end of runway 2" and then "cross runways 2 and 6, [continue taxi]". Consistent with Brad's explanation.
Frank