Significant change to Taxi procedures coming effective 30 Jun 2010

[Kenneth Haught]

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).

[Daniel Hawton]

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.).

[Matt Fuoco]

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.

[Ryan Sawyer]

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.

[Ryan Sawyer]

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.

[Harold Rutila]

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.

[Ryan Sawyer]

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.

[Harold Rutila]

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.