Significant change to Taxi procedures coming effective 30 Jun 2010

Don Desfosse · « **on:** April 22, 2010, 09:34:54 PM »

Team,

The FAA just issued FAA Notice 7110.528, effective 30 Jun 2010, 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.....

Spencer Sprinzen · « **Reply #1 on:** April 22, 2010, 09:46:50 PM »

Stinks when your on center and your zoomed out and can't see the taxiway/aircraft location on the field.

Harold Rutila · « **Reply #2 on:** April 23, 2010, 06:41:47 AM »

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.

Scott DeWoody · « **Reply #3 on:** April 23, 2010, 08:40:03 AM »

Quote from: Harold Rutila

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.

J Jason Vodnansky · « **Reply #4 on:** April 23, 2010, 10:37:22 AM »

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

Chris McGee · « **Reply #5 on:** April 23, 2010, 11:35:43 AM »

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

Don Desfosse · « **Reply #6 on:** April 23, 2010, 12:54:08 PM »

Quote from: Christopher S. McGee

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.

Brad Littlejohn · « **Reply #7 on:** April 23, 2010, 01:35:37 PM »

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 â€œtaxi toâ€ 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 â€œtaxi toâ€ 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.

Don Desfosse · « **Reply #8 on:** April 23, 2010, 01:42:34 PM »

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.

Alex Evins · « **Reply #9 on:** April 23, 2010, 02:47:14 PM »

Quote from: Brad Littlejohn

So it would be interesting to see if they update the FARs for this change as well.

BL.

(Holding my breath)

Joshua Webb · « **Reply #10 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:10:51 PM »

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"

Scott DeWoody · « **Reply #11 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:32:25 PM »

Quote from: J. Jason Vodnansky

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

Harold Rutila · « **Reply #12 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:50:10 PM »

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?

J Jason Vodnansky · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2010, 05:04:54 PM »

Quote from: Scott DeWoody

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

Brad Littlejohn · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2010, 05:21:01 PM »

Quote from: J. Jason Vodnansky

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.