Significant change to Taxi procedures coming effective 30 Jun 2010

[Chris McGee]

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

[Ed Tomlinson]

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 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,”
the FAA Flight Plan 2009 – 2013 contains the following performance target:
     â€œBy the end of FY 2013, reduce total runway incursions by 10 percent from the FY 2008 baseline.”

This is a specific measurable goal which will supersede others, so expect even more FAA procedural and technological changes.

[Harold Rutila]

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

[Benton Wilmes]

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

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?

[Jonah Zieske]

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"

[Dhruv Kalra]

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.

[Brad Littlejohn]

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.

[Kyle Gallagher]

To any of our real-world controllers on these forums:

What do you think about it?

[Mark Keyes]

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.

[Mark Keyes]

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.

[Harold Rutila]

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.  

[Matt Fuoco]

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.

[Harold Rutila]

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.

[Brad Littlejohn]

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.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

ICAO