7110.65 Change to 3-7-2: Taxi and Ground Movement Operations

[Brad Littlejohn]

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.

[Sergio Lopez]

I think I was already doing this...some pilots need the info to be served a spoon full at a time...

[Shane VanHoven]

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.

[Shane VanHoven]

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.

[Brad Littlejohn]

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.

[Matt Bromback]

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

[Brad Littlejohn]

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.

[Shane VanHoven]

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.

[Frank Louis Miller]

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