Other countries give the clearance, "after landing traffic, taxi into position and wait." And the landing traffic could be 3 miles out!!! Pilot should have situational awareness as to the landing and departure sequence. Too much talking only adds to the confusion. (retired after 31 year with airlines, and 5yrs USAF)
_______________________________________________________________
The problem with this proceedure is it is ONE way. I am 17,000 hour US based international pilot. Most other countries allow the controller to direct the pilot to taxi on the runway BEHIND the designated traffic.
Example American 86 Taxi on the runway behind the Landing LH 737. or Departing LH 737.
The controller then is required to get a readback indicating: Behind---- Landing--- LH737.
This allows the contoller to have more time to give the intruction at the controller's convience rather than waiting for the Exact moment the LH 737 clears the landing zone to give the "rushed" clearance to take the runway. That Could inprove safety margins and get rid of the "Rushed" communications. What I mean is the radio is quiet while everyone watches an aircraft on final then as he is in the flare the controller is giving the holding aircraft his On the runway clearance,an acknowlegement is received, taxi and turn off instructions are given and a take off clearance is given and acknowleged all within a short time frame. Utlizing the conditional clearance the whole process can be a little less rushed, stessed, and forced. In the end that should provide for better understanding, compliance, and a safer operation. But it does require that the FAA management and the controllers trust the pilots to "know what an airplane looks like", "Not taxi in front of a landing aircraft", and utlize their front row seat to make the proper call as to when the Landing aircraft has cleared the end of the runway. Like Controllers some pilots do make mistakes but can't we all get along on things that make improve all out lives and reduces stressful rush communications like this. In Europe pilots are given credit for a small amount of intelligence and taken care of, in a negetive way, when the don't use it properly. In the US the FAA treats us like small children that are voice activated.
I beleive the FAA doesn't seem to like conditional clearances. They are widely used troughout the world and seem to work well when used properly. Even a private pilot can Taxi onto the runway behind a LH 737. Use of this proceedure has to be more tempered with the different light twins and biz jets that are all similar looking because I can't even tell the difference between a Falcon 10 and a Falcon 20.
Back in the good old day when controllers rode in the cockpits with us on International flights many remarked how usefull this proceedural change would be at the busy US airports. They only had to go to London Heathrow once to learn that it works well.
It is especially usefull when ground has lined everyone up in sequence tower than just gives then in Position when the aircraft (specific aircraft like British AB320) departs. The other useful place is the on to hold behind landing aircraft as discussed above. Both work smoothly as the the pilot and controller are both familiar with the proceeedure...the problem enters when US based pilots (trained by FAA controllers to not move on the runway without being told exactly when to move) go there for the first time... but they figure it out quickly and learn to respond properly.
_________________________________________________________________
I like 'situational awareness' info when cleared to land, or TO but not fot TIPH.
If we want a perfect 100% aviation safety record then we should all stay home and stop flying. People will make mistakes. There is too much talk on the radios now....don't add to it. We must develop and USE procedures that will enhance the operational safety of the total operation, not just one portion of it. The TIPH has served us well in the past. Removing it from the toolbox will certainly negatively impact the operation of many airports like DCA.
A rare controller error is not cause for such a dramatic revamping of a useful tool at busy airports.
Used in ICAO locations: " After Landing ___DC-3___, taxi into position and wait, prepare for immediate, ___B-1RD___ on 6 mile final."
Knee Jerk Reaction to try to fix real problem of too much traffic, a problem that FAA management won't acknowledge and controller's egos won't let them see. Sometimes, there is just too much traffic....
This change can only work and be safe by increasing the staff of controllers in the towers. With out proper staffing, this change will lead to an overloaded/over worked controller which will lead to futher incidents or an accident.
This proposal sets minimum standards for staffing around a local controller who wishes to use TIPH. The support and surrounding positions will mitigate the distractions around the local controller and reduce his/her workload, thus freeing more of his/her attention for the purpose of maintaining his/her situational awareness ("flick").
With the new a/c ground tracking and lighting systems like DFW on the west side, could the rwy threshold lights at the approach end be rigged to switch from green to red when an a/c has taxied into position?
26 Year Captain Check Airman (MD80)at American Airlines. Please, please, please quit trying to make things harder for everyone who is directly involved in moving airplanes around our ATC system. By increasing 'perceived' safety margins a very minute amount you will be increasing delays and pilot frustration and fatigue to a level that will actually detract from overall system safety. Current procedures are adequate, and certainly much better than this proposal. DO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS ILL CONCEIVED AND POORLY THOUGHT OUT PROPOSAL. Thank you for your time in reading this response. It's appreciated.
Rulemaking seems to be an over reaction. What we really need are red stopbars that are activated by the tower at all intersections like we have in Sao Paulo Brazil.
any proposal that increases voice traffic on our already insanely antiquated VHF radio system is BAD. it has gotten hard enough to hear the instruc-tions intended for us without cluttering the transmission with useless info that is presented right there on the TCAS. more radio verbage letting me know that traffic has been cleared to land (or is awaitng take-off) on the parallel is as safety-enhancing as the ATIS admonition to be aware of "bird activity on and around the airport..." (birds? airport? ya think?)
There is already so much unnecessary comm that adding more will increase cockpit distractions, make it more difficult to discern what is important versus what the damned lawyers mandated, and slow down the operation. It is already difficult to communicate given all the required verbal BS that clutters the airways. To the FAA, sit back , relax, breath through your nose, don't touch anything.
It would appear that the proposed changes would increase the amount of radio calls the tower controller has to make. At busy airports, this could slow down the departure process. If there were a manpower shortage at the local facility, limiting supervision, then it appears TIPH procedures would be suspended, also causing delays. I'm wondering whether the increase in safety of limiting TIPH would be offset by more missed calls caused by the increase in tower ATC radio traffic.
TIPH allows not only the controller to have the departing aircraft prepared for immediate departure, but allows the pilot to "step" into position prepared and mentally ready to go. My fear is that along with the delays, there will be more likelyhood of pilots pushed onto the runway and prematurely powering up on the roll with greater sense of urgency to get going. I truly believe this is a step backwards away from safety.
I only want to know what is happening on the runway I am using...everything else is clutter and will create confusion.
In my 20 years of flying commercially with a major, I have not been a part of or witness a need to change this procedure. I don't have my head stuck in the sand, I do know there have been incidents and accidents. But for the most part, the training received in-house and the increase publicity for alertness has had a positive effect. This proposed change will only have a negative effect by increasing delays in an already hostile environment by passengers.
Use the European terminology such as "after the landing aircraft, line up and wait" is more efficient and gives some judgemental control to the pilot who is closer to the situation. Doing away with TIPH is lowering the criteria to the lowest common denominator. Increase the training, set higher standards, not lower them.
Typical knee-jerk. What we need is LESS not MORE comm-jam.
We could increase safety by letting one airplane in the sky at a time too! That will be the next Change! Darn,then the Aircraft Mechanics would have to do 1 hr inspections, instead of 100 hrs inspections, or A, B, or C checks. Safer yet, Lets just stop putting Airplanes up in the Air!!
I have been flying as a pilot since 1973 and have never had a problem with the current system. It works, leave it alone.
TIPH is essential to the most efficent take-off and landing rates at high tempo major hubs. Captain/MD80/American Airlines
You can't use procedures to make up for a lack of controllers. Lets not jeopardize safety to save money. You can't put a price or a percentage on human lives.
Put the FAA back into the hands that know how to operate it safely and smoothly
This is a kneejerk reaction.
Safety gained may be minimal or completely mitigated when compared to saftey lost by the new verbosity required (little brain no like long string of big words). Would rather see a cause and effect solution based on analysis, rather than a knee-jerk removal of an effective tool.
There is already too much extraneous talking on tower frequencies. Clean up the communication channels and this will become a non-issue.
Too many repitive transmissions. Will slow down atc system.
More radio transmissions in a busy environment is hazardous. TIPH allows aircrews to check weather radar, complete final checks, and clearly receive departure instructions in a less busy takeoff clearance. I don't want to be rolling down the runway checking the radar, I'd rather be monitoring engine instruments.
I am a pilot for a major airline and I think tower has to much to say as it is. If anything, there should be less what I call radio info extras, ie "taxi into pos & hold traffic crossing down field". There is only so much you can listen to and the solution is not to require more and more radio responces or info because it just becomes more distracting.
The FAA must start to take into account the efficient movement of aircraft and additional fuel burn requirements in any procedure in the ATC environment.
These added safety measures may very well avert an accident.It may slow ops down at some airports, but thats a worthwhile tradeoff for a safer operation.
More rules do not make for a safer operation. Think of all the rules for 1000' enroute vertical separation and wether it is safer than 2000'. It is hard enough to talk to towers already for landing clearances without more verbiage. It would be worthwhile if European, Canadian and US verbiage were the same for these basic commands-position and hold, etc...
Perhaps better than more verbiage would be the requirement for aircraft cleaered into position to turn on their nosewheele landing light-and if none their taxi lights-and then all landing lights when cleared for takeoff and similarly to display nosewheele lighting when cleared to land. Positive ID for controllers and pilots. Don't see it-ask!
If people do not pay attention while they are working, legislating it will not help. The current procedures work well and pilots/ATC are supposed to verify if unsure. Assuming something from either the pilots or ATC will not work. Current procedures work. Thanks.
The proposal seems to be a reaction to satisfy a need to "do something" to reduce incidents of runway "cohabitation." It is an OVER reaction, or misplaced reaction, which may or may not reduce the incidents. But it will surely increase delays and probably controller workload. As a frequent (pilot) user of the system, and a former controller, I am totally against this amendment.
What problem is being solved by this? It appears to me that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule should apply here. Just more GS 15's in Wasington with too much time on their hands who think they need to justify their jobs. We would all be better off if the FAA reduced is DC staff by 50%. The pencil pushers have not a clue as to the real world.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Congestion at busy airports will certainly increase. This new rule epitomizes a bureaucratic overreaction to a safety issue which while important, is not any more significant than the risks this will introduce. In short, the medicine is worse than the illness!
As a pilot I have no problem with taxiing in position, I understand it helps move aircraft in and out. It helps the money line move faster. Now that I said that, the only part I dislike about taxiing into position and holding is a long wait. I can't see the aircraft behind me and that makes me nervous!! Taking this away from controllers will slow the overloaded system down even more. I fly in the Atlanta area, and let me say these controllers are the best!! I have flown all over the world. With this in mind, there are more planes in the airspace system. So my question is...IS IT THE CONTROLLERS OR LACK OF CONTROLLERS FOR THE INCREASE OF AIRPLANES WITHIN AN AIRSPACE. Example, with the 5th runway at KATL will it reduce the money line, holding, ground delays. The system in place now can only hold so many planes within an area, the system needs work, and I do not think this is the answer.
Please don't use a large mallet to kill an ant. If TIPH has become a problem, try emphasizing its requirements in training (recurrent/seminars, etc). Implementation of these new procedures will result in confusion across the board (ATC/Pilots) and cause undo delays.
clearances involving multiple runways are confusing. ie. in the case of an aircraft on final being advised of TIPH traffic on thee parallel. " Did he say we were cleared to land on 24L or 24R?" Stick to advisories involving only yor runway. The restriction on simultaneous TIPH will have a huge impact on some busy airports such as ORD causing the need for a waiver, so there will be no changes there. Meanwhile smaller airports will be restricted with no need.
I am a retired airline pilot with 50 years experience in civil, military, and commercial aviation. This new procedure is obviously a bureaucratic over reaction to a problem that exists primarily at large airports with specific field layout problems. It is insane to require ALL towered airports to operate under the same restrictions. A procedural solution to a specific problem controlling traffic at LAX will do nothing but inhibit traffic flow at small fields like PRC. The required radio calls will do nothing but confuse student pilots and transient private pilots. It'll even confuse me after 50 years and 22,000 hours logged in everything from Cubs to 767s
From a pilot's perspective, TIPH is a great tool with minimal risk. TIPH gives you a chance to check radar during inclimate weather, complete checklists slowly and methodically, ensure all headings agree with the runway heading, and to ensure essential systems/engine parameters are normal without rushing. The FAA is well known for knee jerk reactions to fairly isolated incidents (in the grand scheme of things). Take a look and see where these problems are occurring on a regular basis. Place restrictions on those airports or on the people who are making the majority of the TIPH errors. The key factor here is safety. When the FAA choses to make a new rule for every "problem" that arrises they force people to think about burocratic policy while doing their job rather than doing the safest job with ALL tools available to them. Simply, the FAA is going to cause MORE problems by implementing policy such as this because they are going to wonder why traffic efficiency has decreased and are going to push for the most efficient utilization of the airspace. To me, this equates to rushing on both the controllers end and the Pilot's end. As a pilot, I don't want to delay the guy behind me from getting home to see his family. To me, these new procedures are going to cause "RUSH JOBS" from the hold short line to the point of aircraft rotation causing MORE problems than you have seen with the current procedures. Let me offer a suggestion to the Feds in Washington. THINK to solve certain incidents instead of totally eliminating effective tools and drawing another burocratic line of red tape that only front-line controllers and pilots are going to have to deal with.