Confused about taxie terms.

Velocity173 said:
You should never do an intersection departure. Like the runway behind you...
Click to expand...

I agree. Two weeks ago on our long 7200' runway, a piston single rotated, got to about 300' and the engine quit. Lucky for him he still had runway in front of him to bring it back down safely.

That pretty much has me declining any intersection takeoffs from here on out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
midlifeflyer said:
Same here. Many times. At airports with l-o-n-g runways, we little pistons will often be asked if we want to sneak out ahead of the pack.

(Uh-oh! We may have started another war on the evils of intersection departures with only 7,000' of runway ahead of you!)
Click to expand...
Also same with me at KDTO when the Aisian kids from the flight academy have created a major jam in the run up area. The controllers know us well and that we can expedite if we are ready to go.
 
luvflyin said:
Nice thing about "line up and wait" over "taxi into position and hold" is you dont have to come to a full stop on the runway.
Click to expand...
Just depends how the sequence is. If they clear a Citation for the roll and then issue you the "line up and wait" clearance you'll still have to come to a complete stop until they give the green light. OTOH, if you're approaching the HS line and traffic is rolling downfield about to rotate they might issue a "line up and wait" briefly followed by "cleared for takeoff."
 
Ryanb said:
Just depends how the sequence is. If they clear a Citation for the roll and then issue you the "line up and wait" clearance you'll still have to come to a complete stop until they give the green light. OTOH, if you're approaching the HS line and traffic is rolling downfield about to rotate they might issue a "line up and wait" briefly followed by "cleared for takeoff."
Click to expand...
Yeah. If the hold is for traffic departing ahead of you, you may not want to do it. Where it can make a difference is when its for traffic that just landed and you're waitin on it to exit the runway. Things have to pass "the logic check"
 
If you are cleared for takeoff, are you required to reply, or can you just take off?
 
coloradobluesky said:
If you are cleared for takeoff, are you required to reply, or can you just take off?
Click to expand...

The controller is required to get the acknowledgement of all clearances and instructions with your ID. Whether or not you want to read back the runway or not is up to you but you SHOULD readback the runway number.
 
How can the controller be required to get acknowledgement?
And isn't taking off acknowledgement?
I know pilots usually readback takeoff clearances, but when things get really busy, the freq can get busy. Ive seen pilots just take off. That does the trick. And it leaves the freq less congested. In this case, taking off is visible and obvious to the controller. Anyway, Ive seen things being done this way. Not ALL instructions require readback. Im pretty sure that a turn to base instruction at a Class D airport does NOT require a readback, for instance.
 
coloradobluesky said:
How can the controller be required to get acknowledgement?
And isn't taking off acknowledgement?
I know pilots usually readback takeoff clearances, but when things get really busy, the freq can get busy. Ive seen pilots just take off. That does the trick. And it leaves the freq less congested. In this case, taking off is visible and obvious to the controller. Anyway, Ive seen things being done this way. Not ALL instructions require readback. Im pretty sure that a turn to base instruction at a Class D airport does NOT require a readback, for instance.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be snarky but have you ever received a line up and wait clearance followed by a takeoff clearance? You read back line up and wait runway XX then cleared for takeoff XX. No radio congestion other than the norm.
 
Not trying to be snarky, that means you are trying to be snarky right? :-)

Yes. The question is, is the pilot required to readback the takeoff clearance or can he just takeoff?
 
coloradobluesky said:
Not trying to be snarky, that means you are trying to be snarky right? :)

Yes. The question is, is the pilot required to readback the takeoff clearance or can he just takeoff?
Click to expand...
No because it's impossible to tell tone from typing. The pilot is required to read back the takeoff clearance just like any other clearance. If you start the roll and don't read it back, you're going to run into problems.
 
coloradobluesky said:
How can the controller be required to get acknowledgement?
And isn't taking off acknowledgement?
I know pilots usually readback takeoff clearances, but when things get really busy, the freq can get busy. Ive seen pilots just take off. That does the trick. And it leaves the freq less congested. In this case, taking off is visible and obvious to the controller. Anyway, Ive seen things being done this way. Not ALL instructions require readback. Im pretty sure that a turn to base instruction at a Class D airport does NOT require a readback, for instance.
Click to expand...

Acknowledgement and read back are two different things. ATC is only required a read back on hold short instructions and LAHSO.

They are required to get acknowledgement of all instructions and clearances. This acknowledgement can be "wilco," "Roger," "affirmative," or other words phrases with your aircraft ID. (AIM)

Now, whether or not a controller will accept an action as an acknowledgment would differ on the individual. Personally, I've given many instructions that weren't acknowledged because of how busy I was but I also monitored the pilot's actions closely. I believe the intent in the controller's manual is to obtain a verbal acknowledgement. To wait on a pilot action, in hopes they will comply with a clearance or instruction, is bad business in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Impossible to tell tone from typing? Written words can certainly carry hidden meaning, sarcasm etc.

We used to joke, when George W Bush said invading Afghanastan was "Not Nation building" and how that actually meant "It's Nation building"

Sort of like when you tell your wife "I'm NOT going to rebuild that expensive engine on my airplane" she somehow knows "uh oh, an engine rebuild is coming up".
 
How about a "double click"?
Anyway, in this instance, a Class D, there were 5 planes waiting to takeoff. And the tower had numerous planes in the pattern. Tower was smack in front of the takeoff end of the runway with an obvious clear view. Tower said go, we went. Kept the freq clear for calling turns to base and so forth for the planes in the pattern. And I mean this place was BUSY! (KSMO)
 
If you think about it, just taking off is pretty solid acknowlegment.
 
luvflyin said:
There are some restrictions requiring an extra set of eyeballs between sunset and sunrise
Click to expand...

You got a .65 reference? I don't know of any restrictions on a controller working alone in a tower issuing line up and wait instructions at night.

You are possibly referring to .65 paragraph 3-9-4 (i) which states: "Do not authorize aircraft to simultaneously line up and wait on the same runway, between sunrise and sunset, unless the local assist/local monitor position is staffed."

It also states previously in paragraph 3-9-4 g. 4. still under the sunset to sunrise rule: "Only one aircraft at a time is permitted to line up and wait on the same runway."

This would imply that you would authorize an aircraft at an intersection and another at full length at the same time. LUAW at an intersection at night isn't authorized anyway. Am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Acknowledgement and read back are two different things. ATC is only required a read back on hold short instructions and LAHSO operations.

They are required to get acknowledgement of all instructions and clearances. This acknowledgement can be "wilco," "Roger," "affirmative," or other words phrases with your tail number. (AIM)

Now, whether or not a controller will accept an action as an acknowledgment would differ on the individual. Personally, I've given many instructions that weren't acknowledged because of how busy I was but I also monitored the pilot's actions closely. I believe the intent in the controller's manual is to obtain a verbal acknowledgement. To wait on a pilot action, in hopes they will comply with a clearance or instruction, is bad business in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I thought it was an interesting question, and this is a perfect answer.
 
coloradobluesky said:
How can the controller be required to get acknowledgement?
And isn't taking off acknowledgement?
I know pilots usually readback takeoff clearances, but when things get really busy, the freq can get busy. Ive seen pilots just take off. That does the trick. And it leaves the freq less congested. In this case, taking off is visible and obvious to the controller. Anyway, Ive seen things being done this way. Not ALL instructions require readback. Im pretty sure that a turn to base instruction at a Class D airport does NOT require a readback, for instance.
Click to expand...
If you're not going to read back an instruction to turn base, it's going to be difficult for the controller to ascertain what you're doing. Typically this instruction follows a previous instruction to extend downwind, which can take you outside the visual range of the control tower. Your position and base turn can be verified by looking at a tower radar display, but that takes controllers' eyes off the airport environment, which is not ideal. Remembering that the controller can only confirm your immediate understanding of an instruction via a readback, you might also cause the controller to have to coordinate with another facility if he or she thinks your downwind extension is going to encroach on their airspace.

Failing to read back a takeoff clearance is a bigger problem especially at busy airports. There's usually a few seconds worth of delay between the time an aircraft acknowledges a takeoff clearance and the time it begins departing. If you fail to respond, you're creating a lot of confusion. For example, if the tower was trying to get you to depart in front of arriving traffic, he or she now has a problem wondering what to do with that arriving traffic -- even if your delay in starting your takeoff roll amounts to just a few seconds.

In most cases, the arrival will be told to go around. When the controller issues a takeoff clearance that is not read back, it creates a situation sometimes referred to as an "open clearance," where the pilot still technically has permission to enter the runway. That makes the runway unusable until they find a way to cancel the clearance. (If they tell you "Cancel takeoff clearance" and you don't read back, then they assume you haven't heard it. They can't do that for takeoff clearances.)

While some posters are correct in that the AIM says "ATC is only required a read back on hold short instructions and LAHSO operations," the real world answer is that you'll be hard pressed to find any FAA controller who will accept "Roger" in response to a taxi instruction; runway assignment during a landing or takeoff clearance; instruction to maintain visual separation from other traffic; altitude assignment; go around instruction; "follow" instruction in the pattern; and dozens of other types of instructions.

In the interest of promoting the best practical application of radio communication, it would be best to say that ATC requires a readback of all instructions that include the aircraft's callsign.
 
Timbeck2 said:
You got a .65 reference? I don't know of any restrictions on a controller working alone in a tower issuing line up and wait instructions at night.

You are possibly referring to .65 paragraph 3-9-4 (i) which states: "Do not authorize aircraft to simultaneously line up and wait on the same runway, between sunrise and sunset, unless the local assist/local monitor position is staffed."

It also states previously in paragraph 3-9-4 g. 4. still under the sunset to sunrise rule: "Only one aircraft at a time is permitted to line up and wait on the same runway."

This would imply that you would authorize an aircraft at an intersection and another at full length at the same time. LUAW at an intersection at night isn't authorized anyway. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
That was the paragraph that led me to say "There are some restrictions requiring an extra set of eyeballs between sunset and sunrise." The use of LUAW is pretty tightly controlled though. Some facilities using it, some not, some needing extra sets of eyballs and some not is consistant with regulation. This is what Facility Operations and Administration, 7210.3Y had to say about it in 2014.


10−3−8. LINE UP AND WAIT (LUAW)

OPERATIONS

a. The ATM must:

1. Determine an operational need exists before

conducting LUAW operations.

2. Before authorizing LUAW operations, conduct

a review of the impact that airport configuration

and local conditions may have on the application of

LUAW procedures.

3. Prepare a facility directive. The directive

must prescribe items (a) through (d). Items (e)

through (i) must be included if applicable.

(a) Local procedures for conducting these

operations.

(b) Methods to assist the local controller in

maintaining awareness of aircraft positions on the

airport, for example, annotating flight progress strips

or marking the location of aircraft with color−coded

chips on a magnetic diagram of the airport.

REFERENCE−

FAAO JO 7210.3, Para 10−1−7, Use of Active Runways.

(c) The consolidation and staffing of

positions.

(d) The requirements necessary for issuing a

landing clearance with an aircraft holding in position.

(1) The safety logic system must be

operated in full core alert runway configuration.

(2) The reported weather must be ceiling of

800 feet or more.

(3) The reported visibility must be 2 miles

or more.

REFERENCE−

FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3−9−4, Line Up and Wait (LUAW), subpara c1

FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3−10−5, Landing Clearance, subpara b

(e) Runway geometry, for example, the

physical configuration of runways and other airport

movement areas.

(f) Weather conditions, time of day, for

example, prevailing light conditions.

REFERENCE−

FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3−9−4, Line Up and Wait (LUAW), subpara c1

and g.

(g) Fleet mix.

REFERENCE−

FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3−9−6, Same Runway Separation.

FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3−9−7, Wake Turbulence Separation for

Intersection Departures.

FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3−9−8, Intersecting Runway Separation.

(h) Traffic volume; complexity restrictions.

(i) Obstructions or limitations to visibility

from controller−to−aircraft and aircraft−to−aircraft

perspectives.

4. Local control position must not be

consolidated/combined with any other non−local

control position. For example, local control must not

be consolidated/combined with the front−line

manager/controller−in−charge (CIC) position,

clearance delivery, flight data, ground control, cab

coordinator, etc. Local control can be combined with

other local control positions to include tower

associate (local assist) or local monitor position.

When a Class B/helicopter position with defined

control tower airspace is established, this position

can be combined with local control.

5. The tower associate (local assist) position or

a local monitor position must be staffed to permit

more than one aircraft at a time to LUAW on the same

runway between sunrise and sunset.

6. The front−line manager/CIC position should

not be combined with any other position.

7. Ensure front−line managers/CICs review

para 2−6−1a, Watch Supervision, with an emphasis

on maintaining situational awareness and management

of the operational environment with a goal

toward eliminating distractions.

8. Do not authorize LUAW operations at an

intersection between sunset and sunrise unless the

following is implemented:

(a) The runway is used as a departure−only

runway.

(b) Only one aircraft at a time is permitted to

LUAW on the same runway.

(c) Document on FAA Form 7230−4, Daily

Record of Facility Operation, the following: “LUAW

at INT of RWY (number) and TWY (name) IN

EFFECT” when using runway as a departure−only

runway. “LUAW at INT of RWY (number) and TWY

(name) SUSPENDED” when the runway is not used

as a departure−only runway.

(d) At least 90 days before planned implementation,

ATMs must submit the local directive

outlining this operation for Terminal Operations and

Terminal Safety and Operations Support approval.

Terminal Operations and Terminal Safety and

Operations Support directors must be notified of any

proposed operational changes (for example, a change

to the runway or taxiway for conducting LUAW

operations).

b. ATMs must submit operational need for LUAW

and a facility directive to the appropriate Director,

Terminal Operations (service area office) for

approval. ATMs must maintain a copy of the approval

correspondence from Terminal Operations.

c. The Director, Terminal Operations, must ensure

an annual review of LUAW operations is conducted

for those facilities employing LUAW. The results of

this review must be sent to the Terminal Safety and

Operations Support office by September.
 
arnoha said:
EDIT: Oh, also, I've been told by my CFI (thought I should verify it) that the proper phraseology changes to "<tower>, <tail> ready at <runway> in sequence" if you're not clearly in line for the hold short bar.
Click to expand...
Ask the CFI for the reference for that phraseology in the AIM.
 
jordane93 said:
A double click doesn't mean anything. The controller doesn't know who double clicked the mic.
Click to expand...

Ha! I beg to differ! It does at a fighter base. Clear a fighter to land, LA, T&G, whatever, and they'll just double click ya, and we knew that he/she was acknowledging the clearance. Fact.

(see that V, didn't even mention "when I was a___")
 
mscard88 said:
Ha! I beg to differ! It does at a fighter base. Clear a fighter to land, LA, T&G, whatever, and they'll just double click ya, and we knew that he/she was acknowledging the clearance. Fact.

(see that V, didn't even mention "when I was a___")
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Double click is only done with AF fighters. So in essence, you just said "when I was a...":D

Speaking of readbacks and fighters. I've brought it up before but when I was at Miramar we were having all the F-18s read back their departure clearance on CD. They started complaining to our facility officer that they were being required to do a full readback. Facility officer came in the radar room one day and told us to stop requiring a readback. Altitude (at that time) was the only thing required. So, from then on, we stuck to the minimum. Personally didn't agree with it because as a controller, you can always use the excuse of mutual verification in readbacks.
 
mscard88 said:
Ha! I beg to differ! It does at a fighter base. Clear a fighter to land, LA, T&G, whatever, and they'll just double click ya, and we knew that he/she was acknowledging the clearance. Fact.

(see that V, didn't even mention "when I was a___")
Click to expand...
I think I remember seeing somewhere that the double mic click originated in the military. If you are talking to 20 other planes, you issue a clearance and someone comes back with a double mic click, will you really know who did it?
 
jordane93 said:
I think I remember seeing somewhere that the double mic click originated in the military. If you are talking to 20 other planes, you issue a clearance and someone comes back with a double mic click, will you really know who did it?
Click to expand...

Yup. Fighter guys are pretty sharp pilots ya know. This was usually an obvious response to/from the controller. Never had a problem with it.
 
jordane93 said:
I think I remember seeing somewhere that the double mic click originated in the military. If you are talking to 20 other planes, you issue a clearance and someone comes back with a double mic click, will you really know who did it?
Click to expand...

I'd say most only do the double click just for a routine reply and not an instruction or clearance. Say a wind check or altimeter setting. Double click isn't bad. Got a lot of double clicks at the end of a GCA as well. "Bat11, contact tower after landing, good day."
"Click click."

Really with the acknowledgment /readback stuff, it all depends on how liberal the controller is with their pink card. Some controllers do the minimum within the rules while others go above and beyond because they don't want to chance an incident that results in suspension. Not everything is black and white and what might be common for one facility, won't be at another. As with most ATC questions on here, "depends" is almost always the correct answer. :)
 
Last edited:
arnoha said:
That would have been six years ago now. I guess I could go dig up his number...
Click to expand...
Have you compared what he recommended to the guidance in the AIM? It sounds more like his technique than a new standard to me.
 
Velocity173 said:
I'd say most only do the double click just for a routine reply and not an instruction or clearance. Say a wind check or altimeter setting. Double click isn't bad. Got a lot of double clicks at the end of a GCA as well. "Bat11, contact tower after landing, good day."
"Click click."

Really with the acknowledgment /readback stuff, it all depends on how liberal the controller is with their pink card. Some controllers do the minimum within the rules while others go above and beyond because they don't want to chance an incident that results in suspension. Not everything is black and white and what might be common for one facility, won't be at another. As with most ATC questions on here, "depends" is almost always the correct answer. :)
Click to expand...
"Depends" come in handy when yer going down the shi**ter like ol' Tex Ritter
 
Larry in TN said:
Have you compared what he recommended to the guidance in the AIM? It sounds more like his technique than a new standard to me.
Click to expand...

I need to look, as I noted in the first message. Just haven't had time.

I'll note that it's the common practice around here. It's definitely not just his technique. It's at least local practice, but I need to look it up in the AIM.

EDIT: Haven't found the AIM, but we've discussed this before: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/ready-in-sequence.79015/
 
Last edited:
You guys! This is almost as entertaining as Tom vs Glenn threads!

popcorn image.png
 
arnoha said:
I get it. You don't like my CFI.
Click to expand...
I don't like the very common habit of pilots who do things "just because" without ever knowing why. Following "tribal knowledge" passed down from pilot-generation to pilot-generation without anyone knowing (or asking) why or from where it originated.

CFIs are the pilots who can best do something to about it by teaching from the source (AIM, FAR, P/CG, PHAK, AFH, etc.) and teaching to use those sources.

You see it all the time in these threads. Questions are answered with "what I do" or "what we do at XXX airport" instead of with what the AIM, or other official source, recommends. I'm trying to steer the conversation back in that direction.
 
You can thank the French and ICAO.

"Line up and wait".

Tex
 
Larry in TN said:
I don't like the very common habit of pilots who do things "just because" without ever knowing why. Following "tribal knowledge" passed down from pilot-generation to pilot-generation without anyone knowing (or asking) why or from where it originated.

CFIs are the pilots who can best do something to about it by teaching from the source (AIM, FAR, P/CG, PHAK, AFH, etc.) and teaching to use those sources.

You see it all the time in these threads. Questions are answered with "what I do" or "what we do at XXX airport" instead of with what the AIM, or other official source, recommends. I'm trying to steer the conversation back in that direction.
Click to expand...

Is the AIM regulatory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top