My first (and hopefully last) "possible pilot deviation"

Unless the tower says "line up and wait" or "cleared for take off" do NOT cross the hold short line. It is clear to me that if someone was holding 10' back from the hold short line with other aircraft behind him, the controller merely needed the first aircraft to taxi up to and hold short...but still hold short, to make room. I find it hard to believe that a controller would ever say "hold short on the runway". I'd also add that if someone was awaiting or anticipating an IFR release, then it would be courteous to allow room for VFR guys to taxi past them.
 
I was at KSNA recently and hadn't been to a busy class C in a while. Ground asked me to taxi to "Runup". I didn't realise at the time that the runup area is half way down

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
 
At my airport, if we want a specific run up area other than the one right by the runway, ground will tell us to taxi to the run up area and advise when we're done.
 
Oops.. message got cut off..
After completing run up one needs an additional clearance to the departure runway as there are jets entering and leaving the taxiways. It was an interesting experience..

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
 
I love flying in the NE (you have to imagine the accent): "Hey xxx, pull up - you're next!"
 
Rykymus said:
For everyone's benefit, (and argument) the following has been verified via the audio tapes:

1. My taxi clearance was "Runway 31, taxi via Juliet Zulu, clear for a 180 in the runup."
Click to expand...

This seems confusing, and maybe one of the controllers here can explain it:

1. What if someone was doing a rolling run-up and didn't require the run-up area at all.
2. What does "clear for a 180 in the runup" even mean if you have to park on the T-bar before moving to the hold short line for the runway? Do aircraft actually face away from the runway and try to re-maneuver back to the T-bar?

Been to a lot of Class C and D fields, but there are none like this in the areas I have been ... with the exception of Fullerton which was very easy based on the communication with ground. Ground clearance was to run-up area only and they were specific. Lots of traffic with several old warbirds rolling straight to the runway (marine layer had just lifted and there were at least 10 of us preparing for departure).
 
Palmpilot said:
In 26 years of flying out of PAO, I have NEVER received an instruction to taxi specifically to the runup area. The fact that we locals all do that is because that's what our instructors taught us to do. If there is anything official in print about the procedure, I've never seen it. I think it needs to be put in print somewhere (probably in the A/FD remarks).
Click to expand...

They might as well start. That's what APA did many years ago now, paint the run up areas, taxi instructions ask if you need a run up. If you do, you go there. You don't have a clearance out of it until you ask ground again. Ground will clear you to the runway and tell you to MONITOR Tower. Tower calls and clears you for takeoff.

Much more direct level of control, and it lets them sequence the jets out ahead of folks who are just going down to do their run ups, etc. If they're waiting on an IFR release they can use the run up area like a little penalty box to get the IFR parked and out of the way.
 
KRNO (Reno) has no runup area at all. If you want to do a mag check you have to swing wide near the hold short on the taxiway then pull up to the hold short and make the tower call for a clearance to depart.
 
danhagan said:
This seems confusing, and maybe one of the controllers here can explain it:

1. What if someone was doing a rolling run-up and didn't require the run-up area at all.
Click to expand...

Depending on how many people were in the run-up area or on taxiway Z, he might have to wait for an opportunity to get to the runway. Due to the configuration, going through the run-up area or using taxiway Z are the only ways to get to Runway 31.
2. What does "clear for a 180 in the runup" even mean if you have to park on the T-bar before moving to the hold short line for the runway? Do aircraft actually face away from the runway and try to re-maneuver back to the T-bar?
Click to expand...

The reason for the 180 authorization is that he was instructed to enter the run-up area from taxiway Z, which would have resulted in his facing AWAY from the runway (and away from the T-bars) unless he did something approximating a 180 degree turn.
 
Last edited:
This thread has re-inforced the "do your homework before you go" mindset for me. I fly out of nearby RHV and haven't stopped in KPAO before, no real reason since its so close. Am I the only one reading this, that hasn't been to KPAO before, that thinks this all sounds overly complex? Maybe in practice it isn't as bad as when you see the process written out or discussed?

OP, thanks for sharing!
 
denverpilot said:
They might as well start. That's what APA did many years ago now, paint the run up areas, taxi instructions ask if you need a run up. If you do, you go there. You don't have a clearance out of it until you ask ground again. Ground will clear you to the runway and tell you to MONITOR Tower. Tower calls and clears you for takeoff.

Much more direct level of control, and it lets them sequence the jets out ahead of folks who are just going down to do their run ups, etc. If they're waiting on an IFR release they can use the run up area like a little penalty box to get the IFR parked and out of the way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the way PAO Ground gives the taxi instructions now is ambiguous. Since controllers are no longer allowed to say "taxi to Runway xx," they just say "Runway xx, taxi via [route]" unless there is some special situation requiring more verbiage.

I've never seen a jet operating at Palo Alto, probably because the runway is only 2443 feet long. There are a couple of turboprops based here.
 
NoBShere said:
This thread has re-inforced the "do your homework before you go" mindset for me. I fly out of nearby RHV and haven't stopped in KPAO before, no real reason since its so close. Am I the only one reading this, that hasn't been to KPAO before, that thinks this all sounds overly complex? Maybe in practice it isn't as bad as when you see the process written out or discussed?

OP, thanks for sharing!
Click to expand...
The cramped space and non-standard layout have definitely required some adaptations to standard procedures. I'm not sure that it's complex so much as just different.
 
NoBShere said:
This thread has re-inforced the "do your homework before you go" mindset for me. I fly out of nearby RHV and haven't stopped in KPAO before, no real reason since its so close. Am I the only one reading this, that hasn't been to KPAO before, that thinks this all sounds overly complex? Maybe in practice it isn't as bad as when you see the process written out or discussed?

OP, thanks for sharing!
Click to expand...

No, it's not that different in complexity from Reid, Hayward, and San Carlos. It's much less complex than San Jose.

With Reid, the big gotcha is that you have to stop while blocking Twy Y and contact Ground for the <50 foot taxi out of the movement area. It's a PD to do otherwise, and Reid gets nasty about it.
 
Since the new pavement markings apparently show the run-up area being outside the movement area, I guess that a clearance to taxi to the run-up area is technically no longer required. Normal practice at PAO, however, is to rely on the ground controller for routing instructions regardless of whether the pilot is planning on entering the movement area or not, because the traffic levels and layout often make it necessary for de-confliction.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Since the new pavement markings apparently show the run-up area being outside the movement area, I guess that a clearance to taxi to the run-up area is technically no longer required. Normal practice, however, is to rely on the ground controller for routing instructions even if the pilot is only going to the fuel island, because the traffic levels and layout often make it necessary for de-confliction.
Click to expand...

Depending on how you and other aircraft access the fuel island, you may not be able to get to the run up area without using Z. Guessing from the OP's taxi route, that's what happened to him.
 
Rykymus said:
I post this so that others may learn from my stupidity.

Yeah, I f***d up. Pretty embarrassing. My first time at KPAO. I was departing IFR. After run-up I pulled up to the hold short and reported that I was at hold short for rwy 31 ready for departure.I I was told to hold for IFR release, which I did. I watched a light sport do a touch n go, then come back and do another, and then another.

Now I have two planes waiting behind me, the LS doing another TnG lap, and a Mooney inbound. KPAO is a busy little airport. Tower told me to "pull up and hold short on rwy 31". I read back the exact same words. The rwy has an approach apron, but it's pretty short. That light sport was on short final. I was about 10 ft from the hold short line (which is about how far I usually hold short) and started inching forward. I honestly thought he was telling me to "line up and wait" (yeah, I know, he didn't use those words, hence my mistake) I felt like it wasn't a good idea for me to line up and wait, and because of that, I was inching slowly forward, but I crossed the line by at least half my plane length. The tower urgently told the light sport to go around, (as he was about to cross the fence) and I slammed on the brakes. (Well, 'touched' would be a better word, as I wasn't moving very fast at all.

The light sport went around, and the tower had me taxi down the runway and exit at the first taxiway and contact ground, who gave me a number to call for "possible pilot deviation". I opted to wait until I got home, since the winds were expected to become more turbulent in the afternoon. (It was around 1245 PST) I called them when I got home, and they just took my name. I admitted that I misunderstood his instructions, because I was already at the hold short line, but that it was my fault, which, honestly, it was.

The worst part was that my wife was in the plane with me.

Flame me all you want, I deserve it. In retrospect, I should have just asked the tower to clarify, although he was busy giving instructions to the inbound Mooney at the moment. Still my fault though. Seeing as how I didn't think there was enough room for me to be on the approach end of the runway (that runway is only 2400 ft) I just shouldn't have gone there, regardless of what the controller was doing.

Safety is the PILOT's responsibility, not the controllers. And I should have remembered that.

So, what do you think the FAA has in store for me?
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting. Don't flog yourself over it.
 
NoBShere said:
This thread has re-inforced the "do your homework before you go" mindset for me. I fly out of nearby RHV and haven't stopped in KPAO before, no real reason since its so close. Am I the only one reading this, that hasn't been to KPAO before, that thinks this all sounds overly complex? Maybe in practice it isn't as bad as when you see the process written out or discussed?

OP, thanks for sharing!
Click to expand...

That's my biggest concern. I did my homework, but that didn't provide the information needed. The practices at KPAO seem overly complex, but after reading all these posts, and having been there, I realize that the procedures they use make sense for that airport. Most importantly, it opens my eyes to the procedural diversity that can exist from airport to airport. I'll be more alert for such differences in the future, that's for sure.
 
Good thread and good post by the OP. One good thing about ATC phraseology is that they're _very_ precise about the important stuff. So while normal English might slip in sometimes, you can always count on the key things being phrased the exact way each time. So a good thing to memorize is that there are only four conditions in which you're allowed to be on a runway:
1) Cleared for takeoff runway [x]
2) Cleared to land runway [x]
3) Line up and wait runway [x]
4) Cross runway [x]

If you haven't explicitly heard one of those four things, then it's a good bet you shouldn't be on any runway.
 
Also cleared for the option, touch-and-go, or stop-and-go, although I admit that those are just special cases of #2. In addition, there could be special circumstances in which one would be cleared to taxi ON a runway.
 
Palmpilot said:
Also cleared for the option, touch-and-go, or stop-and-go, although I admit that those are just special cases of #2. In addition, there could be special circumstances in which one would be cleared to taxi ON a runway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should add 5) Taxi/backtaxi on runway [x]
 
Palmpilot said:
Also cleared for the option, touch-and-go, or stop-and-go, although I admit that those are just special cases of #2. In addition, there could be special circumstances in which one would be cleared to taxi ON a runway.
Click to expand...

Re the special circumstances--San Jose gives me back taxi on 30L fairly regularly. Interesting doing that while watching the airliner on final for 30L coming my way. Admittedly, it's never with the jet on short final, and it's never even close to a concern. I appreciate them for doing this, shortens my taxi back to the hangar.
 
jimhorner said:
Re the special circumstances--San Jose gives me back taxi on 30L fairly regularly. Interesting doing that while watching the airliner on final for 30L coming my way. Admittedly, it's never with the jet on short final, and it's never even close to a concern. I appreciate them for doing this, shortens my taxi back to the hangar.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that's because the distance between exits is large relative to the taxi speed of your airplane.
 
Palmpilot said:
Depending on how many people were in the run-up area or on taxiway Z, he might have to wait for an opportunity to get to the runway. Due to the configuration, going through the run-up area or using taxiway Z are the only ways to get to Runway 31.


The reason for the 180 authorization is that he was instructed to enter the run-up area from taxiway Z, which would have resulted in his facing AWAY from the runway (and away from the T-bars) unless he did something approximating a 180 degree turn.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, we don't have anything like this in my area ...
 
FWIW, I think it is perfectly clear what happened here. And thanks again to the OP for kicking off a very useful and interesting thread.

The OP took his taxi clearance to mean what it literally means, and taxi'ed up to the hold short line of runway 31 (maybe a bit further than most pilots would, but close enough). He did not stop in the 31 runup at a T bar as is normal for local pilots. The OP did nothing technically wrong here, just something unexpected by the tower controller.

The tower controller, when Norcal issued an IFR release, did what he or she always does when there is landing traffic - which was to issue a "Taxi up to and hold short of runway 31" clearance to ensure that the released IFR aircraft would be the next departure and be ready to go quickly. My guess is that he or she didn't even bother to look at the runup, since that would normally not be necessary or useful - and moreover the ground controller at PAO (a different person on a busy weekend day) "owns" the aircraft until they are issued one of the three runway related clearances (hold short, lineup and wait, or takeoff).

The OP, not used to the unusual procedures at PAO, misheard or misunderstood the instruction to be "Lineup and wait".

And that was that.

I, for one, would love to hear the eventual outcome with the FAA. And again, I congratulate the OP on his willingness to allow us all to learn from this situation.

Yes, I am based at PAO - and have some large number of takeoffs from there (hundreds, for sure).
 
One thing I don't understand is Golf. Why haven't they split Golf into two taxiways? That would eliminate the non-standard "hangar side" and "terminal side" instructions that are well understood by us locals, but have to be confusing as hell to a transient.
 
arnoha said:
One thing I don't understand is Golf. Why haven't they split Golf into two taxiways? That would eliminate the non-standard "hangar side" and "terminal side" instructions that are well understood by us locals, but have to be confusing as hell to a transient.
Click to expand...
It would be just as confusing. Taxi 31 via G1 G2 would result in wrong way turns on G1.

Transients only use G to go to and from transient parking, which is right between the terminal and the big hangar (Rossi). It's not like popping out of some intermediate row where the terminal is out of sight and the big hangar is directly through the next row.
 
jimhorner said:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1705/09216AD.PDF

7268069c421c62058525edf44bec1473.png
Click to expand...
I just noticed the "BE ALERT TO RUNWAY CROSSING CLEARANCES" note! :rofl:
 
Palmpilot said:
I just noticed the "BE ALERT TO RUNWAY CROSSING CLEARANCES" note! :rofl:
Click to expand...
The ops truck makes runway crossings several times a day. Perhaps that note refers to OTHER runway crossing clearances. As in, there is something unexpected on the runway. Obviously, no aircraft is going to cross that particular runway intentionally.
 
Not trying to resurrect this thread, but I though I'd post a follow up report.

Seven months after the incident, I got a call from a very nice Aviation Safety Inspector from the Juneau Flight Standards District Office. Not being as busy, he apparently inherited a lot of California's cases. I reviewed the incident with him, told him what I did to learn from it after the fact, and how those lessons learned have improved my flying since then. I also told him I filed an ASRS report. He was very nice, and told me that this wouldn't go any further, because it was obvious by my post-incident actions that I had taken the incident seriously and had learned from it. He asked for a short write up about the incident, which I emailed him. (I had written it up the same day back in May, while it was fresh in my mind.)

So, not a big deal. In fact, it was sort of pleasant. He even told me to feel free to contact him if I ever had any questions about flying and the FAA.
 
Rykymus said:
Not trying to resurrect this thread, but I though I'd post a follow up report.

Seven months after the incident, I got a call from a very nice Aviation Safety Inspector from the Juneau Flight Standards District Office. Not being as busy, he apparently inherited a lot of California's cases. I reviewed the incident with him, told him what I did to learn from it after the fact, and how those lessons learned have improved my flying since then. I also told him I filed an ASRS report. He was very nice, and told me that this wouldn't go any further, because it was obvious by my post-incident actions that I had taken the incident seriously and had learned from it. He asked for a short write up about the incident, which I emailed him. (I had written it up the same day back in May, while it was fresh in my mind.)

So, not a big deal. In fact, it was sort of pleasant. He even told me to feel free to contact him if I ever had any questions about flying and the FAA.
Click to expand...
Good to hear a positive outcome for you and from the FAA.
 
Glad that worked out for you. I don't think the FAA is out there to serve a punitive role.. it's a safety thing (maybe I'm naive) but it seems that your experience helps prove the point.. safe flying!
 
The FAA folks in Alaska can be more laid back than the rest of the system at times.
 
If this is the new kinder and gentler FAA, I like it. No more big bad wolf.
Glad that they saw your effort to improve and accepted it as the only consequence to the issue.

Btw, "keep holding short" works oh so much better from the controller, it is much clearer. :thumbsup:
 
Rykymus said:
Not trying to resurrect this thread, but I though I'd post a follow up report.

Seven months after the incident, I got a call from a very nice Aviation Safety Inspector from the Juneau Flight Standards District Office. Not being as busy, he apparently inherited a lot of California's cases. I reviewed the incident with him, told him what I did to learn from it after the fact, and how those lessons learned have improved my flying since then. I also told him I filed an ASRS report. He was very nice, and told me that this wouldn't go any further, because it was obvious by my post-incident actions that I had taken the incident seriously and had learned from it. He asked for a short write up about the incident, which I emailed him. (I had written it up the same day back in May, while it was fresh in my mind.)
Click to expand...
Other than the much longer delay to address your case, I think mine was rather similar.

It took about 3wks for them to call me. When he called he indicated he'd be willing to meet at the office or offsite, whatever is easier. I decided to meet at the FSDO to learn where it is, what its like, etc. I swear he said: "We are now about compliance, not punishment" at least 10 times in 60 minutes. He had listened to the tapes and caught one thing I had missed. The first part of the interview was filling in answers for a database. After that he had me describe the event. Asked me if I knew what I did wrong and when I realized it. I told him that I contacted the tower within minutes and my CFI within the hour. I also told him what we decided to change, etc.

I knew I alone ff'd up so I made sure that I was not trying to blame or screw over the controller (that's their day job, flying is just a hobby for me). Plus the controller working that day is one of two favorites there, now that I think of it - pretty awesome it was on his watch.

Only difference is that they needed to see all aircraft logs to close out the case. Hmmm. Since our plane was in annual, it took me a extra week and another trip. I think they wanted to meet at the plane...but I really preferred meeting back at the office. Since I am a student the A&P ASI looked over the logs good and caught a few things but I think he knows our A&P's FBO is pretty darned good. He basically gave me some info to pass on to them for the next annual. And he schooled me on not knowing how old the propeller is! I figured it was a mechanic thing...oh, no the owner must know that. So that was my homework that night. He was really cool about it. You should see his aircraft logs for his restoration project...wow!

Rykymus said:
So, not a big deal. In fact, it was sort of pleasant. He even told me to feel free to contact him if I ever had any questions about flying and the FAA.
Click to expand...
Ditto...exactly!

However, mine had one closing request. When he heard I am flying a 182 he must have been doing some strategic thinking. He wondered if it would be okay if he sat in on my check ride. Not to evaluate me but to evaluate the DPE. I am pretty sure he sensed how nervous that made me. Maybe if it was a more advanced check ride, but I have never had any check ride. Pretty sure the 182 would have given him comfort and ample W&B for 3 of us + fuel + bags + tooling around for who knows how long. Actually, I feel pretty good at this flying thing now. And in a way, that would be cool PPL check ride story to tell. But I know with that added pressure and the DPE having no wiggle room I'd probably fail.
 
Outcome is what was expected. I had similar experience and I got a warning letter after conversation with a nice lady. Now if you have hired a lawyer and tried to fight back the out come would have been different
 
Sinistar said:
However, mine had one closing request. When he heard I am flying a 182 he must have been doing some strategic thinking. He wondered if it would be okay if he sat in on my check ride. Not to evaluate me but to evaluate the DPE. I am pretty sure he sensed how nervous that made me. .
Click to expand...

You could always switch to a C152 for the check ride! :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top