New hold short instructions at Addison

[Dave Siciliano]

I would like to get thoughts on this new policy at Addison. In an effort to prevent runway incursions, two new policies are being implemented. One is no plane will be allow to taxi across the runway (we only have one) in the middle of the field. If one is in the middle and needs to get to the other side, they would have to taxi to the last taxiway on one end; cross and come back up the other side instead of crossing in the middle. There are taxiways on each side on the south end of the field. Folks with hanger on the west side, now must taxi to the south end to cross over to taxi up the other side is the active is south.

The second policy involves new "hold short" instructions which are stated below: Hold short--do not move! 'Do not cross the hold lines' in some cases. So where is this new phraseology in the controllers handbook?

The news letter except from the tower chief is below. Notice how he states he thinks some pilots will think they are being treated as if they are stupid with these new instructions--he seems very perceptive in that observation.

Best,

Dave






There are two scenarios that have resulted in all but one of the Runway Incursions. First,
the pilot ahs taxied to the runway, held short of the hold lines, completed the engine runups
and checklists, and calls ready for take off. The controller instructs the pilot to hold
short and the pilot reads back the instruction correctly. The pilot then crosses the line
without clearance. We will call this the “at the line scenario”. Second, the pilot is taxiing
to the runway, calls the tower “ready for takeoff’, is instructed to hold short, correctly
reads back the hold short instruction, then crosses the line without clearance. We will call
this the “taxiing scenario”.
The new phraseology that we will utilize is simple and very clear. We think it will remind
the pilot that they should not cross the lines, and is in no way confusable with “taxi into
position and hold”.
ADDISON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
NEWSLETTER
February 2010 Supplement
The “at the line scenario” phraseology will be:
(Aircraft call sign) hold short Runway (number). (Reason for holding short, if not
obvious). Do not move.
Example –
Cessna Four Five Six, hold short Runway One Five. Awaiting I-F-R release. Do
not move.
The “taxiing scenario” phraseology will be:
(Aircraft call sign) hold short Runway (number). (Reason for holding short, if not
obvious). Do not cross the hold lines.
Example –
Cessna Four Five Six, hold short Runway One Five. Awaiting I-F-R release. Do
not cross the hold lines.
I realize that when we utilize this phraseology it may appear that we think all pilots are
not very smart and that we are treating you all like children. This is not the case. I know
that almost all of you have never committed a pilot deviation or runway incursion. It is
our hope that this phraseology will “flip the switch” on a pilot that is not paying enough
attention to what is happening or is unfamiliar with the location of the lines. The addition
of “do not move” or “do not cross the hold lines” is very simple, and not usually heard on
frequency. This should make the pilot realize that it is serious to cross the lines and
prevent a possible serious accident.
As I stated in the newsletter earlier this week, we are attempting to get lighting at each
taxiway that will assist us in our efforts to mitigate the runway incursion problem. If, and
when we do get the lighting, we will go back to standard phraseology and hopefully not
have to discuss the problem again.

 

[jesse]

I'm not sure you can make something safer that is already very clear simply by adding more words. Humans will make mistakes. Adding more words to very clear words won't reduce anything IMO.

Having to taxi all over the place simply to cross the runway probably won't help. The more the aircraft has to taxi around the airport, the more distance they cover, which creates more chances for incidents.

I'm no human errors expert though....

 

[weilke]

Mh, I guess switching to the ICAO 'line up and wait' instead of 'position and hold' is not so crazy after all.


Do they have pedestrian crossings in Addison that say:

WALK
DON'T WALK , no really, don't move your feet. stand there

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I would like to review all past runway incursions to see how they occured in order to ID a cause, before deciding if this (absurd) move is the correct response to the problem.

 

[Matthew]

I think an open house with coffe and donuts and the tower controllers reminding pilots what "HOLD SHORT" means would be more fun.

What happens when, after all that, there is an incursion anyway?

Have there been an increase in incidents?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I think an open house with coffe and donuts and the tower controllers reminding pilots what "HOLD SHORT" means would be more fun.

What happens when, after all that, there is an incursion anyway?

Have there been an increase in incidents?

Here are the figures according to them.

Best,

Dave
======================================
In the year prior to utilizing the “additional phraseology, we encountered 18 runway
incidents. In the year since the implementation of the phraseology, we have encountered
15 incidents. The jury is in, and the phraseology was ineffective. We now have to go to
“Plan B”.

 

[weilke]

“Plan B”.

What is 'Plan B'

- every third runway intruder will be shot ?
- retractable bollards at the hold-short lines ?


Isn't Addison the place where the cops tackled the hearing impaired guy taking pictures of the B25 ? Hope they don't count that as intrusion as well.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

It sure sounds like a punishment for past errors, rather than an honest effort to make things work using established techniques.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think if FAA HQ finds out they are deliberately deviating from FAA Order 7110.65, they will be barbecued.

 

[fgcason]

I guess I've just been brainwashed by ATC standards of when they say something they mean it for 40+ years now.
Standards make more sense than altering things. People tend to ignore more stuff or get confused when you start adding more redundant words.

I'm quite sure I would tie up ground or tower with a long drawn out discussion if I go into some unknown airport and they give me taxi instructions then say do not move. If I am already moving and getting progressive taxi and they say do not move, I'll stomp the brakes right then. I have this image of the classic childrens game called red light green light being played out on the taxiway.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Beyond "why do they feel the need to modify standard phraseology" in the first place, I can't understand why they feel they need a different "add-on" for aircraft taxiing vs. in the run-up area. The taxiing add-on of "do not cross the hold short lines" is very clear, and using that one add-on in either situation would be sufficient.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

The don't move is nutso to me! I have to move my mouth to answer.
Sometimes there's nothing better than a fella that pays attention to little things and comes up with a creative manner to do things better. This fella is very trying in more than one way!

Best,

Dave

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Here you go, Dave. Email the newsletter to the FSDO. See what they think.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ftw/contact/

I admire the guy's motives, but there's a reason standard phraseology is STANDARD. You start introducing "OTHER" phraseology, and it can actually cause problems. Multiple studies have proven that.

If they have pilots not honoring a standard "hold short" after reading it back, those pilots need re-education, not new phrases.

 

[wsuffa]

It'll really catch folks that ain't from there off-guard because they'll be expecting standard procedure. The standards exist for a reason.

What's the incursion rate as a percentage of operations? And how does it compare to other busy fields?

 

[fgcason]

Beyond "why do they feel the need to modify standard phraseology" in the first place, I can't understand why they feel they need a different "add-on" for aircraft taxiing vs. in the run-up area. The taxiing add-on of "do not cross the hold short lines" is very clear, and using that one add-on in either situation would be sufficient.

"Hold short runway xx" without all the excess words means the same exact thing. I'm under the impression that "hold short" has never meant "ok to blunder across the hold lines painted on the ground."

IMHO, they're making it harder than it actually is. This is aviation, so anyone flying needs to learn aviation terminology and it's definitions and apply it properly. Lawyer speak or lots of words is likely just going to cause problems.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Reminds me of a time I was sitting in a room while a utility conference at a big city was ending (before a new group I was a part of was to use the room).

On the board in front was: Payment over due.
Shortly afterward was: First late notice.
Then: Second late notice.
Then: Final late notice.
Then: Second final late notice.
And, you get it.

Best,

DAve

 

[Matthew]

I'm kind of curious now - my airport is a class D, busier than some, less busy than others. I wonder how many incursions we've had, and how many as a percentage of operations? How do you get those numbers? I'd be interested in comparing my airport to others.

--

We have two parallel taxiways, and runway 18/36. Only one taxiway goes full length, and we have hangars and FBOs pretty much at every intersection so having to cross at any number of intersections is pretty much routine. Crossing the runway, holding short, remembering that "TAXI TO" does NOT clear you to cross the runway you are taxiing to, and remembering that "HOLD SHORT" means what it says is all part of being a pilot.

I still think that coffee and donuts and a reminder from the controllers will help more than a controller saying "You! Yeah, you in N1234! I'm watching you! I said hold short, remember, and this time I MEAN it!"

But that's just me.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

"Hold short runway xx" without all the excess words means the same exact thing. I'm under the impression that "hold short" has never meant "ok to blunder across the hold lines painted on the ground."

IMHO, they're making it harder than it actually is. This is aviation, so anyone flying needs to learn aviation terminology and it's definitions and apply it properly. Lawyer speak or lots of words is likely just going to cause problems.

I agree 100% Frank. All I'm saying is adding on TWO more variations is unnecessary (as is adding on one, for that matter)... but IF they insist on adding something, adding the "taxiing" variation should be sufficient.

Like Dave said, the "DON'T MOVE!!" is just plain stupid.

 

[fgcason]

I agree 100% Frank. All I'm saying is adding on TWO more variations is unnecessary (as is adding on one, for that matter)... but IF they insist on adding something, adding the "taxiing" variation should be sufficient.

I'm not arguing with you at all. We're in agreement.

That whole concept of insisting on adding something at all is silly and unnecessary. The meaning has been established for over 50 years now and all of a sudden people are having problems with it so they start searching for crazy solutions instead of going back to basic aviation language and comprehension skills.

Like Dave said, the "DON'T MOVE!!" is just plain stupid.

No kidding. It almost makes you want to be mischievous and plug up their taxiway for a while to make the point...

 

[TangoWhiskey]

No kidding. It almost makes you want to be mischievous and plug up their taxiway for a while to make the point...

LOL. I love it. Get to the hold short line, they say "DON'T MOVE!!!". Squawk 7600 and sit there for a LOooooooong time.

 

[SCCutler]

Most of the incursions at ADS have been by tugs, not by aircraft.

Also, the whole "get together and discuss what's going on at the airport" idea worked well with the prior tower chief, perhaps now, not so well.

---

I had not heard that they were going to reinstate the no-crossing limitation; that needs to be sternly opposed. For west-siders (like you, Dave), this is a huge imposition.

 

[rottydaddy]

I think an open house with coffe and donuts and the tower controllers reminding pilots what "HOLD SHORT" means would be more fun.

A good idea... and even better, encouraging pilots to visit the cab, to see the "big picture" from the POV of those who are expected to control it.

What happens when, after all that, there is an incursion anyway?

A good question! I wonder what people thought after the old procedures were introduced, and yet pilots still kept doing dumb things.
It must be maddening for the controllers to have to add to the jargon jumble when it's always been damn clear to the vast majority of pilots that "hold short" has a different meaning from "position and hold". They must wonder how a pilot's certificate-holder could be so dense.

Until there is a physical barrier at the hold-short line, it will keep happening, IMHO. Maybe the added "Now, remember, hold short means don't actually cross the line, 'mkay?" will actually prevent an incursion someday, but the new phraseology will also become an excuse for more brain-farts in many cases.

 

[weilke]

If I heard 'don't move' as an instruction, I would probably stop in place awaiting further instruction.

I have heard 'all aircraft stop and remain clear of runways' once before. A student pilot had taken a wrong turn, wasn't talking to ground and started wandering back towards the main runway.

 

[wabower]

ADS has had some strange ATIS instructions for quite a while, like "pilots must respond to hold-short instructions using cal sign" and others that seemed a bit different from other places. I haven't paid much attention since they have proved to be such pricks over the years that nothing they do or say at this point comes as any real surprise.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

"Don't move"?
Do you put your hands up, when hearing that command?
Maybe they should just make it, "Freeze, buster!".

 

[rpadula]

"Don't move"?
Do you put your hands up, when hearing that command?
Maybe they should just make it, "Freeze, buster!".

Maybe they should preface all taxi commands with "Simon Says!"

 

[AuntPeggy]

Maybe they should preface all taxi commands with "Simon Says!"

Best idea yet.

 

[weilke]

Maybe they should preface all taxi commands with "Simon Says!"

Or add 'idiot!' to all taxi instructions.

 

[EdFred]

If I am not supposed to move, how am I supposed to click the PTT to acknowledge their command using my call sign?

 

[Matthew]

One of the lines from "Raising Arizona" comes to mind:

"All right, ya hayseeds, it's a stick-up. Everybody freeze. Everybody down on the ground."

"Well, which is it, young feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? Mean to say, if'n I freeze, I can't rightly drop. And if'n I drop, I'm a-gonna be in motion. You see..."

"Shut up!"

"OK then."

 

[fgcason]

Maybe they should preface all taxi commands with "Simon Says!"

This whole thing has all the makings of a hilarious ten minute play to be put onstage at OSH. If I wasn't up to my eyeballs in 6 productions in the theatre right now and a couple other things, I'd start writing it. The script practially writes itself and I know the perfect actors for most of the roles.

 

[Clark1961]

I'd settle for the Hitler clip with new subtitles.

 

[BillTIZ]

I think if FAA HQ finds out they are deliberately deviating from FAA Order 7110.65, they will be barbecued.

I was thinking the same thing as I read the first post.

 

[silver-eagle]

First the pilot has to identify the hold short line. Then he actually has to stop BEFORE the line. How many automobiles fail to stop at the STOP line/sign/RED LIGHT.
Maybe more of our driving habits are filtering into our flying habits and not the other way around.
Wouldn't a pilot deviation necessitate a call to the tower and or a FAA action? Maybe that is "plan B".

 

[Matthew]

Most of the incursions at ADS have been by tugs, not by aircraft.

Sounds more like the tug and and other ground ops personnel need remedial training rather than the controllers needing to use non-standard phraseology.

 

[gismo]

Most of the incursions at ADS have been by tugs, not by aircraft.

If that's true they should limit the new language (e.g. "Don't move") to instructions given to tugs. At least there aren't likely to be too many itinerant tugs coming to the field.

Also, the whole "get together and discuss what's going on at the airport" idea worked well with the prior tower chief, perhaps now, not so well.

Why is it that tower chief successors are almost always worse than the ones they replace? Similar circumstances around here.

I had not heard that they were going to reinstate the no-crossing limitation; that needs to be sternly opposed. For west-siders (like you, Dave), this is a huge imposition.

I don't understand the rationale behind eliminating useful routes across the field, especially when they offer significant operational advantages. Sounds like someone has their head up a smelly orifice.

 

[SCCutler]

If that's true they should limit the new language (e.g. "Don't move") to instructions given to tugs. At least there aren't likely to be too many itinerant tugs coming to the field.

I have, since making that post, been told I am mistaken, and that there have still been significant incursions at the runway ends, by aircraft. The new measures are still wack.

Why is it that tower chief successors are almost always worse than the ones they replace? Similar circumstances around here.

Perhaps because the FAA continues to treat its professionals with due respect, and vest them with discretionary authority to discharge their responsibilities as they reasonably see fit.

(Sorry)

I don't understand the rationale behind eliminating useful routes across the field, especially when they offer significant operational advantages. Sounds like someone has their head up a smelly orifice.

By doing this, they actually increase the opportunities for conflict between aircraft, and an incursion is an incursion, no matter where on the runway it occurs.

 

[gismo]

I have, since making that post, been told I am mistaken, and that there have still been significant incursions at the runway ends, by aircraft. The new measures are still wack.

Like someone already posted, going with non-standard procedures and phraseology has got some serious downsides even if they actually provided a local benefit (which doesn't sound likely here).

Perhaps because the FAA continues to treat its professionals with due respect, and vest them with discretionary authority to discharge their responsibilities as they reasonably see fit.(Sorry)

Yeah, lots of love there, eh?

By doing this, they actually increase the opportunities for conflict between aircraft, and an incursion is an incursion, no matter where on the runway it occurs.

I could understand a restriction on runway crossings at a place the tower couldn't see but that's clearly not the case at ADS.

 

[kkoran]

I have, since making that post, been told I am mistaken, and that there have still been significant incursions at the runway ends, by aircraft. The new measures are still wack.

Have they found a common cause for the incursions? Are the signage and pavement markings adequate? Is the layout of the airfield somehow confusing? Or, were the pilots simply not up to the task?

 

[SCCutler]

Have they found a common cause for the incursions? Are the signage and pavement markings adequate? Is the layout of the airfield somehow confusing? Or, were the pilots simply not up to the task?

Good question, and one the answer to which I do not now. But I'll ask.

There is nothing remotely confusing about ADS; one big long runway, one big long taxiway on the east side, and a shorter parallel on the west. Buncha little stubs off of each parallel. The occasional coyotes and jackrabbits.

Maybe it's the 172s with students in 'em?