Tower Instructions

[Goldmember]

Okay so I did my first cross country into a towered airport Saturday at South Bend Regional, and on the way out, I was holding for clearance to depart. I got it and proceeded over the Active hold line, when the tower quickly told me to hold again so a regional jet could take off first as he had a time to meet or something so I slammed on the breaks and stopped well short of the runway and I could see the jet coming from the opposite taxi way onto the rwy. I didn't care in the slightest as I was just out having fun, but my question is this: should I have told the tower that I was already over the line or, as my CFI tells me, you just do whatever they tell you to immediately? I figured it was fine but didn't know if any rules were broken or anything.

[MidlifeFlyer]

If I was over the line, I would tell the Tower in case they couldn't tell.

"Just do whatever they tell you to immediately" is a potentially dangerous philosophy. Never mind taxiing onto a runway when other traffic is about to land or turning base into the path of an approaching jet (both of which have happened more than once). At our towered field we've had more than one pilot end up in the weeds because they felt they had to obey "turn left next taxiway" instead of saying one very important word that should be in =every= pilot's vocabulary: "unable."

[jrh]

I think that's technically a runway incursion. I had an extremely similar incident on my first solo flight, except it was for landing traffic. I wrote it up and got it published in AOPA Flight Training. Here's the full story:

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...m?article=5002

If you aren't an AOPA member, let me know and I can PM it to you.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by jrh

I think that's technically a runway incursion. I had an extremely similar incident on my first solo flight, except it was for landing traffic. I wrote it up and got it published in AOPA Flight Training. Here's the full story:

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...m?article=5002

If you aren't an AOPA member, let me know and I can PM it to you.

Congrats on having the article published! However, in regards to this example being an runway incursion, I disagree. This is no more a runway incursion than ATC prepositioning and departing several a/c on the same runway at insections down the length of the runway.

It's relatively normal for a controller to clear an aircraft to take off and tell the next a/c to position and hold while the first aircraft hasn't even started moving. No biggie !

A runway incursion is "any occurrence in the airport runway environment involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of required separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land."

From http://www.faa.gov/runwaysafety/. Now, I gotta wonder, what is 'required seperation' in this instance? It happens all the time but I have always wondered that. Any ATC majors/minors here?

~wheelsup

[jrh]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

It's relatively normal for a controller to clear an aircraft to take off and tell the next a/c to position and hold while the first aircraft hasn't even started moving. No biggie !

I know what you're saying, but I got the impression that the original poster was at an intersection further down the runway than the regional jet. That is to say, the RJ had to roll past the poster's aircraft during the takeoff roll. That would be different than a "position and hold" with one aircraft behind the other.

Edit: My bad, I just re-read the original post and see that the two aircraft were at the same point on the runway, coming from opposite sides. I don't know if that is considered an incursion or not.

[falconvalley]

This is a weird one. The hold short line is supposed to be far enough from the runway to prevent a collision if used correctly. Since neither the student nor the controller verbally confirmed that adequate clearance from the RJ would be maintained, if anything had happened it wouldn't have been good for anybody. It sounds like the controller was ok with the spacing from their vantage point.

This could have easily become a scary situation in my opinion. I think the tower should have confirmed adequate spacing with the student pilot or given a caution statement or something of the like. Reminds me of the L.A. accident, where the controller cleared an aircraft to position and hold on a runway at night and forgot about them, leading to the fatal collision from an another airplane landing on them.

Goldmember, did you tell them that you were a student pilot, over the radio? I don't like it when controllers assume that we know what they're thinking. It makes me nervous. Of course, 99.9 percent of the time, controllers are very professional, though . But, if that controller had at least clarified to Goldmember that they could see that they were across the hold-short line and that it was ok, then Goldmember wouldn't have been so confused. If the controller couldn't tell from their vantage point, then shame on the controller for not confirming!!

That's not to say that anything necessarily bad happened there, but I'm a big fan of not getting lazy on the ground. We have a lot of incursions happen here in Milwaukee, because of people not paying real close attention to what's going on. A simple clarification from either end could prevent an accident. Preventing incursions should start with the very simple situations like this, not just major mistakes. Assuming is bad.

[TXaviator]

weird takeoff clearances being mentioned... i was on the active today with 2 other aircraft at the same time!

arrow in the front, rolling

a seminole waiting on the arrow

and me in the back in a warrior getting a dirt bath.

[launchpad]

This wouldn't be classified as an incursion simply because all the events happened as a result of ATC instructions. Everyone in the tower cab, as well as in the aircraft knew what was happening. If either the RJ or the smaller plane crossed the line against instructions or by mistake, then it would be an incursion.

[FlyChicaga]

I wouldn't call that a runway incursion per se. You were cleared, then told to hold. If you were told to hold, and entered the runway, then that would be an incursion. I've had situations where we were cleared into position and hold, then told "hold short" right after with us a quarter or halfway over the hold short lines because of landing traffic. Tower just decided they couldn't get us out before the landing aircraft. We'd just tell them, "Ok we are slightly over the hold lines" which is normally OK. If you aren't in a place to cause a conflict, I'd say you are fine. It is just your job, and the job of the pilots in the other aircraft, to decide if it's safe. Not the tower's job.

I've also seen many situations where there would be an aircraft in position at the end of a runway, then another aircraft is cleared for an intersection takeoff in front of the aircraft that is holding. This is not a runway incursion, just good use of the pavement.

My advice would be next time should this occur, just tell the tower that you are over the hold lines, so that they know, and that the other aircraft (taking off or landing) knows as well.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by launchpad

This wouldn't be classified as an incursion simply because all the events happened as a result of ATC instructions. Everyone in the tower cab, as well as in the aircraft knew what was happening. If either the RJ or the smaller plane crossed the line against instructions or by mistake, then it would be an incursion.

Not accurate.

"A runway incursion is 'any occurrence in the airport runway environment involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of required separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land.'"

If ATC clears you to take the runway in front of landing traffic, you would have an incursion. It would probably be the tower's fault, but it's still an incursion (and the pilot's the one with his/her life on the line).

MF

[FlyChicaga]

Do you have a definition for "required separation?"

[Minnesota_Flyer]

I found this, but can't seem to find a definition for "required separation" on the ground:

"New England Region - Runway Safety Program
Runway Safety Definitions


EVENTS
Surface Incident
Any event where unauthorized or unapproved movement occurs within the movement area, or an occurrence in the movement area associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of flight.

Runway Incursion
Any occurrence in the airport runway environment involving an:

aircraft
vehicle
person
object
on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in loss of required separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land.

RUNWAY INCURSION TYPES
Operational Errors
An operational Error (OE) is an action of an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) that results in:

Less than the required minimum separation between two or more aircraft, or between an aircraft and obstacles (obstacles include, vehicles, equipment, personnel on runways)
An aircraft landing or departing on a runway closed to aircraft

Pilot Deviations
A pilot deviation (PD) is an action of a pilot that violates any Federal Aviation Regulation. For example, a pilot fails to obey air traffic control instructions to not cross an active runway when following the authorized route to an airport gate.

Vehicle/Pedestrian Deviation
A vehicle or pedestrian deviation (VPD) includes pedestrians, vehicles or other objects interfering with aircraft operations by entering or moving on the runway movement area without authorization from air traffic control.

NOTE: This runway incursion type includes airline mechanics taxiing aircraft for maintenance or gate re-positioning.

RUNWAY INCURSION SEVERITY
Category D
Little or no chance of collision but meets the definition of a runway incursion

Category C
Separation decreases but there is ample time and distance to avoid a collision

Category B
Separation decreases and there is a significant potential for collision

Category A
Separation decreases and participants take extreme action to narrowly avoid a collision"



EDIT: Found this, but not particularly helpful: "The term 'loss of required separation' here refers to the loss of minimum safe distances between aircraft and other objects on the runway surface."