"Line up and Wait" by the end of the month!

Turbine said:
They need to spend their time worrying about more important concerns then phraseology.
Click to expand...

Phraseology error has been a MAJOR source of accidents. The term "line up and wait" has been shown to produce fewer errors, particularly by pilots who do not speak English as a first language. It is very clear and used by everyone outside the U.S.

The U.S., incidentally, is about the most non-standard country on the planet when it comes to procedures and, in particular, ATC phraseology. We don't even follow our OWN rules, let alone conform to the rest of the World. It's past time for us to join the rest of the global community, and, in the process, improve safety.

Of course, most pilots seem to only care about safety if it also happens to improve their QOL and just give it lip service the rest of the time...
 
seagull said:
Phraseology error has been a MAJOR source of accidents. The term "line up and wait" has been shown to produce fewer errors, particularly by pilots who do not speak English as a first language. It is very clear and used by everyone outside the U.S.

The U.S., incidentally, is about the most non-standard country on the planet when it comes to procedures and, in particular, ATC phraseology. We don't even follow our OWN rules, let alone conform to the rest of the World. It's past time for us to join the rest of the global community, and, in the process, improve safety.

Of course, most pilots seem to only care about safety if it also happens to improve their QOL and just give it lip service the rest of the time...
Click to expand...

SHHHHH! Don't just go out and tell everyone!
 
ATC RET 2003 said:
In twenty years, someone in the FFA will suggest changing it to "taxi into position and hold" and they will get an award for it.
Click to expand...

I'm not doubting you, but what does the Future Farmers of America have to do with it? :D

------

How have you been man? long time.
 
jtrain609 said:
Or guys that flew the range? Go ahead and try to explain THAT concept to kids these days!
Click to expand...

LOL my old man has lots of stories about that......actually found an old Navy issue manual of his on the subject when I was home visiting earlier this summer.
 
jtrain609 said:
You guys realize that this change probably took a 5 minute meeting of people saying, "Huh, ICAO says what? Yeah we probably want to get in line with it. Hey listen what's Bob doing downstairs? Yeah put him on it, have him just copy the ICAO language into the FAR's and have him let us know when he's done."

*30 minutes later*

"Bob's done? Great, put out a press release."

I mean you guys are acting like this took years of planning by hundreds of people.
Click to expand...


I highly doubt that. But it sounds funny :)







seagull said:
Phraseology error has been a MAJOR source of accidents. The term "line up and wait" has been shown to produce fewer errors, particularly by pilots who do not speak English as a first language. It is very clear and used by everyone outside the U.S.

The U.S., incidentally, is about the most non-standard country on the planet when it comes to procedures and, in particular, ATC phraseology. We don't even follow our OWN rules, let alone conform to the rest of the World. It's past time for us to join the rest of the global community, and, in the process, improve safety.

Of course, most pilots seem to only care about safety if it also happens to improve their QOL and just give it lip service the rest of the time...
Click to expand...

Crew fatigue contributes to safety also. But i do agree on being the most nonstandard.
 
I think I've already posted this here, but I was kind of neutral on this issue until someone showed me the bigger picture.

We have had another change in phraseology recently. That change made it where, when given taxi instructions (you're never "cleared" to taxi), the controller will use something like "runway xx, taxi via A, C, S" and you're not allowed to cross any runways without explicit permission.

That change, along with "Taxi into position and hold" going away, makes ATC phraseology such that you will NEVER get the word "taxi" and a clearance crossing or entering a runway at the same time. We will now line up on a runway instead of taxi into position on a runway.

Runway incursions have been a serious issue for a long time. The FAA is trying to figure out ways to reduce the frequency of incursions. I think this is actually a good change for that reason.

As a side note, as I mentioned earlier, you're never cleared to taxi, and that phraseology is simply so that you don't hear "cleared" and think you can take off.
 
Turbine said:
I highly doubt that. But it sounds funny :)
Click to expand...
I doubt it too, but i can almost guarantee that it didn't cost tons of financial resources and manpower to initiate the change. Nor is it something that is going to cause a complete rewiring of the aviation industry possibly costing airlines millions of dollars to initiate. When compared to changing something that is fundamental to how airlines operate this line up and wait business DID take a figurative 30 minutes to sit through and resolve.

I also see a lot of people who are against this make the point "line up where???" Really? Is "Line up" really that much more vague than "Position?" Position where?

I think I have yet to see anyone with a legitimate point that is more than "I just don't like it...it's different."
 
msmspilot said:
I think I've already posted this here, but I was kind of neutral on this issue until someone showed me the bigger picture.

We have had another change in phraseology recently. That change made it where, when given taxi instructions (you're never "cleared" to taxi), the controller will use something like "runway xx, taxi via A, C, S" and you're not allowed to cross any runways without explicit permission.

That change, along with "Taxi into position and hold" going away, makes ATC phraseology such that you will NEVER get the word "taxi" and a clearance crossing or entering a runway at the same time. We will now line up on a runway instead of taxi into position on a runway.

Runway incursions have been a serious issue for a long time. The FAA is trying to figure out ways to reduce the frequency of incursions. I think this is actually a good change for that reason.

As a side note, as I mentioned earlier, you're never cleared to taxi, and that phraseology is simply so that you don't hear "cleared" and think you can take off.
Click to expand...

Runway and taxiway incursions are insidious and incredibly dangerous. There's a cool video out there about avoiding them, and also how to keep from getting landed on. I usually turn on the strobes to cross an active runway when they clear me to cross, or if I know I'm going to be waiting in position for a long time, I'll park crooked a little bit on the runway. I think the FAA puts the video out there with some of those things out there like the flat light video.
 
Turbine said:
Crew fatigue contributes to safety also. But i do agree on being the most nonstandard.
Click to expand...

True, but it is MUCH harder to quantify and creating a "one size fits all" "fix" for it is even more difficult. Some of us are more awake in the mornings, others more in the evenings, some do better with a shorter "sleep" and then a nap, others need one long stretch. How do you create a regulation to encompass all of that? Further, at what cost, and just how much will your proposed changes actually improve safety? Can you quantify it?

Now, compare it to the change in phraseology. How much does it cost? How hard it is to quantify the improvements? Can you measure it easily? How fast can you implement it?

As you can easily see, the answers to the phraseology change are readily available, costs are low, benefits measurably high (actually likely higher than your rest rule changes, like it or not).

Regardless of our idealistic view of the world, the reality is that you have to make decisions based on ROI. Safety is no different. You can cost yourself to being grounded fairly easily (but you'll be safe, at least from a flying accident, right?).

Turb, I sense from your response that you already grasp all of this, so this post is not really meant for you.
 
seagull said:
True, but it is MUCH harder to quantify and creating a "one size fits all" "fix" for it is even more difficult. Some of us are more awake in the mornings, others more in the evenings, some do better with a shorter "sleep" and then a nap, others need one long stretch. How do you create a regulation to encompass all of that? Further, at what cost, and just how much will your proposed changes actually improve safety? Can you quantify it?

Now, compare it to the change in phraseology. How much does it cost? How hard it is to quantify the improvements? Can you measure it easily? How fast can you implement it?

As you can easily see, the answers to the phraseology change are readily available, costs are low, benefits measurably high (actually likely higher than your rest rule changes, like it or not).

Regardless of our idealistic view of the world, the reality is that you have to make decisions based on ROI. Safety is no different. You can cost yourself to being grounded fairly easily (but you'll be safe, at least from a flying accident, right?).

Turb, I sense from your response that you already grasp all of this, so this post is not really meant for you.
Click to expand...

Yes sir, I know what your saying. Its true i agree, it will improve safety, there is no arguing that.

Just the low cost labor is bothersome. They know people have shiny jet syndrome, and use it to their advantage. You work hard, I pay you little.. but hey you fly a jet right?
 
Turbine said:
Yes sir, I know what your saying. Its true i agree, it will improve safety, there is no arguing that.

Just the low cost labor is bothersome. They know people have shiny jet syndrome, and use it to their advantage. You work hard, I pay you little.. but hey you fly a jet right?
Click to expand...

How does this relate to the original subject being discussed?
 
Codyjp said:
Oh, I thought this was a discussion about the new procedures regarding the implementation of Line up and wait. If we are just randomly complaining about what we want changed though I can do that too.
Click to expand...

no one is stopping you.
 
Turbine said:
Just the low cost labor is bothersome. They know people have shiny jet syndrome, and use it to their advantage. You work hard, I pay you little.. but hey you fly a jet right?
Click to expand...

This is a bit of a disconnect. The duty time rules are not necessarily tied to labor costs. In fact, you could argue that from an economic standpoint, the higher the wages the higher the company incentive is to fly harder trips and increase productivity.

Put another way, a bad schedule is bad regardless of what your paycheck says.
 
seagull said:
The U.S., incidentally, is about the most non-standard country on the planet when it comes to procedures and, in particular, ATC phraseology. We don't even follow our OWN rules, let alone conform to the rest of the World. It's past time for us to join the rest of the global community, and, in the process, improve safety.
Click to expand...
Hey, just because the rest of the world thinks they can be on more than one final at a time doesn't make them right.
 
ppragman said:
Runway and taxiway incursions are insidious and incredibly dangerous. There's a cool video out there about avoiding them, and also how to keep from getting landed on. I usually turn on the strobes to cross an active runway when they clear me to cross, or if I know I'm going to be waiting in position for a long time, I'll park crooked a little bit on the runway. I think the FAA puts the video out there with some of those things out there like the flat light video.
Click to expand...


Funny story that shouldn't be repeated here, happened today, but you're bang on.
I, being the smart ass that I am, was told to position and hold, so I came back with "line up and wait". No that isn't the funny story. ppragman, when you head up north, I mean wayyyy north I'll tell it to you.
 
Oh, it's not like we're using "Flight level three hundred" instead of "three two zero", "FULLY ready for pushback and engine start", "callyouback" instead of "standby", and "radar identified" instead of "radar contact!" :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top