Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait

[joeyb747]

Caught this while listening to KJFK Tower this eve...XL Airways 67 (Starways 067), an A330-200 bound for LFPG, has a conflict with verbage. This kind of ties in with the discussion towards the end of thread

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/zoa-testing-the-patience-of-cathay-870-pilot/  

...but I decided to post it on it's own thread.

Happy Listening!

[atcman23]

Wow that pilot was a jerk.  But "line up and wait" is the ICAO standard used across the rest of the world.  And right now the FAA plans on switching to it by the end of September.  It's going to be a huge change for everyone here in the U.S. and I think it's going to cause some confusion.  Not only that, it sounds very rude.

[cessna157]

Sounded pretty funny actually.  No harm done though.  The controller knew pretty well what they were doing.  Maybe he was just CYA, but I think he might have been having some fun with him.

Yes, the U.S. is a little behind the times with Position and Hold.  Technically, the pilot should read it back like that.  But the FAA does allow for common sense when it comes to radio phraseology

But this sounded a bit like an Abbott and Costello routine.

[englishpilot]

Yep - line up and wait is the ICAO phraseology.  There are bound to be more changes.

See:

http://flightsafety.org/asw/mar10/asw_mar10_p32-35.pdf

[cptbrw]

There was actually a JFK Tower controller repeatedly using the "line up and wait" phraseology a week or two ago.  First time I heard it used around here and was surprised that he used it over and over again during his time in the box.  Guess he was practicing!   

[snipper_cr]

Haha, I love the controller sorta sticking it to that pilot.

I am SOooo excited for "line up and wait"...not. Although I like the one male pilot who was told to position and hold by a female controller say "Alright, we'll whip it out and hold it"

[mdr666]

Yeah, that's pretty funny. I think they were both yanking each other's chain.

[w0x0f]

The correct response to this would be "Hold short, advise when ready."

[atcman23]

"... for controller amusement."

[towercab]

Well, on position we as controllers don't know what "Line up and wait" means. Off position we do. Position and hold is position and hold. The US is not behind with this phraseology. We will go to it, however it's to accommodate for those who fly overseas. For those who don't, it's a pain in the butt. Yet again we are supposed to be the best when it comes to this stuff, and yet again we give in and change for others. The majority of controllers are not stoked on this.

As for common sense on frequency. No such thing, sorry. Controllers get the short end when others fail to do their job correctly. Been there done that. It is or it isn't. I've seen plenty of controllers go down because a pilot couldn't do their job correctly. I mean seriously, is it really that hard to use your call sign with every transmission? I only speak from personal experience. No offense. It's always the controllers fault, even when it's not.

This clip was him doing some CYA and him making a point.

[cessna157]

As for common sense on frequency. No such thing, sorry.

Just so we make sure we're putting correct information out there, there is such thing.

FAAO JO 7110.65, para 2-4-3, Pilot acknowledgment/readback:  ..."Note - Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other information by using "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," or other words or remarks." <emphasis added my me>

With all of the controllers that I have spoken with, this is interpreted as the allowance to use common sense.

As a completely seperate example, let's say there is only 1 aircraft on frequency.  A clearance is given as "<A/C ID> turn left heading 180” and the reply is simply “Okay”, according to the above excerpt, that would be acceptable.

I’m certainly not saying the controller in the original post was incorrect in clarifying his clearance, it appears he was just making sure everyone was on the same page.

I only speak from personal experience. No offense. It's always the controllers fault, even when it's not.

No offense taken at all.  Pilots believe the same thing about the other side of the coin, and it is usually true.  Most cases of accident investigation include the phrase “pilot's decision to….” in the accident factors section.


And hopefully your last statement was meant in jest.  I think we can all agree that a busy radio frequency is not the best place to “make a point,” there are correct channels for that.

[JNanu]

yet again we give in and change for others.

Well in this case "others" refers to the rest of the world. Unless the US closes its borders to incoming and outoing air traffic it's probably best for everyone to be on the same page. Frankly it's surprising that it has taken this long.

[towercab]

Without sounding like a smart ass (not what I'm trying to do), It doesn't say common sense.

Personally, if I used common sense with most of these guys, I'd have to go back to flying planes because I would have been terminated. It only takes getting burned once to not fall into that trap again. Common sense and assuming are pretty close relatives.

Diverting from the original post for a moment...

Me: N123, verify you have information Alpha.
Somebody: We have Alpha.
Me: N123, verify that was you that had information Alpha.
Somebody: Affirmative.
Me: N123, with your call sign, verify you have information Alpha.
N123: N123 HAS...ALPHA!

Basic flying 101 and somehow I'm the bad guy. But when this guy crashes, guess what the first question is. "Did he have the ATIS?". If I left it alone with just the first two transmissions, there is no way to prove it was N123 that had Alpha. The reason he crashed is irrelevant, it was my fault, I didn't do my job. Seems dumb, but that's ATC. You could say "He was the only aircraft on my frequency." but there is no way to know that.  You can't prove it. "I recognized his voice." Lawyer: "Are you a voice recognizing expert?" (I'm sure they have a much more professional name  )

That's just the tip of the iceberg of daily ATC life. It happens on every transmission. Definitely more than just people talking  

I encourage all the listeners to listen for these kinds of things next time they are tuned in. Listen for runway read backs. Listen for call signs being used, or not being used. Pretend you are a lawyer and have nothing but tapes to go off of...assume the worst happens, can you prove the pilot/controller was right/wrong just by the tapes? That's all you get to use.

So! Going back to the original tape in this thread. Correct, the pilot did not read back the instructions correctly, correction is required. This is part B of the .65 section you quoted, cessna157.

Seems trivial I know. Just hoping to bring an ATC side of things to the table is all. I enjoy the site.

Later all.

[towercab]

yet again we give in and change for others.

Well in this case "others" refers to the rest of the world. Unless the US closes its borders to incoming and outoing air traffic it's probably best for everyone to be on the same page. Frankly it's surprising that it has taken this long.

Like I said, we are supposed to the best when it comes to this stuff and yet we keep changing it to conform to something else. We going to change the entire book to their procedures?

There's still going to be differences in the system, changing one thing isn't going to do anything except make us stumble on our words.

[tucraceman]

I'm pretty sure that at a big airport like JFK the charts and the ATIS says that you must read back all runway holding instructions back verbatim.  If the controller says hold short of the duck you say duck. AC# hold short of the anatidae.
~D

[tyketto]

I'm pretty sure that at a big airport like JFK the charts and the ATIS says that you must read back all runway holding instructions back verbatim.  If the controller says hold short of the duck you say duck. AC# hold short of the anatidae.
~D

At every controlled field, you'll need to read back all runway holding instructions, let alone runway assignments. States as such on the airport diagram of the field in question.

BL.

[tucraceman]

I'm pretty sure that at a big airport like JFK the charts and the ATIS says that you must read back all runway holding instructions back verbatim.  If the controller says hold short of the duck you say duck. AC# hold short of the anatidae.
~D

At every controlled field, you'll need to read back all runway holding instructions, let alone runway assignments. States as such on the airport diagram of the field in question.

BL.

Correct.  But in the past I have accidently gotten away with "roger" as a response to taxi instructions at a Class D...the controllers know me.  But in a class C or B they are quite touchy about read backs.
~D

[ramosphysics]

I guess "position and hold" can be misunderstood as "position and roll", cause in some languages the "r" sounds like "h". That´s why i am for "line up and wait".

[tyketto]

I guess "position and hold" can be misunderstood as "position and roll", cause in some languages the "r" sounds like "h". That´s why i am for "line up and wait".

Not really..

The biggest issue with it is that we in the US are sloppy with our English. I mean that, seriously.

We are so quick to get simple words out of our mouths that sometimes you can't hear them altogether. Think about how many times ATC says 'position and hold'. Because of the level of traffic coming in and out, they could rush through it and say 'position-n-hold', or even worse, you barely hear the word 'and' as it falls off the tongue way too easily after pronouncing the 'n' in 'position'.

And since those in other ICAO and especially non-English speaking countries (where English is not the primary language), pilots there listen closely for those words. So a 'position-n-hold' sounds like there is no 'and' there, and all they hear is "position hold". What do they get out of that? "Hold Position." So that is what they read back. They are holding their position.

This is why when the FAA omitted 'taxi into' from the TIPH call, they made things worse than better. "Taxi into position and hold" was a lot easier to understand and provided equivalence to LUAW. In short, by taking out "taxi into", they shot themselves in the foot and added more ambiguity than what they were trying to get rid of. By going ICAO on us, they eliminate that altogether.

BL.

[NEILCM80]

I dont think the French are really in a position to say how how things should be said on a radio, dont they speak French whenever they get a chance at French airports?? there not the only countries.

Barge

[tyketto]

I dont think the French are really in a position to say how how things should be said on a radio, dont they speak French whenever they get a chance at French airports?? there not the only countries.

Barge

They shouldn't, but they can.

According to the ICAO, English is the preferred language to use as far as air traffic communications go, with a fallback to the pilot's native language if the call or instruction isn't understandable. So yes, a French pilot can speak French if he/she wants. but as soon as someone who only knows English pops up, the communication between ATC and that English-speaking pilot should (must) be in English.

BL.

[captray]

Enough already, when I fly in an ICAO country it's line up and wait. When I fly in the US it's Position and hold. Not a big deal.

Juist wait until the US goes to slots like eurocontrol for every thing, That's when I retire!

[tyketto]

Enough already, when I fly in an ICAO country it's line up and wait. When I fly in the US it's Position and hold. Not a big deal.

Juist wait until the US goes to slots like eurocontrol for every thing, That's when I retire!

After 9/30/10, P&H is gone. just FYI.

BL.

[svoynick]

After 9/30/10, P&H is gone. just FYI.

Will there be a special liveatc.net award for the first posting of a US Tower controller issuing a "line up and wait" clearance?

[alltheway]

I allready have a suggestion for the future call of this, when they want to change it again!

Get in sequence and STOP