LiveATC Discussion Forums

Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: joeyb747 on July 24, 2010, 10:24:19 PM

Title: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: joeyb747 on July 24, 2010, 10:24:19 PM
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!
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: atcman23 on July 25, 2010, 08:55:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: cessna157 on July 25, 2010, 09:41:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: englishpilot on July 25, 2010, 01:25:08 PM
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

Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: cptbrw on July 25, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
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!   :-D
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: snipper_cr on July 26, 2010, 12:31:32 AM
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"
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: mdr666 on July 26, 2010, 02:44:44 PM
Yeah, that's pretty funny. I think they were both yanking each other's chain.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: w0x0f on July 26, 2010, 06:10:12 PM
The correct response to this would be "Hold short, advise when ready."
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: atcman23 on July 27, 2010, 05:18:59 AM
"... for controller amusement."
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: towercab on July 28, 2010, 03:21:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: cessna157 on July 28, 2010, 08:06:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: JNanu on July 28, 2010, 03:26:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: towercab on July 28, 2010, 04:10:48 PM
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  :-D)

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

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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: towercab on July 28, 2010, 04:15:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: tucraceman on July 29, 2010, 02:42:06 AM
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
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: tyketto on July 29, 2010, 03:47:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: tucraceman on August 04, 2010, 08:00:13 PM
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
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: ramosphysics on August 06, 2010, 10:45:35 AM
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". :wink:
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: tyketto on August 06, 2010, 11:45:23 AM
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". :wink:

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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: NEILCM80 on August 21, 2010, 08:26:40 AM
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
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: tyketto on August 21, 2010, 02:48:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: captray on August 21, 2010, 04:24:21 PM
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!
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: tyketto on August 22, 2010, 04:02:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: svoynick on September 02, 2010, 03:07:00 AM

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?
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: alltheway on September 02, 2010, 04:32:04 AM
I allready have a suggestion for the future call of this, when they want to change it again!

Get in sequence and STOP
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: MCM on September 02, 2010, 08:49:34 AM
Its about time this change was made.

The world aviation authority has a preferred way of doing it, and unless there are safety implications for not doing so, all countries should follow it.

There is no reason to NOT use "Line up" or "Line up and wait", and given it is the accepted international standard it is about time it was used in the USA.

Its time this "different for difference sake" mentality is removed.

Next we just have to get rid of a descent clearance without an actual clearance (ie Cross xxx at implying a clearance, rather than "Descend to xxx, cross xxx at....".
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: sykocus on September 02, 2010, 12:42:07 PM
Next we just have to get rid of a descent clearance without an actual clearance (ie Cross xxx at implying a clearance, rather than "Descend to xxx, cross xxx at....".

It's doing more then just implying a clearance.  It *is* a clearance. Just like "cross runway 24R",

E.g. "Cross JUNIE at FL350" meaning when you cross JUNIE you need to be at 350. It is however a pilot's discretion clearance. The pilot can climb/descent right now, at the last minute or gradually from now until JUNIE.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: svoynick on September 02, 2010, 02:37:50 PM
I have a terminology question about "line up and wait."  Is it exactly and precisely replacing "(taxi into) position and hold", always implying that you are to take position on the runway and wait for a takeoff clearance?  If that's the case, and it's stated clearly in the rules & regs, etc., then I don't have any problem with it.  It's a clear term used for a clear unambiguous reason, and if they want to change it then I can adapt.

However, the use of the term "line up" sounds like it could also be used to direct an aircraft into a sequence (a "line") of planes waiting to take the active runway - maybe that's what has stirred people up.  For exampe, alltheway's suggestion (which I know was a joke...) that it eventually be replaced with "Get in sequence..."  That's not the same thing. 

It may be a quirk of American English that we commonly use the same word for the noun "line" as well as for the verb both to "line up" (in a sequence) as well as to "line up" with a reference, like runway heading.   In England, they more commonly use "queue" for the noun form, don't they?  Maybe that makes it seem less ambiguous to them.

So my question is, is it true that "line up" will always and only mean "get lined up on the runway", and never "take a position in a line of aircraft"?
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: Casper87 on September 02, 2010, 04:01:40 PM
Hey S,

To answer your question; yes. 'Line up and wait' means exactly the same as your 'position and hold.'

I.e Line up [on the runway] and wait [on the runway]

As for any "language" differences, well, thats a matter of individual interpretation but its unlikely to be a problem as long as flight deck crew keep themselves up-to-date. Unfortunately its part and parcel of avaition phraseology. Different people MAY interpret something in a different way to someone else, but as long as the phrase is correctly defined by the authority (CAA, ICAO, FAA etc..) then there shoudn't be any confusion.

What date is the changeover? (from PAH to Line up)

Cheers,

Casper

Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: MCM on September 02, 2010, 09:01:01 PM
Sykocus,

In the USA, it is a clearance. In the rest of the world, it is most definately not.

Everywhere else, you must hear the specific words "CLIMB" or "DESCEND" to consider it a clearance.

That is the way we keep from having informal comments or future instructions becoming interpreted as clearances.
For example, ATC can impose a height restriction without permitting descent at that stage. In cruise, I might be told that I have to cross a waypoint at 6000ft - that doesn't mean I can now descend do it, just a restriction I need to meet when I am cleared. Allows me to have it in the FMC prior to descent.

I just don't see why it would be so hard for the magic words "climb" and "descend" to be put into the clearance to have world standardisation and keep the concept of a specific clearance protected.

svoynick,

The words "line up" are very specifically restricted to use for entering the runway (and not taking off). Just like the words "take off" should not be used for any purpose other than a specifc takeoff clearance.

.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: svoynick on September 03, 2010, 12:04:43 AM
The words "line up" are very specifically restricted to use for entering the runway (and not taking off). Just like the words "take off" should not be used for any purpose other than a specifc takeoff clearance.

To answer your question; yes. 'Line up and wait' means exactly the same as your 'position and hold.'

I.e Line up [on the runway] and wait [on the runway]
Great.  Thanks for the clarifications.  I'm a pilot but not current.  Along with some dual time, I'd have some studying to do to get back in PIC shape...

As for the lanugage differences, I agree with you:  as long as the aviation authority declares the terminology and its usage clearly, I've got no problem with it.  I was just musing over why people would be resistant to a change that is unambiguous, and brings our terminology in line with everyone else.  Not claiming that those are good reasons...
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: MCM on September 03, 2010, 03:11:25 AM
I think a lot of people have been musing that for a long time ;)

Obviously change takes time, and isn't easy to do. It takes a lot of paperwork and retraining of people to make any change in aviation, and so authorities are generally reluctant to do it.

Also, for people that fly purely in the USA, it isn't an issue. The statement "position and hold" when used in the USA is clear and unambiguous and works fine. As such, a lot of people will say that it ain't broke, so don't fix it.

The problem is that when you're dealing with international aviation, it is "broke". It is like having to learn a new language when flying in the USA, and for international crew that don't do it very often, it is just another hole appearing in the swiss cheese (to use the famous metaphor).

It always amazes me that as a I can listen to a Chinese crew with English as a second (or third) language) fly over all of the countries from Australia through to the UK, and be able to effectively communicate with all of the controllers for whom English is also a second language... but as a fluent English speaker we struggle in the USA.

It just shows how vital standard phraseology is.

Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: alltheway on September 03, 2010, 05:34:39 AM
Allthough all these rules for clearances are made to be clear, it has been proved in the past that pilots do switch to automatic, when you hear one instruction they expect the next standard instruction. It is more like being in a crowded environment where the pilots are also prepairing for flight (or landing, taxiing ect.) and they miss sometimes a word or two being so busy then they assume the sequence of clearances what can lead into incursions or conflicts. Still today radio communication is far from perfect, interference is always a problem and (or) a headphone half on your head might also not always be good, anyway miss communication will not be over so easily
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: sykocus on September 03, 2010, 05:39:46 AM
Everywhere else, you must hear the specific words "CLIMB" or "DESCEND" to consider it a clearance.

That is the way we keep from having informal comments or future instructions becoming interpreted as clearances.
For example, ATC can impose a height restriction without permitting descent at that stage. In cruise, I might be told that I have to cross a waypoint at 6000ft - that doesn't mean I can now descend do it, just a restriction I need to meet when I am cleared. Allows me to have it in the FMC prior to descent.

I just don't see why it would be so hard for the magic words "climb" and "descend" to be put into the clearance to have world standardisation and keep the concept of a specific clearance protected.



The problem really is in "informal comments". If controller wants a pilot to be ready for a clearance "expect" is a great word to use. Like I said I'm not aware any confusion when ground control tells an aircraft to crossa runway or taxiway.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: MCM on September 03, 2010, 09:38:52 AM
Thats because "Cross runway xxx" is a clearance, and is a clearance everywhere in the world.

Cross xxx at 6000 is only a clearance in the USA. It is NOT a clearance anywhere else. Everywhere else it is a restriction. The clearance comes seperately.

To cross a runway, you are instructed to cross. To climb or descend, you should be instructed to climb or descend.

Simple really.

Why is it so hard to be standard? "When ready, descend to 9000, requirement to cross XXXXX at 9000". Its not that hard.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: sykocus on September 03, 2010, 02:37:09 PM
Thats because "Cross runway xxx" is a clearance, and is a clearance everywhere in the world.

Cross xxx at 6000 is only a clearance in the USA. It is NOT a clearance anywhere else. Everywhere else it is a restriction. The clearance comes seperately.

To cross a runway, you are instructed to cross. To climb or descend, you should be instructed to climb or descend.

Simple really.

Why is it so hard to be standard? "When ready, descend to 9000, requirement to cross XXXXX at 9000". Its not that hard.

But just like cross runway 7 is explicitly understood as a clearance; "cross a fix at an altitude" can be too too. Climb, descend, turn and cross are all action verbs. There's not reason they can't be understood as clearances. You just aren't used to it. That doesn't make it wrong.

There are feeder sectors in the busy centers in the US which probably issue 40+ crossing restrictions an hour during the pushes. To take "Cross MINIUM at 9000" and turn it into "when ready, descend to 9000, requirement to cross XXXXX at 9000" is a huge increase in frequency congestion.

I don't believe that just because a procedure is done a certain way in the US that it's automatically better. By the same token because it's done one way in the rest of the world that doesn't make it better either. Just because you aren't use to something that doesn't make it bad.
Title: Re: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
Post by: Casper87 on September 03, 2010, 03:35:00 PM
To be fair, MCM's example is a bit verbose.

Chances are it would be more like "When ready, descend to 9000', level by XXXXX"
or just "Descend to 9000', level by XXXXX," depending on whether the controller wants the aircraft to leave it's current level now or at the PIC's discretion.

However, "Cross XXXX at 6000'" just coudn't be used in Europe without a qualifier, such as "Expect to...". There has to be a positive instruction to climb or descend.

Thread drift??  :-o

At the end of the day we could all argue the toss over everyones way of doing things. Ambiguity derives from different interpretations of language and different nation's authorities having different definitions. Basically the terminology/phraseology used by the UK , FAA and ICAO are all 'OK,' but will never be deemed sufficiantly 'unambiguous' for all concerened parties until we all say things the same way.

Until then..... :|

Regards,

Casper