LUAW

[awpincus]

I don't want to get in a discussion the merits of the new and old phraseology. I'm a student pilot, and I just want to understand when a controller will ask a pilot to taxi onto the active runway and wait for clearance to take-off.

My question is sparked from listening to live ATC, and a pilot told to line up and wait, w/ an aircraft on a 3 mile final. Is the intention to have the plane take-off prior to the other plane arriving on the active? Is the plane waiting/holding on the active to get the correct amount of separation from a departing aircraft, or one exiting the runway. I understand the later, but can't get my head around waiting for a 737 to buzz over my head when I'm sitting on the threshold.

[dave]

I don't want to get in a discussion the merits of the new and old phraseology. I'm a student pilot, and I just want to understand when a controller will ask a pilot to taxi onto the active runway and wait for clearance to take-off.

My question is sparked from listening to live ATC, and a pilot told to line up and wait, w/ an aircraft on a 3 mile final. Is the intention to have the plane take-off prior to the other plane arriving on the active? Is the plane waiting/holding on the active to get the correct amount of separation from a departing aircraft, or one exiting the runway. I understand the later, but can't get my head around waiting for a 737 to buzz over my head when I'm sitting on the threshold.

Yes, the intention is absolutely to have the plane take off prior to the other plane's arrival.  The local (tower) controller is aware of the different types of aircraft and the required separation rules.  The plane in the LUAW situation is typically waiting for the required separation between it and departing aircraft.  LUAW is used to keep a flow going and it is all based on the separation rules and all pilots doing what they are told to make sure that the *anticipated* separation becomes the *actual* separation as the takeoff and landing situation unfolds.

So no, you are not sitting there with any intention of a 737 buzzing over your head.  That's the last thing anyone wants.

Hope this helps.

Dave

[awpincus]

Yes, thank you, that's what I thought but wanted to confirm. Just could not find it anywhere, and keep missing the cleared fore take-off part to the waiting aircraft. So many frequencies, so little time, HA!

thanks and take care

Alex

[TC]

awpincus:  part of the ambiguity comes from wacky rules the agency imposes on us.  In a common sense world, if I put you on the runway (LUAW) with a 737 on a 3 mile final, I'd tell the 737 that traffic is lining up on the runway and will depart when he reaches a 2 mile final, or something like that.  And I'd tell you, when I put you on the rwy, expect further clearance when the 737 is 2 mile final, or something like that.  This way you'd all know what's gonna happen; you'd take the rwy knowing exactly what my intentions are, and the 737 would also know my intentions.

But this ain't the common sense world; it's the FAA world.  And they mandate to me that I say "B737, cleared to land, traffic holding in position."  Think about that - it sounds stupid.  Why would he be cleared to land with traffic HOLDING on the rwy?  But that's how we are supposed to say it.  And if that b737 is cleared to land, I'm supposed to say to you, "LUAW, traffic 3 mile final" (as opposed to how I'd like to put it, in my example).  Now someone could say I'm not prevented from adding the phraseology in my example.  True, I'm not.  I can add it to the required gibberish.  But know what?  I only have so much time, so I do what's required, even if I think it sounds silly.  And I think it adds to the confusion evident in your post.  But they make the rules, not me.

[awpincus]

Thanks TC, your example is exactly what sparked my question.

[djmodifyd]

awpincus:  part of the ambiguity comes from wacky rules the agency imposes on us.  In a common sense world, if I put you on the runway (LUAW) with a 737 on a 3 mile final, I'd tell the 737 that traffic is lining up on the runway and will depart when he reaches a 2 mile final, or something like that.  And I'd tell you, when I put you on the rwy, expect further clearance when the 737 is 2 mile final, or something like that.  This way you'd all know what's gonna happen; you'd take the rwy knowing exactly what my intentions are, and the 737 would also know my intentions.

But this ain't the common sense world; it's the FAA world.  And they mandate to me that I say "B737, cleared to land, traffic holding in position."  Think about that - it sounds stupid.  Why would he be cleared to land with traffic HOLDING on the rwy?  But that's how we are supposed to say it.  And if that b737 is cleared to land, I'm supposed to say to you, "LUAW, traffic 3 mile final" (as opposed to how I'd like to put it, in my example).  Now someone could say I'm not prevented from adding the phraseology in my example.  True, I'm not.  I can add it to the required gibberish.  But know what?  I only have so much time, so I do what's required, even if I think it sounds silly.  And I think it adds to the confusion evident in your post.  But they make the rules, not me.

You can only do that if you have safety logic system. Otherwise the aircraft on final cannot be cleared to land