TIPH Changes effective 6/30

[tyketto]

This was talked about before, but I'd like some controller input on this.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Jun/Runway_Crossing_Procedural_Change_FAAST_Blast.pdf

Runway Crossing Procedure Change

Beginning June 30, 2010, controllers will be required to issue explicit instructions to cross or hold short of each runway that intersects a taxi route.

"Taxi to" will no longer be used when issuing taxi instructions to an assigned take-off runway.

Instructions to cross a runway will be issued one at a time. Instructions to cross multiple runways will not be issued. An aircraft or vehicle must have crossed the previous runway before another runway crossing is issued.

This applies to any runway, including inactive or closed runways.

Changes will also be made to the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and AIP to reflect the new procedures.

Never cross a hold line without explicit ATC instructions.
If in doubt ASK!

Reminder: You may not enter a runway unless you have been:
* instructed to cross that specific runway;
* cleared to take off from that runway; or
* instructed to position and hold on that specific runway.

See https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/201...FAAST_Blast.pdf for the Runway Safety notice.
For additional information, go to http://www.faa.gov/go/runwaysafety

Federal Aviation Administration
Air Traffic Organization
Office of Runway Safety
490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Suite 7225
Washington, DC 20024

Fair enough, but the changes to 3-7-2 the .65 are where my questions are:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.532.pdf

    b. When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, state the departure runway
followed by the specific taxi route. Issue hold short restrictions when an aircraft will be required to hold short
of a runway or other points along the taxi route.

PHRASEOLOGY-
"Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary)."
or
"Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary)(hold short instructions as necessary)."

EXAMPLE-
"Runway Three Six Left, taxi via taxiway Alpha, hold short of taxiway Charlie."
or
"Runway Three Six Left, taxi via Alpha, hold short of Charlie."
.
.

My question is, what would the proper phraseology be if you are assigned a runway, and your route to that runway does not intersect another runway, whether active or inactive?

BL.

[sykocus]

I've never worked in a tower but I can see this being a major PITA at large airports. As far as workload it could almost be as bad as making every aircraft level off every few thousand feet before issuing another altitude clearance. The change notice only states not to issue taxi instructions to cross multiple runways. So if no runways are going to be crossed my best guess is that the taxi instructions could still be given in one transmission. "Rwy 9 taxi via alpha, bravo, charlie, hold short rwy 9."

[TC]

Reference your thread title, these are not changes to TIPH procedures.

To answer your question, "taxi to" still authorizes an aircraft to cross all taxiways that intersect the route, just not the runways anymore.  So if you're assigned a departure runway and no runway crossings are on that route, you can be cleared to taxi to that runway ("taxi to rwy 15r via L")  No hold short of the assigned takeoff runway is needed.  I'm sure "rwy 15r, taxi via L" would work, too.

This is a major change that will negatively affect operations, no doubt.  Where inactive runways are fairly close together on a taxi route, multiple aircraft will be stopping and starting again, overcoming unnecessary inertia and burning more fuel for no reason at all other than the stupidity of the faa.

[atcman23]

Also to clarify, this is not a TIPH change.  The "line up and wait" change is expected at some point but no date has been set.

The phraseology for taxiing aircraft to a runway for takeoff is changing.  Starting today the phraseology will be "Runway XX, taxi via A, B C... etc."  So, Runway 24L, taxi via Juliet, Alpha" would be the phraseology.  Assuming you do not cross a runway to get there, you will taxi via the assigned route.  If you do need to cross a runway, you will hear, "Runway XX, taxi via A, B, C. hold short of Runway YY."  Or, of the runway is either inactive/closed, you could also hear, "Runway XX, taxi via, A, B, C, cross Runway YY."

Also, no aircraft, vehicle, etc. will be given permission to cross multiple runways in one clearance.  If an aircraft, etc. has to cross multiple runways, you will get clearance to cross the first one and will not receive clearance to cross the next one until you are completely across the first runway. 

Basically for all of the pilots, NEVER EVER cross a runway unless you have been instructed to do so!  The FAA's goal is that this "should" almost eliminate aircraft crossing runways when not instructed to do so.  Personally, this is a huge change and controllers now have to "flip a switch" in their minds to use the new phraseology right now and hope the pilot gets it.  Controllers have been expensively briefed on this and pilots have heard nothing about it.  The FAA sent out an e-mail blast to people on their e-mail list and that's it.  It's not known when this new phraseology will be added to the FAR/AIM, but the earliest is next year when the new version is printed for 2011.  This is basically going to increase workload at many airports and controllers are going to have to pay extra attention to aircraft instructed to hold short of runways now because the phraseology is different.  Also, this could get confusing for pilots because the phraseology being used implies that there is a hold short instruction in the clearance as was previously the case and there may be questions from the pilots as to whether or not they are supposed to be holding short of a runway/taxiway.

You will still hear the phrase "taxi to" but when it involves taxiing an aircraft to a runway it will be "runway xx" followed by the specific taxi route to follow.  Controllers are allowed to say "taxi to the ramp via A,  B, C" or any other point on the airport movement area as long as no runway is involved.

[tyketto]

Thanks for the replies, guys, and you're right. This is not a change to TIPH, as that's still up for debate.

However, here's my point.

Say you're at LAS during configuration #1 (calm wind config) or better yet, SAN.

at LAS, calm wind runways used for departures are 19L/R and 25R. If you're at one of the terminals, and you're assigned 25R.. well no other runways intersect 25R. If the first FA doc is to be followed, 'taxi to' wouldn't be used. So what's the proper phraseology?

Same applies at SAN, even though there is only 9/27. If either one is in use, what's the right phraseology? Once again, the .65 was just amended to not reference 'taxi to'.

BL.

[TC]

Don't confuse commentaries on the change with the actual .65 change.  In the actual change, the .65 says a clearance to "taxi to" a point authorizes an a/c to cross all taxiways that intersect that route.  It used to say taxiways AND RUNWAYS.

the answer to your question is referenced in the very quote you provided.
PHRASEOLOGY-
"Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary)."

So it's Runway XX, taxi via X.  Simple.

I will continue to say "taxi to" when no hold shorts are required because that's what the .65 says.  In the lead up to this crap parfait from the faa there have been numerous different interpretations from people who don't work airplanes telling us what their new rules "mean".  They all disagree.  They wrote what they wrote.  That's what we have to follow.  Nowhere in the actual .65 change do you see "do not say "taxi to" a runway"  In fact, when they describe assigning a runway, they use the very phrase "taxi to" (when authorizing an a/c to TAXI TO a runway...) and say state the runway followed by the specific route.  "Taxi to ry15R via L" complies with that, so long as no hold shorts are needed.

If they had wanted to eliminate the phrase "taxi to" they should have written that in the book.  It makes no sense to say "taxi to" is ok going this way, but not that way.  And it sure doesn't make sense to use the actual words "taxi to" in the actual rule if those words are not allowed.

[tyketto]

Don't confuse commentaries on the change with the actual .65 change.  In the actual change, the .65 says a clearance to "taxi to" a point authorizes an a/c to cross all taxiways that intersect that route.  It used to say taxiways AND RUNWAYS.

the answer to your question is referenced in the very quote you provided.
PHRASEOLOGY-
"Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary)."

So it's Runway XX, taxi via X.  Simple.

I will continue to say "taxi to" when no hold shorts are required because that's what the .65 says.  In the lead up to this crap parfait from the faa there have been numerous different interpretations from people who don't work airplanes telling us what their new rules "mean".  They all disagree.  They wrote what they wrote.  That's what we have to follow.  Nowhere in the actual .65 change do you see "do not say "taxi to" a runway"  In fact, when they describe assigning a runway, they use the very phrase "taxi to" (when authorizing an a/c to TAXI TO a runway...) and say state the runway followed by the specific route.  "Taxi to ry15R via L" complies with that, so long as no hold shorts are needed.

If they had wanted to eliminate the phrase "taxi to" they should have written that in the book.  It makes no sense to say "taxi to" is ok going this way, but not that way.  And it sure doesn't make sense to use the actual words "taxi to" in the actual rule if those words are not allowed.

But it looks like they did. Your examples from 3-7-2.b were re-written in the change. My question is this, and I'll get more specific.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1006/00662AD.PDF

I'm a SWA jet parked at the C gates at KLAS. I call and receive my clearance, contact Ramp, get my call to push back and advise ready for taxi. I do so, and am told to Taxi to spot 5, and contact Ground, point one.

I do so. In config #1, 25R and 19L are available as departing runways. Assume Ground gives me 25R. what's the phraseology? Previously, I would get "taxi to runway 25R". Now... "runway 25R, taxi via C"? In this case, the route isn't really necessary, as all outbound departures to 25R use C.

The way it sounds now, the route has to be explictly issued, regardless of if a hold short isntruction is required or not. That takes up a fair bit of time on frequency.. ick.

BL.

[TC]

The requirement to specify the route no matter what was a previous change.

Examples are just that, examples.  They do not cover every situation nor are they an exhaustive list.  It is not unknown for the .65 to specifically proscribe the use of certain words (e.g. 2-5-3 c. Use specific terms to describe a fix. Do not use
expressions such as “passing Victor Twelve” or “passing J Eleven.”)  The new portion of the .65 DOES NOT say "do not use "taxi to" to taxi an a/c to the assigned takeoff runway.  It doesn't.  You may say it's implied, or that you read it in correspondence ABOUT the new change, but it DOES NOT say it in the change.  So, no, it does not look like they did.

Your question about the phraseology to be taxied to the rwy with no hold shorts is the same as before, so I'd answer it the same.

[atcman23]

The change notice that came out, and that is now effective states:

"When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, state the departure runway
followed by the specific taxi route. Issue hold short restrictions when an aircraft will be required to hold short of a runway or other points along the taxi route."

Thus, “Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary).”
or
“Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary)(hold short instructions as necessary).”

This is the prescribed phraseology, not an example.  The change DOES list examples, however it also prescribes the phraseology to be used.

While the change foes say that the "taxi to" phraseology used to allow aircraft to cross all intersecting taxiways and runways, the taxi clearances now only authorize aircraft to cross intersecting taxiways and you must receive a specific clearance to cross a runway.  Basically, do NOT cross a runway unless you were told to.  You must now hold short of all runways until you are told to cross that runway.  The new phraseology does not allow aircraft to cross an intersecting runway.  That's why the change is being made; this is how the FAA is trying to reduce runway incursions.

The change is now mandating that all instructions to taxi an aircraft to an assigned takeoff runway shall state the assigned runway first, followed by specific taxi instructions for the aircraft to follow and any hold short instructions if applicable.  This changes the 7110.65T Change 1 phraseology and the current notice (7110.523 effective June 30, 2010) will be reflected in the Change 2 of the .65 when it is published.  In change 2, you will see that you cannot tell an aircraft "taxi to" a runway.  Right now you won't because they would be changing the book daily if they had to immediately put all changes into the book.  That's why they schedule 3 changes to each .65 they release.

I will say that when we were briefed on this, there was a lot left up for interpretation and people had questions.  We looked higher up and got most of our questions answered and the prescribed phraseology in the notice is what we must say.

You can find the order here:  http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.532.pdf

As for the 25R example at LAS, you are correct.  "Runway 25R, taxi via Charlie" is what you will hear.  It may be the only taxiway that leads to that runway, but it must be stated in that manner.  The change to the .65 to issue specific taxi routes to follow occurred a little over 2 years ago I believe.  It will take more time on frequency and it will also require the ground controller to carefully listen to read backs, especially if hold short instructions are included.

[TC]

Gotcha loud and clear.  I've read it, been briefed on it, and this ain't my 1st rodeo with the faa and .65 changes.

One more time and I swear I'm done. 

It does NOT say you can't say Taxi to.  It doesn't.  Try as you might, you won't find it.  They COULDA put that in there, and didn't.  You can talk all you want about notices and explanations, but soon will come the day that the only thing about this change that exists is the actual .65 language.  Soon that will be ALL you have to go on.

I will state the runway number.  I will state the route.  As you note, that's what it says to do.  I will do that.  But know what?  I might add something at the start, like, a call sign!  There is no call sign in the prescribed phraseology you note.  Are you gonna take it SO literally that you must start with the word RUNWAY?  You'll add a call sign.  You might even add good morning.  You might add verify atis alpha.  You might add taxi to.  But be sure to state the runway number, and the route, because that's what the good book says.  I know you will, I will too.  It simply does not say you must begin the sentence with the word runway, and it simply does not say taxi to is disallowed.  The fact that taxi to no longer authorizes anyone to cross a runway bolsters my point.  They could have specifically prohibited it and didn't.  And don't get too literal about the phraseology citations, cuz they're not even proper format, omitting call signs.

Like I said, in the end, all that will matter is the .65 language, not your briefings explanations and notices.  My favorite part is the 1st line of the change, saying "When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to....  That's right, taxi to.  I'll still use it within the parameters of the new rules.

[tyketto]

Gotcha loud and clear.  I've read it, been briefed on it, and this ain't my 1st rodeo with the faa and .65 changes.

One more time and I swear I'm done. 

It does NOT say you can't say Taxi to.  It doesn't.  Try as you might, you won't find it.  They COULDA put that in there, and didn't.  You can talk all you want about notices and explanations, but soon will come the day that the only thing about this change that exists is the actual .65 language.  Soon that will be ALL you have to go on.

I will state the runway number.  I will state the route.  As you note, that's what it says to do.  I will do that.  But know what?  I might add something at the start, like, a call sign!  There is no call sign in the prescribed phraseology you note.  Are you gonna take it SO literally that you must start with the word RUNWAY?  You'll add a call sign.  You might even add good morning.  You might add verify atis alpha.  You might add taxi to.  But be sure to state the runway number, and the route, because that's what the good book says.  I know you will, I will too.  It simply does not say you must begin the sentence with the word runway, and it simply does not say taxi to is disallowed.  The fact that taxi to no longer authorizes anyone to cross a runway bolsters my point.  They could have specifically prohibited it and didn't.  And don't get too literal about the phraseology citations, cuz they're not even proper format, omitting call signs.

Like I said, in the end, all that will matter is the .65 language, not your briefings explanations and notices.  My favorite part is the 1st line of the change, saying "When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to....  That's right, taxi to.  I'll still use it within the parameters of the new rules.

Which I would call you out on, because it doesn't go along with the phraseology that is listed there.

The .65 is set up to first describe what it is that you will be doing, followed by the phraseology you must use to make what they are describing actually happen. With that. 3-7-2.b first describes what it is that you will be doing:

b. When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, state the departure runway followed by the specific taxi route. Issue hold short restrictions when an aircraft will be required to hold short of a runway or other points along the taxi route.

Followed by the phraseology that must be used:

PHRASEOLOGY-
"Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary)."
or
"Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary)(hold short instructions as necessary)."

So the phraseology section is what must be said.

My question was what would need to be said if the runway didn't intersect or cross any other active or inactive runway, plus if the taxiway didn't cross anything else. atcman23 provided my answer, so I'm happy. But what you're saying above would be incorrect.

pre-N7110.532, you would be right, as this is what the .65T has:

b. When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway and hold short instructions are not issued, specify the runway preceded by “taxi to,” and issue taxi instructions. This authorizes the aircraft to “cross” all runways/taxiways which the taxi route intersects except the assigned takeoff runway. This does not authorize the aircraft to “enter” or “cross” the assigned takeoff runway at any point.

PHRASEOLOGY-
TAXI TO RUNWAY (number) VIA (route).

With the 7110.532 change, the only place where 'taxi to' is used as phraseology, is 3-11-6 for Helicopter Landing clearance.

BL.

[atcman23]

You cans till use "taxi to" when taxiing an airplane to a movement area other than a runway (such as a ramp, pad, etc.).

[VictorK]

This is a major change that will negatively affect operations, no doubt.  Where inactive runways are fairly close together on a taxi route, multiple aircraft will be stopping and starting again, overcoming unnecessary inertia and burning more fuel for no reason at all other than the stupidity of the faa.

There's a school of thought that would tell you that the FAA is stupid like a fox.

I know I promoted this blog in another thread, but this discussion is so on point to the things being discussed there that it bears mentioning again:

http://martinlady.wordpress.com/


You'll have to read all of the first three installments to find these quotes, but if you look at the big picture, the motivation behind these changes becomes clear:

....And now we have to issue a runway crossing for EVERY runway to be crossed – whether it’s active or not, closed or not. Which also means we have to issue and receive readbacks on hold short instructions, whether they’re needed or not. More frequency congestion and confusion are imminent.....


....So what’s really going on? I’ve heard controllers say that the Agency’s dumbing down the system to compensate for the fact that they aren’t screening new hires properly and are overloading the system with new hires and creating an ever-increasing dangerous imbalance of experience. I’ve heard it said that the Agency no longer wants controllers to think. I’ve heard lots of things, but are any of them right?....


....But you know what?  That engineer can program, “cross runway, hold short of runway”, then do it again for when the aircraft gets to the second runway.  He can also program detailed taxi instructions, because common sense, creativity and local knowledge are not required under NextGen.  TIPH at the smaller airports is mostly gone…making it much easier for those Automated Virtual Towers to go in.

All these rules aren’t to dumb it down to the lowest common human denominator – it’s to dumb it down to computer programming level and has the added benefit of forcing our new hires into a very simple, linear way of thinking.....