Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By JonathanB
#1843488
I’m not an Aerodrome controller, but in the UK CAP413 says we use “Hold at Bravo 2” or whatever the holding point is named. There is no mention in CAP413 of “Hold short runway xx”
AlanM, chevvron, skydriller liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1843500
Yep exactly as @JonathanB says ~ why would anyone use “Hold of short of runway”?

“Hold Position” or “Hold at (Holding Point)” or even “Stop Immediately” if needed.

I have trained ATCOs from the Middle East and with ICAO phraseology and it is very different.

Gotta love ICAO. Not saying that the British are great at all things aviation - but ICAO like to have the non-English speaking natives comprise phraseology rejected by the UK (largely English Native speaking!!)
By johnm
#1843507
When multiple runways are in use “hold short” is used before a crossing clearance is given.

E.g backtrack runway 27 hold short of runway 22
marioair liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1843518
rf3flyer wrote:Can't say I see the problem.


For 99% of pilots I would agree. But if everything was that simple, we wouldn’t have had three runway incursions and 5 taxiway incursions in three years.
By chevvron
#1843520
johnm wrote:When multiple runways are in use “hold short” is used before a crossing clearance is given.

E.g backtrack runway 27 hold short of runway 22

With ATC, essential traffic information must be passed to the aircraft which is backtracking in addition to the instruction to 'hold short' and if this is a frequent occurence, a holding point should be marked on runway 27.
At a FISO airfield.........?
By johnm
#1843536
chevvron wrote:
johnm wrote:E.g backtrack runway 27 hold short of runway 22

With ATC, essential traffic information must be passed to the aircraft which is backtracking in addition to the instruction to 'hold short' and if this is a frequent occurence, a holding point should be marked on runway 27.
At a FISO airfield.........?


ATC field and traffic information is indeed passed, I just didn't include it.
AlanM liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1843573
Iceman wrote:And as for the US LAHSO clearance, we won’t go there :D !

Iceman 8)


On our electronic strips it shows the Field 18 text for arrivals in the tower.

Every BA A319/A320 inbound has “LAHSO NOT AVAILABLE” on it. Always makes me smile
Iceman liked this
By Ibra
#1843578
rf3flyer wrote:Can't say I see the problem.


Try finding the holding point while taxi in circles for Redhill 07/25 runway, thinking about it, it's "holding short of the runway" & "runway vacted" while sitting in the apron :lol:

"Taxi 10m" would more useful :lol:

It's even funny when you land on 25 and ask for fuel when grass is water logged, do you say "backtrack, taxi for fuel" or "vacated, taxi for fuel" :D
User avatar
By skydriller
#1843617
JonathanB wrote: in the UK CAP413 says we use “Hold at Bravo 2” or whatever the holding point is named. There is no mention in CAP413 of “Hold short runway xx”


What he said seems eminently sensible,...
By Ibra
#1843630
I saw LAHSO in some FAA videos and head it regularly on frequency at Fort Lauderdale on busy days but the one I got was on arrival to Nassau, it was not difficult to guess as I could see it comming: traffic info of Airbus landing on cross runway, plenty of runway ahead of me untill intersection :shock: so, it was very clear what I am supposed to do after hearing those words in C177, what was not clear if one has to stop on the runway or vacate to the taxiway after landing, so I was in the middle of my runway sitting & watching, for a long time, trying not to say or do something stupid :lol:

I doubt those ATC could do LAHSO tricks with two A320, it's 2.5km×4km, very hard to pick without favouring one guy vs the other !
Iceman liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1843634
So a bit of a digression for which I apologise, however since it’s been mentioned:

BA aircraft never take part in LAHSO. Which is why it is promulgated to every ATC unit.

In the US, the danger is not so much that any BA aircraft would themselves be instructed to LAHSO. Far more likely is that a smaller aircraft would be instructed to LAHSO on a shorter intersecting runway, allowing BA to then roll through that intersection on the longer runway. For BA that’s not acceptable.

The US is almost always a very challenging place to operate as far as their ATC is concerned. SOIA being another challenge, and of curse there’s the language barrier! :roll: The US is clearly happy with their procedures, BA is less so and have declined to take part in LAHSO.

I know other regular contributors here are intimately familiar, and will correct where I’ve been getting it wrong all these years! :lol: