Line up and wait ?

Sorry to seem like I'm jumping on you on your very first post (!), but...  why do you think the reason "why they are really doing this" is any different from the reasons stated in their post on FAASafety.gov?

Mike E

I appreciate your reply, Mike.

Good question - it seemed like a big change for the general description given. I would like to know more about the severity and frequency of the instances they cited. I would like more dialogue about this kind of change withthe flying community before creating something that in my opinion may cause more problems or confusion.

Thanks!

John

I'm not sure I see what would be confusing about it.  From a human factors/radio perspective, the FAASafety.gov SPANS notice explained it well (btw, the FAASTeam doesn't make the changes - they just report them) - this is similar in my mind to our saying "One t'ousand-six hundred" instead of "sixteen hundred" (which can sound like six hundred), etc., etc. when we communicate.

Also, there is a lot to be said, since English is the international language of aviation, that we are uniform internationally.  I know that there are those that say when we do things like this that we are giving up some sort of "soveriegnty", but if it aids in clarity across the board, I don't see the problem (try being someone bi-lingual in English and German and fly IFR in Quebec sometime to see what I mean...)
 

Good to have your perspective, Bob.

I agree with the idea that we need to consider this a global community. Good point.

The confusion comes for me when I hear the phrase "line up" - which is intended to mean line up on the centerline, I presume, but my image (which I will have to adjust) puts me in a line with a number of other aircraft at the end of the runway or in front of the hold bars. If this image is shared by others, then expeditious communication and movement could be thwarted in a rapid fire traffic situation.

Thanks again,

John

Good, John.  I agree with you to a point.  I thought the NPRM process, which allows time for public input, covered this kind of thing, and I don't remember seeing any request for public comments on it.  Perhaps it doesn't cover "procedural" changes, however.  I'm not sure.  Some dialogue would have been appropriate.

I admit being somewhat biased.  Since flying for a time in Australia ten years ago, I've been waiting for this change.  I thought at the time that "line up and wait" made more sense than the relative tongue-twister we used in the USA.

Mike E

Not really wanting to start a political spinoff in this conversation here, but I can't help but feeling that this just seems to me to have the same sense about it or same general feeling to it as did the term "offshore contingency operation" brought to us by some brain trust in Washington.

My two cents.  I'm done.

I agree, Bob.  And this is far from the first change the FAA has done to make us more consistent with the rest of the world.  A really big one was the change from TCAs, ARSAs, and so forth to Class A, B, C... etc. airspace.  I think that was a much sillier change than this one.  I can only imagine the howls of protest when they changed from Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog... to Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta... back in the fifties.

Mike E

Interesting about your experience in Australia, Mike.

Maybe I'm resistant because it's just too darn simple! :-)

John

The idea of getting consistent with the rest of the world is helping me accept this one. Also, I didn't know the alphabet changed for a similar reason in the 50's. I was born about then so never got the "Able, Baker..." convention, hence had no objections when it changed.

Thanks.

John

I kindof started that way too, Russ.

Maybe I'm finding it hard to be flexible at 55 :-)

John

When I got my private ticket, I was in on the conversion from the old U.S. airspace designators to the ICAO system.  There were dire predictions in my flying club that people would be busting airspace, getting lost, etc.  This was particularly intense as I learned to fly at Waukegan, just north of the outer ring of the TCA  --er, the Class Bravo.  Seriously, why would it be a problem?  Same airspace, just different names.  In fact, my one complaint is that there are stil TRSA's out there, and as a CFII, I keep forgetting about them ("What are these black rings?" my students ask and I reply "Oh, yeah...").  After about two years, everyone pretty much forgot about the controversy.  Every once in a great while, I'll get a "20 year flight review" where I have to equate the names ("'A' is the old Continental Control airspace,...").

I'm almost 55 and I've learned one thing:  people hate change.  I've seen it in aviation, I've seen it my office, and I've seen it my family.  What I think I've trained myself to do is this:  accept that I don't want to accept change and that I have to deal with it.  About as close to a Zen-like statement as I'll ever get...

Helpful stories and insights, Bob. I think you hit it on the head with your comments about change.

I'll start dealing with it! :-)

Thanks!

This is not as big a heartburn as when we shifted over to TAFs and METARs. We will survive. We survived when they first closed a bunch of Flight Service Stations. Then again when put the remainder out to the low bidder. The days of getting a DF steer from xxx Radio are pretty much gone.

Bob

All True. I'm thinking how many changes the first flyers have faced. Makes my sob story look somewhat pathetic.

Thanks for your input, Bob.

Now I've gotta disagree with you, John.  Your first (maybe second?) point was that the FAA should have a way to ask for and evaluate comments from its users before it makes changes like this.  And that there should be a way to get your comments and opinions to the FAA without getting all hung up in the "spider web"!  Both valid points.  Stick to them.

I see you're a chapter newsletter editor.  Thanks for being an active participant and contributor to EAA.

Mike E

Thant's a pleasant objection, Mike! This little forum dialog has been very interesting for me... maybe I can write something about it for our September newsletter.

Thanks for your contributions and encouragement.

John

It is a clarification effort. Non-native english speaking people have similiar sounding phrases to "taxi into position and hold"  that might be confusing leading to seperation errors. The whole idea of communications is clarity. Nine syllables versus four.

Don

Thanks Don. I'm sure you're right that the purpose is for clarification. Good point about the syllables!

John