Lateral separation from jets

[bob turner]

Awaiting departure this afternoon - tower held us for a jet on the parallel runway. Said that it was an un-waivable separation issue. Anybody know of this new rule?

There is a new rule that says ground controllers must name each and every taxiway in a ground clearance. Sometimes they force a readback. I am instructing not to read them back unless the words "readback" are appended to the clearance. Any opinions? I do instruct to read back a runway number any time a runway number is spoken in a clearance, no matter where you are.

"Piper Cub 18 Papa, taxi to two eight right via hotel."
answer:
"one eight papa, two eight right."

Any opinions or answers on these?

 

[Matt 7GCBC]

Read back of routed taxiways is a mandate to decrease ground and runway incursion events. I think we have Epic Jet to thank for the increase in wait times to avoid wake turbulence - clearly a response to their frivolous lawsuit.

 

[bob turner]

Is that by regulation? Are there now other mandatory VFR readbacks that I am not aware of? We have lots of foreign students reading back entire traffic alerts verbatim. And I am 100% getting away with not reading back taxiway designations so far.

So suppose you have two jets landing on parallel runways, like at LAX. Any problems there, or is there some specific weight difference, or runway separation distance that applies?

 

[Taledrger]

Awaiting departure this afternoon - tower held us for a jet on the parallel runway. Said that it was an un-waivable separation issue. Anybody know of this new rule?

Was the jet landing or taking off? If the parallels are not far enough apart they need to be considered the same runway, for lack of a better explanation. If the a/c is landing on the parallel the controller must be assured it will not go around before they will clear you. If the jet took off from a parallel the same wake turbulence criteria apply as if it took off on your runway

There is a new rule that says ground controllers must name each and every taxiway in a ground clearance. Sometimes they force a readback. I am instructing not to read them back unless the words "readback" are appended to the clearance. Any opinions? I do instruct to read back a runway number any time a runway number is spoken in a clearance, no matter where you are.

"Piper Cub 18 Papa, taxi to two eight right via hotel."
answer:
"one eight papa, two eight right."

Any opinions or answers on these?

I've always read back the entire taxi clearance, if I can remember it
Don't know if it is required except for the "hold short" instructions but most of the places I go would not let you get away with anything less.

 

[mvivion]

Parallel runways closer than (I think) 2400 feet to each other are treated, for wake avoidance, as if they were the same runway. That's not a new rule. Been in effect for a long time, I believe. In Fairbanks, we were always held on 1 R after a heavy departure on 1L, which was ~1800 feet to the west. Same with Float Pond 1, etc.

As to taxi clearances, I'm not sure that was a rule change, but a procedural change, to make certain that even taxi clearances are received and understood by pilots.

Remember, one of the mandatory readbacks is "any time a controller asks for a readback". And, if you don't read back one of these, they'll tell you to read it back, so you may as well get it over with.

That does NOT however, imply that you have to read back EVERY communication a controller issues.

MTV

 

[Lasater]

Jet Separation

We we started getting detailed taxi instructions a few months ago at Fort Worth Meacham field, I asked the ground controller if read backs were required. The answer was no.

 

[gdrean]

I am at the same airport as Bob Turner. I also have not read back the extended taxi clearance, (four taxi ways to get to the runway at our field, with two of them used for only 50 feet or less). Instead I just use my N number and the runway number. That has sufficed so far. Hope it doesn't change. While the changes are made in the interest of safety, I get the sense that things are getting missed or misunderstood with all the radio talk going on. It is almost constant talk during the busy times and I hear uncorrected mistakes/readbacks.

 

[bob turner]

Back to the jets - I have always been able to waive the wake separation. Not smart behind a DC8, but behind a small Citation one can avoid - easily - the areas of vortices. Yesterday was the first "unwaivable" instance - it was a small Citation, landing, and I was held until he had cleared both runways. This is apparently something brand new.

 

[OLDCROWE]

Re: Jet Separation

We we started getting detailed taxi instructions a few months ago at Fort Worth Meacham field, I asked the ground controller if read backs were required. The answer was no.

I asked my friendly senior controller at Riverside (KRVS) when I first started hearing the detailed taxi instruction if read-back was required and the answer was no but might come next... I hope not as we have an incredible amount of daily training traffic and it could really clog the radio.

 

[Speedo]

The FAA has mandated that ground controllers give detailed taxi instructions. Per Kase, this is a fairly recent rule, and is being enforced. Verbatim readbacks are not mandated, per the South Bend controllers. They prefer to receive a response of "roger."

 

[mvivion]

Bob,

There's no wake turbulence separation REQUIRED behind a Citation. So, was this Citation landing and exiting the runway on a highspeed taxiway, and crossing the other runway?

MTV

 

[kase]

Bob,

There's no wake turbulence separation REQUIRED behind a Citation.

MTV

Actually there is in certain instances.

 

[bob turner]

It wasn't wake separation, it was runway sequestration. The left runway became unusable when the Citation was on a two mile final for the right runway and stayed that way until the jet cleared the left runway on taxi in.

I was in a Super Cub, and when I figured out what was going on, I said " Cub will waive wake turbulence separation, if that is the problem" - controller said it wasn't turbulence, and it wasn't waivable. He is a friend, and has been in my jumpseat. He is very competent, And no - I have not talked to him about it yet.

This may be something new - that's why I am asking the most knowledgable group of aviators I know.

 

[mvivion]

Kase,

Could you elaborate, por favor? I assume you're talking about the Citations which meet the "large aircraft" definition?

Bob, what's the separation BETWEEN those runways?

Thanks,
MTV

 

[Taledrger]

As I said in the previous post, if the runways do not have legal IFR separation the controller needs to be assured that the landing a/c will not go around before he/she clears the other a/c for takeoff. Even if both a/c are VFR. If they allow a Cub to takeoff and the Citation goes around, for what ever reason they both end up in the same place the controller will get dinged.
It's just my opinion but I don't think it's something new, just part of the new "safety" program. From what I have heard, the controllers are getting pretty significant disciplinary action for ANY "close calls". This has forced them to go to the limit (outer, so to speak) of separation.
Controllers used to move as much traffic as they could, as safely as they could. Now they move as much traffic as they can, as SAFELY as they can, without getting into trouble and losing their job.
If YOUR standing in the tower and Joe Blow #1 is landing and Joe Blow #2 wants to take off would you risk YOUR job to accommodate.
The US controllers are the best in the world at moving traffic. Under the current conditions they are under immense pressure. If it seems they are working a little slow, give em a break. They are just trying not to get fired.

 

[StewartB]

deleted

 

[BonanzaMan]

Remember, one of the mandatory readbacks is "any time a controller asks for a readback". And, if you don't read back one of these, they'll tell you to read it back, so you may as well get it over with.

That does NOT however, imply that you have to read back EVERY communication a controller issues.

MTV

There's only one mandatory readback and that is anything with a hold short.

 

[BonanzaMan]

Bob,

There's no wake turbulence separation REQUIRED behind a Citation. So, was this Citation landing and exiting the runway on a highspeed taxiway, and crossing the other runway?

MTV

There's never wake turbulence separation to depart behind a landing heavier aircraft. You'll get a caution wake turbulence with your takeoff clearance but there's no time aspect to it. The aircraft must exit your runway before you can be cleared for takeoff but that has nothing to do with the size of the landing aircraft. If the controller made you wait until the aircraft cleared some other runway not used by you there was something else going on or he simply made a mistake.

 

[BonanzaMan]

Kase,

Could you elaborate, por favor? I assume you're talking about the Citations which meet the "large aircraft" definition?

Bob, what's the separation BETWEEN those runways?

Thanks,
MTV

There's no separation requirement when the Citation is landing other than he be off your runway before you get cleared for takeoff, same as any aircraft. Distance between parallel runways is irrelevant in this case. If the Citation was departing and he was what we call an S+, heavier than 12,500 up to 41,000 of which the vast majority of Citations fall into, then departing from the same place on the same runway there's no wake turbulence delay. Departing from the parallel there's no delay, doesn't matter what the distance is between the runways. Only wake turbulence delay would be 3 minutes when departing same runway from an intersection or when going opposite direction. This is always waivable. All 3 minute delays are waivable. The only ones you cannot waive are the 2 minute delays behind a Heavy/757. All three minute delays start when the aircraft rotates. All two minute delays start when the aircraft starts his takeoff roll, as an option the controller can apply 5 radar flying miles instead of two minutes although almost always two minutes is the lesser time.

 

[BonanzaMan]

As I said in the previous post, if the runways do not have legal IFR separation the controller needs to be assured that the landing a/c will not go around before he/she clears the other a/c for takeoff. Even if both a/c are VFR. If they allow a Cub to takeoff and the Citation goes around, for what ever reason they both end up in the same place the controller will get dinged.
It's just my opinion but I don't think it's something new, just part of the new "safety" program. From what I have heard, the controllers are getting pretty significant disciplinary action for ANY "close calls". This has forced them to go to the limit (outer, so to speak) of separation.
Controllers used to move as much traffic as they could, as safely as they could. Now they move as much traffic as they can, as SAFELY as they can, without getting into trouble and losing their job.
If YOUR standing in the tower and Joe Blow #1 is landing and Joe Blow #2 wants to take off would you risk YOUR job to accommodate.
The US controllers are the best in the world at moving traffic. Under the current conditions they are under immense pressure. If it seems they are working a little slow, give em a break. They are just trying not to get fired.

No such thing as runways having legal IFR separation, unless you mean runways more than 3 miles apart. IFR separation rules never apply to VFR aircraft that aren't Special VFR. Assuming that's not the case a controller at any airport simply needs his minimum runway separation. The controllers do not worry if the Citation or any other aircraft might go around. You can't control traffic that way. If he does then we deal with it, but not until then. If you are departing in front of that Citation, or any jet, you must be 6000 feet down the runway and airborne. If you are off in that 200 feet I always hear Cub pilots can do and you have turned so you are no longer over the runway than the Citation can cross the numbers and land.
It has not become as restrictive as you think. Seems like you have run into some new controllers, they're everywhere nowadays and don't have the skill the older guys do. If the Citation goes around and you are 6000 feet and airborne down the runway that does not negatively affect me. What I do next might but aircraft can go around for any number of reasons.

 

[mvivion]

Bonanzaman,

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I'm aware that there should not be a wake turbulence ANYthing for a departing a/c after arrival of another.

My reference to the parallel runways was reference a takeoff wake turbulence delay or warning. The same warnings are required for a parallel runway that is closer than 2500 feet from another parallel runway. At FAI, departing on 1R, you'll get the same wake turbulence delay following a heavy departure on 1L as if you were departing on 1L. Those two runways are, I believe, 1800 feet apart. Same goes for the waivable warning for a large aircraft.

Here's the FAA guidance on wake turbulence delays:
:

NOTE-
Takeoff clearance to the following aircraft should not be issued until 2 minutes after the heavy jet/B757 begins takeoff roll.

1. The same runway. (See FIG 3-9-4.)

FIG 3-9-4
2 Minute Separation


2. A parallel runway separated by less than 2,500 feet.

g. Separate an aircraft from a heavy jet/B757 when operating on a runway with a displaced landing threshold if projected flight paths will cross- 2 minutes when:

1. A departure follows a heavy jet/B757 arrival.

2. An arrival follows a heavy jet/B757 departure.

h. Air traffic controllers shall not approve pilot requests to deviate from the required wake turbulence time interval if the preceding aircraft is a heavy jet/B757.

i. Separate a small aircraft behind a large aircraft taking off or making a low/missed approach when utilizing opposite direction takeoffs on the same runway by 3 minutes unless a pilot has initiated a request to deviate from the 3-minute interval. In the latter case, issue a wake turbulence advisory before clearing the aircraft for takeoff.

NOTE-
1. A request for takeoff does not initiate a waiver request.

2. To initiate a waiver of the 3 minute rule, the request for takeoff must be accompanied by a request to deviate from the 3-minute rule.

MTV

 

[BonanzaMan]

The same warnings are required for a parallel runway that is closer than 2500 feet from another parallel runway. At FAI, departing on 1R, you'll get the same wake turbulence delay following a heavy departure on 1L as if you were departing on 1L. Those two runways are, I believe, 1800 feet apart. Same goes for the waivable warning for a large aircraft.


The delay is different. Departing from the same runway and from the end, just like the heavy, you have a 2 minute delay. Departing from the parallel you have a 3 minute delay. The parallel is considered the same runway because it is less than 2500 feet but it is by definition an intersection departure so therefore a 3 minute delay.

 

[BonanzaMan]

It wasn't wake separation, it was runway sequestration. The left runway became unusable when the Citation was on a two mile final for the right runway and stayed that way until the jet cleared the left runway on taxi in.

I was in a Super Cub, and when I figured out what was going on, I said " Cub will waive wake turbulence separation, if that is the problem" - controller said it wasn't turbulence, and it wasn't waivable. He is a friend, and has been in my jumpseat. He is very competent, And no - I have not talked to him about it yet.

This may be something new - that's why I am asking the most knowledgable group of aviators I know.

Controller was wrong, plain and simple. It certainly wasn't wake turbulence and since they were parallel runways there's no reason to hold the departure off a different runway.

 

[bob turner]

I knew I would get the answer here - I will call this morning and find out what the controllers are thinking about - there are always controllers lurking here, and I trust them because this is their job, yet they are letting us in on their secrets for free. That's dedication! Thanks.

 

[bob turner]

So I called - guess who answered?

Rule 71-10: - cannot have simultaneous operations with a jet on one runway when centerlines are less than 700', and our runways are 500'. My friend says the rule has been in place for some time, but often ignored. I have been flying for a long time, and have actually read the controllers handbook, and this one is a new one for me. If you do not learn something every day . . .

He also agrees with me on readbacks - fine with him if I just say wilco, unless I hear a runway number in a clearance. That has been my rule for years.

 

[BonanzaMan]

So I called - guess who answered?

Rule 71-10: - cannot have simultaneous operations with a jet on one runway when centerlines are less than 700', and our runways are 500'. My friend says the rule has been in place for some time, but often ignored. I have been flying for a long time, and have actually read the controllers handbook, and this one is a new one for me. If you do not learn something every day . . .

He also agrees with me on readbacks - fine with him if I just say wilco, unless I hear a runway number in a clearance. That has been my rule for years.

OK, You didn't mention runways are so close together. That rule has been around for a long time. You could have been cleared for takeoff if you could have been off the end or side of runway before Citation comes over numbers.

 

[mvivion]

And, Bob, that's why I asked several posts back what the distance between runways was.

Fairbanks also has a float pond immediately adjacent to the primary runway, and the south end of Float Pond 1 is well north of the departure end of 1L. You'll get all sorts of wake turbulence delays there, and some aren't conservative enough.... :x

Bonanzaman,

If a controller instructs a pilot to read back a clearance, the readback becomes mandatory. So, actually, there are a couple of mandatory readbacks.... Know any of the rest?

MTV

 

[BonanzaMan]

Bonanzaman,

If a controller instructs a pilot to read back a clearance, the readback becomes mandatory. So, actually, there are a couple of mandatory readbacks.... Know any of the rest?

MTV

I can't imagine why I'd instruct a pilot to give me a readback. If you screw it up that becomes a pilot deviation.