Narrative:

In an attempt to reduce operrors, they have created a situation which will ensure that instances of aircraft landing over the top of aircraft holding in position will increase exponentially, or (at worst) we have sits like that which occurred in los angeles a few yrs ago where a landing aircraft hit an aircraft holding in position. Specifically, the example, mandatory phraseology is specified which will lead to a pilot believing he or she is cleared to land over the top of an aircraft holding in position. (Example: air carrier X cleared to land, #2 following air carrier Y boeing 737 2 mi final, traffic will be an MD80 holding in position.' although I do not believe this is the intent of the notice it misleads pilots into believing that they should land over the top of an aircraft holding in position. The obvious ramifications of such actions are quite frightening. I foresee a situation during peak traffic at a busy airport where the local controller issues the clearance exactly as mandated by the notice, the previous arrival clears the runway, the departure is cleared for takeoff but takes an unusually long time to actually start the takeoff roll. The controller, busy with other duties and satisfied that separation will exist does not notice this. The second arrival has assumed that he should land over the top of the arrival, does not hear the departure clearance, or believes that it is intended for another aircraft on a different runway, and continues for the runway. If the departure begins his takeoff roll at the time that it is no longer visible to the arrival the odds that he will not be hit are slim. The example of the prescribed mandatory phraseology clearly states that the traffic will depart prior to the arrival of the aircraft receiving the clearance. If that is the intention of the example of mandatory phraseology, it is not clear -- in fact, I find it to be very misleading. It is my contention that the existence of the example of phraseology is misleading, dangerous, and offers absolutely no operational benefit to anyone, therefore should be immediately stricken before it causes accidents.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATCT CTLR AT JFK CLAIMS A NOTICE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL FAA AIR TFC SPECIALISTS ALLOWING A LCL CTLR TO ISSUE A SUCCEEDING ACFT A CLRNC TO LAND AND, IF NECESSARY, ADVISE THE PLT, THAT TFC WILL BE HOLDING IN POS.

Narrative: IN AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE OPERRORS, THEY HAVE CREATED A SIT WHICH WILL ENSURE THAT INSTANCES OF ACFT LNDG OVER THE TOP OF ACFT HOLDING IN POS WILL INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY, OR (AT WORST) WE HAVE SITS LIKE THAT WHICH OCCURRED IN LOS ANGELES A FEW YRS AGO WHERE A LNDG ACFT HIT AN ACFT HOLDING IN POS. SPECIFICALLY, THE EXAMPLE, MANDATORY PHRASEOLOGY IS SPECIFIED WHICH WILL LEAD TO A PLT BELIEVING HE OR SHE IS CLRED TO LAND OVER THE TOP OF AN ACFT HOLDING IN POS. (EXAMPLE: ACR X CLRED TO LAND, #2 FOLLOWING ACR Y BOEING 737 2 MI FINAL, TFC WILL BE AN MD80 HOLDING IN POS.' ALTHOUGH I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS THE INTENT OF THE NOTICE IT MISLEADS PLTS INTO BELIEVING THAT THEY SHOULD LAND OVER THE TOP OF AN ACFT HOLDING IN POS. THE OBVIOUS RAMIFICATIONS OF SUCH ACTIONS ARE QUITE FRIGHTENING. I FORESEE A SIT DURING PEAK TFC AT A BUSY ARPT WHERE THE LCL CTLR ISSUES THE CLRNC EXACTLY AS MANDATED BY THE NOTICE, THE PREVIOUS ARR CLRS THE RWY, THE DEP IS CLRED FOR TKOF BUT TAKES AN UNUSUALLY LONG TIME TO ACTUALLY START THE TKOF ROLL. THE CTLR, BUSY WITH OTHER DUTIES AND SATISFIED THAT SEPARATION WILL EXIST DOES NOT NOTICE THIS. THE SECOND ARR HAS ASSUMED THAT HE SHOULD LAND OVER THE TOP OF THE ARR, DOES NOT HEAR THE DEP CLRNC, OR BELIEVES THAT IT IS INTENDED FOR ANOTHER ACFT ON A DIFFERENT RWY, AND CONTINUES FOR THE RWY. IF THE DEP BEGINS HIS TKOF ROLL AT THE TIME THAT IT IS NO LONGER VISIBLE TO THE ARR THE ODDS THAT HE WILL NOT BE HIT ARE SLIM. THE EXAMPLE OF THE PRESCRIBED MANDATORY PHRASEOLOGY CLRLY STATES THAT THE TFC WILL DEPART PRIOR TO THE ARR OF THE ACFT RECEIVING THE CLRNC. IF THAT IS THE INTENTION OF THE EXAMPLE OF MANDATORY PHRASEOLOGY, IT IS NOT CLR -- IN FACT, I FIND IT TO BE VERY MISLEADING. IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE EXAMPLE OF PHRASEOLOGY IS MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, AND OFFERS ABSOLUTELY NO OPERATIONAL BENEFIT TO ANYONE, THEREFORE SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY STRICKEN BEFORE IT CAUSES ACCIDENTS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.