October, 1996
By Richard Gallagher, CFI
Last summer, it was found that the taxiway hold-short lines for runway 4R which are served by an ILS system, and the taxiway hold-short lines for 4L were not uniform and were not in compliance with the necessary standards. The State Department of Transportation, Airports Division mandated that the taxiway hold-short lines be moved to the correct positions, in order to bring them into compliance with Advisory Circular 150/5340-1G, Standards for Airport Markings for Runways, Taxiways and Aprons. These changes were made during airport improvements last summer, and the taxiway lines were relocated on many of the taxiways.
The problem is that the change in the locations of the taxiway hold-short lines required a change in procedures and created substantial confusion for many of the airport users. It stems from the fact that airplanes can no longer hold short between runways 4R and 4L, where prior to last summer they could. The following is a review of the current procedures at Honolulu with regard to runways 4R and 4L.
The Situation Before:
Before last summer there was a “clear space” of sufficient size between the hold-short line for runway 4L and the hold-short line for 4R on taxiways F, D and E to have a small single-engine, or light twin-engine aircraft hold in and be clear of both runways. An aircraft which was instructed to “cross 4R and hold short of 4L” could do so and wait in the clear in-between the runways while aircraft were taking off or landing on both sides.
What Happened to the Taxiway Hold-Short Lines:
The taxiway hold-short lines for 4R and 4L were simply moved further outward from their respective runways. This was no problem for the west side of 4L and the east side of 4R because there is plenty of space there. The problem is that the space between runways 4L and 4R is limited. Still the hold-short lines were moved outward further away from their respective runways. Between the runways on taxiways F, D and E they ultimately flip-flopped.
The Situation Now:
Now that the hold-short lines between 4R and 4L on taxiways F, D and E have changed, there is no longer a “clear space” between these runways in which an aircraft can hold while landings and takeoffs are conducted. The safety zone on the left side of 4R overlaps with the safety zone on the right side of 4L. The area that was clear space before is now a “no man’s land” in which aircraft can no longer hold.
The Present Procedure:
Now that aircraft can no longer hold short between the runways, they must hold short on the east side of 4R. The tower is no longer likely to instruct an aircraft to “cross 4R and hold short of 4L,” because if they do, then runway 4R would be occupied and unavailable to other aircraft. Tower will make the aircraft hold short of 4R until they can cross 4R and go directly into position on 4L. The procedure for landing on 4L and going to the south ramp for parking is more critical because you must at some point cross runway 4R. After landing on 4L you may turn off the runway onto taxiway D or E, but you must stop before the hold-short line for 4R. In the absence of any instruction to “turn right and cross 4R,” or if you are instructed to “turn right, hold short of 4R,” you must stop prior to the 4R hold-short line. When you do so, 4L is still occupied and unavailable for other aircraft to land or take off. DO NOT simply taxi to a position in- between the hold-short lines (as we were allowed to do until last summer). If you do so, you will violate runway 4R. Stop short of the first hold-short line, which has the solid side of the lines facing you, and wait for your clearance to cross runway 4R. You must receive a “cross 4R” clearance before you can taxi your aircraft across that hold-short line.
Review Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) paragraph 2-3-5-a for more information about hold short procedures.
By Buzz Gorsky, M.D., ASC, Honolulu FSDO
The clock is such an example. Telling time is certainly simple, but watching a clock to be sure to notice exactly when the clock reaches a specific time is indeed a difficult task. It is difficult because the task is completely boring until just before the event. Therefore, people invented alarm clocks to do the job for us. We set the alarm and forget about the clock until the alarm goes off.
As the task at hand becomes more and more taxing, people generally respond by being more and more attentive. There is in essence a “vigilance power curve.” We note that for very low workload tasks there is relatively little vigilance, but that as the workload increases, there is more attentiveness, but at some point a further increase in workload will cause a sudden decrement in watchfulness. We are all familiar with the phenomenon. While the shape of the curve is generally true, the position at which peak occurs and the steepness of the ascent and descent vary from person to person, and for a given person from time to time.
We know that for a beginning pilot, a full workload might just involve flying the airplane relatively straight and level. A call on the radio could be an additive task that will cause the vigilance to disintegrate. An experienced ATP might do fine flying an ILS with one engine inoperative in turbulent conditions, but might have difficulty keeping ahead of the tasks if another system’s failure is suddenly added.
We are generally aware of that aspect of the curve--performance near the peak just before things fall apart. However, we often do not think about performance at the lower left of the curve when the workload is very light. Here vigilance is low even though (or in fact BECAUSE) there is little to do. This means that an experienced pilot, who finds taxiing a mundane task, might be so bored while taxiing that he/she fails to adequately pay attention to traffic and might have a taxi accident or a runway incursion simply due to lack of attention.
Beginners pay attention throughout their flights. Everything is new and interesting to them. However, experienced pilots may find more of their tasks routine, uninteresting, and apparently not worthy of their attention. We are all familiar with the types of errors that occur when reading checklists, yet we all read the words, know what they mean, and should know their importance. However, because the task is simple, repetitive, and uninteresting, we do not give it the same attention as we do to flying an ILS under poor weather conditions.
Accidents associated with poor vigilance in low workload situations can best be avoided by recognizing the problem and then paying attention. That is, the pilot must literally make a conscious effort to stay alert while doing simple tasks. While taxiing, for example, it may be helpful to continuously scan the taxiway and runway environments, to make conscious effort to hold proper flight control positions relative to the wind. By assigning oneself these little tasks as an addition (but a positive one) to the basic task of taxiing, we can make that task sufficiently challenging to keep attentive. Similar strategies work for virtually all phases of flying.
Other solutions can involve devices. Since watching the DME readout while waiting to reach an intersection is as boring as watching a clock, an annunciator which can be set for a specific DME is a useful device. In the absence of one, a stopwatch (set for the anticipated time to the fix) can be a reasonable substitute.
Such devices can be useful, but this area of man-machine interface needs careful design. Devices should help with tasks that are either inherently so complex or tiring that no human could successfully carry them out for an extended period of time. Similarly technology should find solutions for tasks that are too simple to maintain interest. However, the totality of tasks should ideally always remain sufficiently complex to render maintenance of vigilance natural and easy.
EFFECTIVE: September 1, 1996
MAUI TOWER LETTER TO AIRMEN 96-1
SUBJECT: HELICOPTER VFR ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE ROUTES: KAHULUI AIRPORT, KAHULUI, MAUI, HAWAII
CANCELLATION: September 1, 1998
PURPOSE: To inform airmen of the existence of VFR arrival/ departure routes for locally- based helicopters proceeding to/from the Helicopter Air Terminal (HAT) located east of the approach end of Runway 2 at Kahului Airport.
Narratives of the arrival/departure routes (attachments) have been included to show routes of flight, altitude restrictions, and transition points. Each attachment also contains a visual depiction of these procedures.
Attachment "A" is a narrative and a visual describing departure/ arrival procedures based on Runway 2/5 configuration at Kahului Airport.
Attachment "B" is a narrative and a visual describing departure/ arrival procedures based on Runway 20/23 configuration at Kahului Airport.
Helicopter operators may call Maui Tower at 808-871-4040 for further information or questions regarding these routes.
Judi S. Walsh
Air Traffic Manager, Maui Tower
RUNWAY 2/5 OPERATIONS (LANDING AND DEPARTING TO THE NORTH)
A. DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
B. ARRIVAL PROCEDURES
RUNWAY 20/23 OPERATIONS (LANDING AND DEPARTING TO THE SOUTH)
A. DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
B. ARRIVAL PROCEDURES
EFFECTIVE: September 16, 1996
HONOLULU CERAP LETTER TO AIRMEN NUMBER: 96-01
SUBJECT: IFR SEPARATION OF VFR AIRCRAFT PRACTICING INSTRUMENT APPROACHES AT KEAHOLE-KONA, LIHUE, AND MOLOKAI AIRPORTS
CANCELLATION: September 16, 1998
Airport Frequencies
Larry T. Anderson
Air Traffic Manager
Honolulu Combined Center/Radar Approach Control
EFFECTIVE: October 15, 1996
HONOLULU CERAP LETTER TO AIRMEN NUMBER: 96-02
SUBJECT: IFR SEPARATION OF VFR AIRCRAFT PRACTICING INSTRUMENT APPROACHES AT KAHULUI AIRPORT
CANCELLATION: October 15, 1998
Kahului Airport Frequencies
Larry T. Anderson
Air Traffic Manager
Honolulu Combined Center/Radar Approach Control
PHASE I
Mark Ogden
Wayne Ohashi
PHASE II
Harrison Naukoong
Bert Oshiro
PHASE III
Richard Gallagher
PHASE VII
Charles Cantu
|
Pacific Island Flyer
This newsletter is published monthly by the Aviation Safety Program of the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region. Stories are submitted by the various Flight Standards District Offices and by individuals in the aviation community, contributing through the FSDOs. Notices are also contributed by the Air Traffic Control Branch of the FAA. All photos and drawings of various aircraft are included strictly for interest and in no way are meant to endorse any particular model or manufacturer. Your comments and suggestions regarding this newsletter are welcomed. Please send them to: Chuck Hicks, FAA Regional Aviation Safety Program Manager, AWP-204, P.O. Box 92007, World Way Postal Center, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007. |
Pacific Island Flyer,
Home