Vehicle Runway Crossings

Status
Not open for further replies.

pnicola

Member
FAA
Messages
2
Facility
JFK Kennedy Tower
The 3/29/18 7110.65 change has added a paragraph (3-7-2f) that no longer requires that a vehicle, operating on a runway, receive approval to cross an intersecting runway (3-7-2e remains, requiring a crossing instruction other than when on a runway).

3-7-2f states that vehicles on a runway are authorized to cross intersecting runways unless otherwise restricted. At JFK, we've had controllers "lecturing" vehicles who, while operating on a runway, are asking for approval to cross an intersecting runway (as they always have) and the controller is telling them the crossing clearance is no longer required in this instance.

This all goes contrary to what has been, historically, a move toward no runway crossings without specific crossing instructions. We're trying to figure out why the FAA would loosen the restrictions and add a paragraph permitting a runway crossing by a vehicle on another runway without a controller's clearance.

Of course, the controller should be issuing a hold short instruction if needed but, should the controller "forget" to issue the hold-short, the vehicle would not cross the other runway without approval; that "failsafe" has been removed.

The briefing guide is rather vague as to the intent of this particular change. Can anyone shed any light on this subject?

Thanks.
 
Solution
Telling a vehicle/aircraft to proceed on a runway has always given them the entire runway with the ability to cross other runways.
In the briefing guide:
One such inconsistency involved a taxi route or vehicle operation along a runway that intersects with another runway. It was not clear if air traffic control needed to issue a crossing clearance to a vehicle performing a runway operation. Several subject matter experts from the previous 2014 Safety Risk Management Panel met to establish clarity of intent regarding vehicle operations on a runway. While Notice 7110.708 introduced clarifying language to exclude vehicles from participating in multiple runway crossings, the panel never intended to change the industry baseline...
I thought/think this was to do with the active runway and not having to tell the vehicle to cross an intersecting runway that is not in use. Here at DAB we now just have to say proceed down runway 7L and no longer need tell them to proceed down runway 7L cross runway 16 which is the intersecting runway. If the vehicle is on a taxiway we still need to tell the vehicle to cross a runway. We are predominately parallels here, either 7L/R or 25R/L and so runway 16/34 is the interesting runway and one "less used". The ops vehicles are very good about asking for crossings and such and now they can just proceed down the active runways and don't need a crossing for the intersecting one. It makes it a whole lot easier now and to me it was very very stupid as to why I would need to tell a vehicle to cross an intersecting runway when it wasn't "being used". Its not like we would tell an aircraft to land runway 7L cross runway 16 with their landing clearance. I hope that helped.
 
Its because giving access to the runway gives access to the entire runway. It's always been like that, but people got overzealous with the specific crossing instructions that you mentioned, and extrapolated it further than intended. I used to argue this at my fac, its nice to be vindicated :)
 
Telling a vehicle/aircraft to proceed on a runway has always given them the entire runway with the ability to cross other runways.
In the briefing guide:
One such inconsistency involved a taxi route or vehicle operation along a runway that intersects with another runway. It was not clear if air traffic control needed to issue a crossing clearance to a vehicle performing a runway operation. Several subject matter experts from the previous 2014 Safety Risk Management Panel met to establish clarity of intent regarding vehicle operations on a runway. While Notice 7110.708 introduced clarifying language to exclude vehicles from participating in multiple runway crossings, the panel never intended to change the industry baseline understanding of vehicle operations on a runway.

When they added part e that vehicles must receive a clearance for each runway their route intersects, it was intended to prevent controllers from saying something like "proceed via alpha, mike, cross runways 24 and 18."

It previously only mentioned that you couldn't give aircraft more than one runway crossing clearance, and because it didn't mention vehicles, part e was added to include vehicles to that restriction.

However, it wasn't worded perfectly and had the unintended side-effect of getting people who read way too much into the rules, saying a runway inspection was also a route and the vehicle now needed the crossing clearance.

And I still don't understand why someone would think a vehicle would need the crossing clearance while proceeding down a runway, but an aircraft taking off wouldn't need it. It's the exact same scenario. Once you have authorization to use the runway, that entire piece of pavement belongs to you.
 
Solution
Same section, different question.

If taxi route is A B X36 C R27, taxi instructions are now

Rwy27, taxi via A B, hold short rwy36. Then when crossing,
cross rwy36 @ b, taxi via c

That right?

I can't wait to go to a TRACON
 
Same section, different question.

If taxi route is A B X36 C R27, taxi instructions are now

Rwy27, taxi via A B, hold short rwy36. Then when crossing,
cross rwy36 @ b, taxi via c

That right?

I can't wait to go to a TRACON
That's correct. But I'd probably add into your crossing instruction,
cross rwy36 at B and taxi B C.
Or,
Rwy27, taxi via A B C, hold short of B. Get the crossing approval with local,
Continue taxi, cross runway 36 at B.

That'd be a workaround which I could see coming in handy depending on each airport's configuration. When I worked a tower with lots of runway crossings in multiple places, I did a mix of everything just depending on each situation and what would be most clear to the pilot.
 
Rwy27, taxi via A B C, hold short of B. Get the crossing approval with local,
Continue taxi, cross runway 36 at B.
That's what it was though. Didnt have to include the crossing point either for the assigned rwy taxi route. More extra words :(

I worked a tower with lots of runway crossings in multiple places
Same, and there's instances it makes sense to truncate the route. it should be an option of either/or, but it doesnt read like it.
 
Last edited:
That's what it was though.
You only have to give the partial route if you hold the airplane short of a runway. If you hold them short of a taxiway before the runway, there is nothing written down saying you can't give the full route like before.
But if the closest taxiway before the runway is a long way away, that's not going to help any.
 
You only have to give the partial route if you hold the airplane short of a runway. If you hold them short of a taxiway before the runway, there is nothing written down saying you can't give the full route like before.
But if the closest taxiway before the runway is a long way away, that's not going to help any.
Right. It does say to do it the "old" way as you're describing for holding points other than runways. It's just the runway holds that changed.
 
Right. It does say to do it the "old" way as you're describing for holding points other than runways. It's just the runway holds that changed.
I just want to know what incidents sparked this change. And how that facility is going to get a waiver to bypass this.
 
I would imaging complaints from pilots, because of people who have no common sense.
Oh you're not stationed here? Runwaaayyy twoonetaxiviaalphatwocharlievictorwiskypaparunwaytwoeightrightlimamikecrossrunwaythreeoneholdshortrunwayeight
 
Telling a vehicle/aircraft to proceed on a runway has always given them the entire runway with the ability to cross other runways.

It appears that wasn't the case prior to Change 1. Paragraph 3-7-2e used to state "Vehicles must receive a clearance for each runway their route crosses. A vehicle must have crossed a previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued"; that first sentence indicates a crossing clearance was required (it didn't differentiate between operating on a taxiway or intersecting runway).

3-7-2e was changed slightly in Change 1: "Issue a crossing clearance to vehicles for each runway their route crosses. A vehicle must have crossed a previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued."

New paragraph 3-7-2f now provides for a vehicle, operating on a runway, to cross intersecting runways without a crossing clearance.

I realize many operations differ and there's an advantage in the change for many airports. At JFK, though, we have vehicles conducting operations on runways that intersect other runways in use for arrivals/departures and would prefer the vehicle, in the absence of hold short instructions, to hold short of the intersecting runway and call for clearance to cross. Could save a deal if an arrival or departure is rolling on the intersecting runway.
 
It appears that wasn't the case prior to Change 1. Paragraph 3-7-2e used to state "Vehicles must receive a clearance for each runway their route crosses. A vehicle must have crossed a previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued"; that first sentence indicates a crossing clearance was required (it didn't differentiate between operating on a taxiway or intersecting runway).

3-7-2e was changed slightly in Change 1: "Issue a crossing clearance to vehicles for each runway their route crosses. A vehicle must have crossed a previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued."

New paragraph 3-7-2f now provides for a vehicle, operating on a runway, to cross intersecting runways without a crossing clearance.

I realize many operations differ and there's an advantage in the change for many airports. At JFK, though, we have vehicles conducting operations on runways that intersect other runways in use for arrivals/departures and would prefer the vehicle, in the absence of hold short instructions, to hold short of the intersecting runway and call for clearance to cross. Could save a deal if an arrival or departure is rolling on the intersecting runway.

It was an issue on the change from .65W to .65X.
On the W version, there was no mention of vehicles needing a crossing clearance. The problem was introduced on the X version by mentioning vehicles needed to be given an instruction to cross multiple runways individually. Intent was never to tell an vehicle to proceed on the runway and also to cross an intersecting runway.

Go compare the W to the X .
 
But if you read the note, it says "vehicles should not normally use runways as transition routes, and that these movements aren't considered runway operations."

Therefore, you would need to give a crossing instruction.

Section e says to issue crossing clearance to vehicles for each runway they cross. The part about crossing a previous rwy before another runway crossing is given, is just an added feature for safety.

What if the vehicle is following an aircraft on the runway and a crossing is required? Section D says the vehicle is required to get a rwy crossing. Haven't you had a closed taxiway and now need to utilize a rwy for movement?

I don't know about you guys, but any vehicle not considered a rwy operation and on my runway, needs a crossing instruction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom