Runway Vacated Report

[Steve90]

Is it a requirement for a vehicle on an airfield to call "runway vacated" every time or is it just on ATC's request?

[chevvron]

I wanna tell you a story.
Vehicle on runway for bird scaring. Seen to vacate onto a taxiway about 2/3rd of way up runway and drive past the holding point. Aircraft already lined up cleared for takeoff.
Vehicle then does a 180, drives back past the holding point and re-enters the runway.
Driver's excuse was he hadn't reported runway vacated. NB: The 'air' frequency is re-broadcast on the vehicle ground frequency.

[2 sheds]

Implied blame on the driver being based on the fact that because he had left the runway, his clearance onto said runway had expired - very tenuous, particularly as obviously he had not had any further instruction, to hold or to proceed to a specified clearance limit. I would have thought that that is precisely what you might reasonably expect if the chap had not reported inspection complete or vacated and holding!

2 s

[southern duel]

In my world anyone who crosses a runway or inspects it should be requested to call vacated.
I am still not sure why Mats Part I says otherwise in this day and age. I hope it is amended very soon.
there should be no ambiguity when runways are concerned and best practise world wide dictates that all crossings have a positive vacated call. EAPPRI has already issued guidance on this

[chevvron]

I agree; whether I'm in an aircraft or in a vehicle I always call 'runway vacated' even if ATC/FIS do not request it.

[veloo maniam]

Quote"I agree; whether I'm in an aircraft or in a vehicle I always call 'runway vacated' even if ATC/FIS do not request it.Unquote"
I too am with chevvron:)

[Burnie5204]

I and my fellow crew members will always call vacated, and where, whether its asked for or not.

If I'm on to scare birds I will add a positive "wildlife dispersed" to confirm the runway is safe. If its for a runway check I'll add "nothing to report" or "<X> reports when you are ready to copy" to indicate that there are either no problems or X number of problems (normally AGL fittings whose bulbs have gone)

At night I also have to ask for my onwards clearance and during the day it gives ATC an idea on roughly where I am as we are on own lookout.

There's also the added benefit that the Operations Co-ordinator monitors the air frequencies and will insert my inspections into the log when he hears me vacate.


Essentially its primarily a safety thing, to positively confirm that I am clear of the active runway and complete, secondary to that is the 'bolt on' report that the runway is confirmed as safe for use.

[2 sheds]

Driver's excuse was he hadn't reported runway vacated.

One would infer from this that the driver was being blamed when, in fact, it seems to indicate poor ATC technique. I say seems because we are not in possession of all the facts.

2 s

[chevvron]

I wasn't the tower controller concerned but the report was funnelled to me as I was the unit rep. on the NATS Communication Errors Working Group.
It was not my remit to investigate or pass judgement on communication errors, I merely reported them for discussion and for other unit reps to think 'yes that could happen at my unit'.

[Nobodys Desk]

You will be quoting "Best Practice" next :rolleyes:

No it isn't a requirement and it's up to the controller to ask if he wants one. The controller sometimes doesn't want unnecessary comments on the RT when he has the vehicle in sight and it is just crossing but I would suggest, needs it if a vehicle is cleared on for an inspection.

[2 sheds]

Nobodys
Well said, sir.

Chevvy
It seemed as if you were passing judgement by referring to the driver's report as an excuse. What was the aerodrome controller's excuse for not being sufficiently aware to foresee the potential problem?

2 s

[terrain safe]

At my Aerodrome it is a local instruction for all vehicles to report vacated. Aircraft are not as they are visible on the ASMGCS, and we work on anticipated separation. Plus, given that some pilots report runway vacated when the nosewheel turns off the runway centreline, I think that that is a good idea especially when they do it in LVPs :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[confused atco]

At my Aerodrome it is a local instruction for all vehicles to report vacated.

Ditto.

No ASMGCS so visual reference all times and "RWY BLOCKED" strip is your only man.

[coolbeans]

You will be quoting "Best Practice" next

Careful, best practice trumps the ANO in some parts ;)

Fair enough have robust procedures in LVPs, but vacation reports for all runway crossings? Why give the Tower Controllers big tall windows if we are going to be filling up the RT with unnecessary verbage?

[Kimmikins]

Fair enough have robust procedures in LVPs, but vacation reports for all runway crossings? Why give the Tower Controllers big tall windows if we are going to be filling up the RT with unnecessary verbage?

I'd imagine it'd be to give a prompt if you don't want to give the crossing vehicle your full attention e.g. giving clearances to other aircraft? Big tall windows are no good if you're looking out of another one.

I always had to report runway vacated when crossing a runway. Sometimes I'd have a controller ask me to "confirm you've vacated" or be told they'd seen me vacate - in these circumstances they'd be itching to get an aircraft away or issue a landing clearance so they'd have been watching me cross.

[Barnaby the Bear]

I agree with Coolbeans.
Not all Airfield layouts are the same, some more complicated than others. Some VCR's have restricted views of the Runways and vacation points along them, some have perfect line of sight.
There is also the question of R/T loading (not all towers have split frequencies).
Ultimately if the appropriate risk assessments have been made then the MATS Pt 1 instructions are safe IMO.
If the ATCO doe's not require a Runway vacated message then why congest the frequency with one.

[terrain safe]

Perhaps the runway vacated is to say that the vehicle has finished with the runway rather than for the ATCOs benefit. An example is a runway inspection where the vehicle is also inspecting the exits. A vacated call will show that he has finished completely rather than the ATCO assuming and the vehicle then turning around and re-entering the runway. So perhaps sometimes it might be a good idea.

[Talkdownman]

At Heathrow in the old days when we used proper strips and 'Checker' (or 'Seagull' for that matter') entered the runway for inspection (or whatever…) a blocking strip was displayed in the bay. The vehicle thus had 'procedural' occupancy of that runway whether it remained on, or was on/off/back on. Meanwhile it was time to do one's nails or sort out the EG list. It was hardly worth even watching the vehicle whizz on and off, and one should never assume anything anyway in aviation even based on visual observation. It was Checker's runway until such time a 'runway vacated' report was acknowledged at which time it reverted to the runway controller. Runway possession is that of the traffic cleared to use it, ie. whosever strip was in the bay. The ATCO merely manages runway occupancy. Not much different to a locomotive driver on a single rail line being in possession of 'the token' given to him by the signalman really…so why is all this so difficult?

[lamix1w]

There seems to be an awful lot of fluffing around the issue here. The airside driver must have an airside driving permit and vehicle RT certificate.

If he has crossed a holding point (his training would have taught him what this is) then he MUST NOT re-enter the runway without clearance.

It is of no relevance that the tower controller should have foreseen a potential problem (there is no requirement to) and there is also no requirement to report vacated. Having said that if a vehicle is cleared to operate on the runway it is good practice to report vacated but the fact that the tower controller saw him cross the holding point makes it perfectly acceptable to clear an aircraft to takeoff/land.

Grass roots fact is that the driver is at fault (it's a runway incursion). MOR it, accept it and learn from it.

[LookingForAJob]

There seems to be an awful lot of fluffing around the issue here.Sadly, the world is a grey and fluffy place - not as black and white as you might like.

The airside driver must have an airside driving permit and vehicle RT certificate.You seem to be making some assumptions here about what having these bits of paper signify and just how much competence having permits and certificates actually represent. I mean no disrespect to those who hold such bits of paper, but training and standards do vary.

If he has crossed a holding point (his training would have taught him what this is) then he MUST NOT re-enter the runway without clearance. Now here I'm getting a little puzzled - maybe your training was different to mine - but where does it say that?

It is of no relevance that the tower controller should have foreseen a potential problem (there is no requirement to)....But isn't that a large part of the job? Isn't it good practice to look out for potential problems and do what we can to stop them becoming actual problems. Granted, there is no actual requirement to foresee what could go wrong, but it's a bit of a difficult one to enforce. On the other hand, there are plenty of requirements these days to manage risk.

....and there is also no requirement to report vacated.Ahh, finally something we can agree on.

Having said that if a vehicle is cleared to operate on the runway it is good practice to report vacated....So which is it to be? There's no requirement to do something, so don't do it, or do good practice even though there's no requirement. Do I detect an ever so slightly double standard being applied here depending on whether we're talking about a controller or a driver? And where on this scale of standards would a pilot fit - or would it depend on whether it was a PA28 or a B744 that he or she was piloting?

....but the fact that the tower controller saw him cross the holding point makes it perfectly acceptable to clear an aircraft to takeoff/land.I'm a little unsure about this. I'm inclined to think that it would rather depend on the clearance that the tower controller issued. We seem to be making an assumption again here, and you know what they say about an assumption.....

Grass roots fact is that the driver is at fault (it's a runway incursion). MOR it, accept it and learn from it.Perhaps it's just an unfortunate turn of phrase but your first sentence seems to imply that if it's a runway incursion then the driver will be at fault. But I'll make an assumption (it's safe to do that here because this is just an old fashioned message board, not real life) that you mean that, in this example, the driver was at fault. But now I'm thinking that this isn't a very 'just culture'ish thing to say. When something goes wrong, aren't we supposed to try and understand why it went wrong and try and do something to stop it happening in the future? And if, our errant driver (or whomever) made an honest mistake, we don't penalise him or her. And when it comes to runway incursions, if you look at the data you'll find that there are few instances where there is a single cause but rather, more usually, a combination of contributory factors often made by a range of players (some of whom may have made their contribution months or even years ago). So there may well be something for the controller to learn from the event also, if not others. But I guess we're back to some of your earlier comments which suggested that the controller will not be wrong....ever.

A word of advice, go and look up a bit about TEM - it's a good principle in our business. Then take a bit of time to analyse your controlling techniques. Maybe listen to a few random periods from the tapes and see if you are making assumptions that may be incorrect. And think about how you could stop things going wrong if your assumptions are incorrect.

I do hope your post was intentionally provocative and designed to prompt discussion. It would be truly frightening if your comments truly reflect your thoughts.

[Kimmikins]

There seems to be an awful lot of fluffing around the issue here. The airside driver must have an airside driving permit and vehicle RT certificate.

If he has crossed a holding point (his training would have taught him what this is) then he MUST NOT re-enter the runway without clearance.

It is of no relevance that the tower controller should have foreseen a potential problem (there is no requirement to) and there is also no requirement to report vacated. Having said that if a vehicle is cleared to operate on the runway it is good practice to report vacated but the fact that the tower controller saw him cross the holding point makes it perfectly acceptable to clear an aircraft to takeoff/land.

Grass roots fact is that the driver is at fault (it's a runway incursion). MOR it, accept it and learn from it.




Care to show the material from which you're making these statements? Especially with regards to crossing the holding point = vacated runway? For a crossing, maybe, but for an inspection...you're going to have to show me your evidence on that one I'm afraid.

So, it's fine for the controller not to foresee the potential problem because they weren't required to...but not fine for the driver to re-enter the runway having not called vacated when we've established there's no requirement for that either?

It's only a runway incursion if he enters the runway without permission...but they HAD permission, and in their eyes they hadn't reported vacated, hadn't given the runway back and so had never left the runway. It's not cut and dry and simple. It's a case of two people getting their wires crossed - the controller, for thinking the vehicle had vacated when the vehicle hadn't said so and obviously didn't think they'd vacated. And the vehicle's for crossing the holding point and doing the 180 without keeping ATC informed.

[Kimmikins]

Lookingforajob - great post :ok: I cross posted, and you said what I thought...only more eloquent!

[phiggsbroadband]

So what you are saying is that...
A Vehicle chasing a Bird or Fox or Moose around the airport has to ask for clearance every time he crosses a Holding Point Yellow Line... ?

[confused atco]

A Vehicle chasing a Bird or Fox or Moose around the airport has to ask for clearance every time he crosses a Holding Point Yellow Line.
Did you give him a blanket clearance to pursue said fox/dog?

The Eurocontrol training zone has a bit on runway incursions and holding lines.


Suppose I give a vehicle an instruction
"...... procreed on RWY XX/XX and listen out" instead of "...... procreed on RWY XX/XX and listen out next report RWY vacated on TXY ...".

I observe the patrol to its conclusion where the driver leaves the vehicle and enters the fire station.

There has been no further communication between me and the vehicle.

Now is the RWY clear?

[confused atco]

Runway-holding position. A designated position intended to protect a runway, an obstacle limitation surface, or an ILS/MLS critical/sensitive area at which taxiing aircraft and vehicles shall stop and hold, unless otherwise authorized by the aerodrome control tower.

Note.— In radiotelephony phraseologies, the expression “holding point” is used to designate the runway-holding
position.
DOC 4444 you stop unless you have implicit permission.
So when you leave the RWY you do not reenter without permission once more.

That been said I would not like to have to defend this argument in the current climate .

[Burnie5204]

Phiggsbroadband,

Thats where the Wildlife Controllers proffessionalism should come into it. A good WCO will know where the wildlife is likely to go based on previous observations. For example I know where our 2 onsite Fox dens are and where the Rabbit Warren entrances are so I know where the foxes are going to and from.

This allows me to pre-empt what clearance I am likely to require and get the request in early as to where I need clearance to operate.

[southern duel]

Interesting thoughts. Would like to chuck another scenario into the mix.

Vehicle crossing . he doesn't have to call vacated as there is no requirement to ( which I completely disagree with but hey perhaps being at Heathrow for 24 years has made have these thoughts)

So vehicle is crossing. ATC controller distracted. When he turns round he sees no vehicle. he has an aircraft on approach. He tries to call the vehicle but by then he is parked up radio off having a brew.

would you as the controller give that aircraft clearance to land ??
If so why when you cannot confirm where that vehicle is and you have had no positive call back from the vehicle saying he/she has vacated.

If you did give it clearance and there was an incident what would you say ?
" I didn't see it guv" and take Arsen wengers normal stance on things?
I don't think that would wash when up before the beak !!!

An RT message is after all recorded and does not have any ambiguity

[LookingForAJob]

Vehicle crossing . he doesn't have to call vacated as there is no requirement to ( which I completely disagree with but hey perhaps being at Heathrow for 24 years has made have these thoughts)
There isn't any requirement to......unless the controller asks for one.

[southern duel]

in which case "Looking for a Job" answer the scenario and questions

what would you do ??

[coolbeans]

Its a bit of a stretch to imagine the scenario where the Controller is distracted long enough for a vehicle to cross a runway, clear the taxiways, park up and switch off his radios.

And we've established he's parked up having a brew so clearly the incident wont be involving the vehicle, so why is anyone up before the beak? :8

In all seriousness, What kind of distraction is going to happen that will prevent the controller keeping an eye on the vehicle for the twenty-thirty seconds it will take to cross the runway

If the ADI controller can't keep at least half an eye on the thing that is Blocking his runway without completely losing track of it on the airfield, then by all means make a runway vacated report part of the crossing clearance.

However I would worry about either the ADI controller who could become distracted to that extent or the working environment that could present that level of distraction.

For the avoidance of doubt, if a vehicle is carrying out an inspection of the runway, then I will require a vacated call as part of the clearance, but I have always worked at units that mean a portion of the runway is obscured from the VCR.

If I am clearing a vehicle to cross my active runway, within sight of the VCR then I do not require a vacated call.

At units with Tower, ground and vehicle UHF all being handled by a single controller there is enough RT to deal with without adding unnecessary calls.


Edit

An RT message is by no means definitive, how often have we seen both Vehicles and aircraft call vacated, when they are barely off the runway centreline?

[phiggsbroadband]

Just one question, relating to VHF/UHF.
from the last post..
'At units with Tower, ground and vehicle UHF all being handled by a single controller there is enough RT to deal with without adding unnecessary calls.'


Do the UHF channels get 'bandboxed' with the VHF channels, so that all aircraft can hear the UHF transmissions.?

[coolbeans]

Most places I have been, the Vehicles can hear the aircraft, but the aircraft generally cant hear the vehicles

[confused atco]

And we've established he's parked up having a brew so clearly the incident wont be involving the vehicle
Exactly my point. An aerodrome is visual so if you are happy that the offending vehicle is clear and will not reenter an active RWY then happy days.

However if a vehicle has been given a blanket clearance or a loose one then you must be cautious of the fact that they may reenter the RWY.

, how often have we seen both Vehicles and aircraft call vacated
if the nose is clear does that not count?;)

[Kimmikins]

The scenario you've just described was normally when I'd get told my ATC that they'd seen me vacate, or when they'd ask me to confirm vacated ;) I agree with the need for situational awareness, it's why I'd always report vacated whether asked to or not. Yes, it may take up a teeny amount of RT time, but at least my conscience is clear knowing that tower had a clear-cut answer as to my intentions. I never had anyone in the tower raise concern about my practice.

[good egg]

Ummmm, H24 stopbars have been around for a while now...
(I know there are some vehicle only entry/exit points at various airports which only have runway guard lights, “wig-wags”)
I’d be surprised, certainly in UK, if many/any airports have a procedure which states you can cross an illuminated stopbar without the express permission of ATC? If so I’d suggest that is, at the very least, a “latent risk”.

As for vehicle entry/exit points only protected by a wig-wag and a painted line...I guess it depends on local rules...but surely the only sensible one is “Don’t £€@&;^¥ enter, unless explicitly cleared”?

[Pringle_]

We had a similar runway incursion a while back with a vehicle that had been given clearance to operate 'all areas' to carry out a lighting inspection. The procedure for the inspection is to check all the runway lighting, including lead on/offs followed by taxiways North then South. The driver checked the runway lighting and vacated north side, 10 minutes later crossed a runway holding point to continue south side. The ATCO had removed the blocker strip from the runway bay and on seeing the vehicle cross at the stop end filed a runway incursion (no aircraft involved luckily).

Personally, if I have given a clearance for a vehicle to operate on a runway or 'all areas' I would want either a runway vacated call or an acknowledgement of an instruction to remain north/south/east/west of the runway before issuing any take off/landing clearances. Where I work it's common for a vehicle engaged in wildlife scaring to drive towards/over holding points to encourage the wildlife to leave the runway area before turning back onto the runway to continue the inspection/wildlife removal operations.

For aircraft/vehicles crossing, providing that they are in sight of the ATCO and workload is such that attention is not likely to be diverted elsewhere, I don't see why a vacated call is going to make operations any safer and is just unnecessary RT imo.

[Talkdownman]

The ATCO had removed the blocker strip from the runway bayAssumption.

For aircraft/vehicles crossing, providing that they are in sight of the ATCO and workload is such that attention is not likely to be diverted elsewhere, I don't see why a vacated call is going to make operations any safer and is just unnecessary RT imo
How does the vehicle driver know that the vehicle is in sight of the ATCO?
Strips are procedural, actioned by R/T procedures.
Visual surveillance still requires R/T confirmation, as your 'free ranging' example demonstrates.
Consider low vis when visual confirmation not available. R/T will be needed then.

[ShyTorque]

If it's obvious to me that a second aircraft has been given a "Continue" pending landing clearance behind me, I'll call "runway vacated" on doing so, to avoid a further delay.

[parishiltons]

Look, if ATC had cleared the vehicle to enter the runway/flight strip to conduct birdscare operations, it is incumbent on ATC to ensure that the area is clear before permitting aircraft movements. Duty of care means that it is not good enough to observe the vehicle crossing the HP moving away from the runway - the driver could have been simply doing a u-turn or something and can reasonably assume that they still have a clearance to operate on the runway.

[confused atco]

Look, if ATC had cleared the vehicle to enter the runway/flight strip to conduct birdscare operations, it is incumbent on ATC to ensure that the area is clear before permitting aircraft movements. Duty of care means that it is not good enough to observe the vehicle crossing the HP moving away from the runway - the driver could have been simply doing a u-turn or something and can reasonably assume that they still have a clearance to operate on the runway.
Unless given an explicit blanket instruction to operate as they wished once the vehicle has crossed the holding point it is not to re-enter the runway without ATC permission.

If the driver re-enters the runway without either a blanket clearance to do as they wish or explicit re-entry clearance then they are committing a runway incursion.


An ATCO will either give a blanket clearance to proceed with the patrol and report back on the ramp or proceed onto runway XX and vacate at .....

Yes the ATCO should scan the runway before giving a landing clearance.
Once they have performed the scan and assured themselves that the runway is clear (vehicle is observed vacated at .....) then they have satisfied their requirements under a duty of care scenario.


The driver of the vehicle is also under a duty of care not to enter the runway without explicit permission. So once they vacate at .... they are NOT to re-enter the runway without getting a new clearance to do so.

[scifi]

Don't you think that the most important part is not the position of the vehicle, but the state of the runway.? The vehicle would have been tasked with finding FOD and removing that if possible. So until the vehicle reports that the runway is clear of FOD, the ATC chappie should not let any airplane use it. There could be more FOD that requires help to remove.
.

[Pringle_]

How does the vehicle driver know that the vehicle is in sight of the ATCO?
Strips are procedural, actioned by R/T procedures.
Visual surveillance still requires R/T confirmation, as your 'free ranging' example demonstrates.
Consider low vis when visual confirmation not available. R/T will be needed then.

The onus is not on the vehicle driver to decide when a vacated call is required, it is up to the ATCO to instruct the driver/pilot to report vacated unless they can meet this condition:

10A.3 When a clearance to cross a runway in use is issued a report vacated instruction shall be
included. However, this instruction may be omitted when Aerodrome Control has
continuous sight of the aircraft or vehicle crossing.

Personally I don't believe a vehicle carrying out a runway inspection/bird control etc, counts as a runway crossing, therefore, imo the driver must be instructed to report vacated before the runway is clean.