Switching to ground....

(there is no such thing as FAR's for pilots anymore).

Must be just for FAA, then. :-) "FAR" is splattered throughout even
the Regulatory section of the faa.gov web site.

Fred F.

Stefan wrote:

... security management ...

Oops, I meant safety management, of course.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

I don't know how it is in the USA, but in this part of the world, a taxi
instruction does *not* imply the right to cross a runway.


Why not? What's the point of an instruction to do something if it cannot be
done without additional instructions? In the US, a clearance to "taxi to"
any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to cross all
runways that intersect the taxi route to that point, as one would logically
expect.



No, as I pointed out.


I missed where you pointed that out. In the US, controllers are held
responsible for their actions. Not so in Germany?



But anyway, this isn't the question. Good security management is
designed to be redundant. Being on the right frequency is
just one of several security layers.


Good ATC is designed to not have two or more aircraft authorized to be in
the same place at the same time.



That's right. The airport chart is on page 17.


I don't read German.

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

I don't know how it is in the USA, but in this part of the world, a taxi
instruction does *not* imply the right to cross a runway.


In the USA,if given an instruction/clearance "taxi to ramp",it is clearance
through all intersections,runway and taxiway.
The PIC is also tasked with the responsibility of "see and avoid"at all
times,AKA "look both ways before crossing the street". You never know when
somebody is going to be in the wrong place,including yourself.

Marty

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I don't know how it is in the USA, but in this part of the world, a taxi
instruction does *not* imply the right to cross a runway.

Why not? What's the point of an instruction to do something if it cannot be
done without additional instructions?

The point is that taxiways are managed by Ground but runways by Tower.
Ground doesn't know what happens on the runways, Tower doesn't care what
happens on taxiways. It goes even furter: Often Ground controllers are
employees of the airport, Tower controllers are employees of ATC. Ground
"controllers" needn't even be controllers at all.

Ground gives you instructions where to taxi and which taxiways ot use,
but this doesn't imply the right to enter a runway. If you must cross a
runway, you hold short of it, switch to Tower and ask for permission to
cross it. After crossing, you switch back to Ground.

Usually Ground will say something like "Taxi via x to holding point y,
hold short of runway z, contact Tower 123.45", but if they omit the hold
short part, this doesn't imply anything.

Good ATC is designed to not have two or more aircraft authorized to be in
the same place at the same time.

As I pointed out (before you ask: in my first three paragraphs), this
wasn't the case.

Stefan

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:46:17 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Stefan" wrote in message
^^^^
...
^^^^
(...)
No, as I pointed out.

I missed where you pointed that out. In the US, controllers are held
responsible for their actions. Not so in Germany?

what makes you believe that Stefan is referring to Germany?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:18:09 GMT, Martin Hotze wrote:

"Stefan" wrote in message
^^^^
...
^^^^
(...)
No, as I pointed out.

I missed where you pointed that out. In the US, controllers are held
responsible for their actions. Not so in Germany?

what makes you believe that Stefan is referring to Germany?

OK, disregard, the referred link was from Germany.

#m
(tried to cancel the first message ...)
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

what makes you believe that Stefan is referring to Germany?


This message:

Runway incursion at Hamburg, Germany, 29 January 2004. Luckily no
accident because the Airbus managed to abort the take off. The incursing
Fokker could not be warned because, you guessed it, it had already tuned in
Ground freqeuncy.

Preliminary report at http://www.bfu-web.de/Bulletin/Bulletin0401.pdf
page 16/17.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

The point is that taxiways are managed by Ground but runways
by Tower.


That doesn't answer my question. If the taxiways are managed by Ground how
can there be a problem with an aircraft switching to Ground once he's on the
taxiway?



Ground doesn't know what happens on the runways, Tower
doesn't care what happens on taxiways. It goes even furter:
Often Ground controllers are employees of the airport, Tower
controllers are employees of ATC. Ground
"controllers" needn't even be controllers at all.


Then why did Tower give the Fokker taxi instructions to the apron?



Ground gives you instructions where to taxi and which taxiways ot use,
but this doesn't imply the right to enter a runway. If you must cross a
runway, you hold short of it, switch to Tower and ask for permission to
cross it. After crossing, you switch back to Ground.


But in this case it was Tower that gave the Fokker instructions to taxi to
the ramp, which apparently required him to cross a runway. So he crossed
the runway on an instruction from Tower, just, as you say, he is supposed
to. I assume the Airbus was departing on a takeoff clearance from the same
Tower that instructed the Fokker to taxi to the ramp. Do you really believe
Tower bears no responsibility for this?



Usually Ground will say something like "Taxi via x to holding point y,
hold short of runway z, contact Tower 123.45", but if they omit the
hold short part, this doesn't imply anything.


Well, if he's required to hold short of any runway between his present
position and the point he's been instructed to taxi to, it means he can't
comply with his taxi instruction. It also means there is a very serious
safety flaw in German procedures.



As I pointed out (before you ask: in my first three paragraphs), this
wasn't the case.


Well, if it isn't, it means an instruction to taxi to a specific point is
not an authorization to taxi to that point. That's not safe.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

That doesn't answer my question. If the taxiways are managed by Ground how
can there be a problem with an aircraft switching to Ground once he's on the
taxiway?

As I wrote in my first post: At this particular airport, this particular
taxyway is managed by Tower. This is an exception. This is mentioned in
the AIP, and pilots are expected to read the aiport chart and before
using an airport.

Well, if it isn't, it means an instruction to taxi to a specific point is
not an authorization to taxi to that point.

You got it.

That's not safe.

Yes, it's perfectly safe (as safe as something can be, of course).
Pilots are required to know the rules. Just because rules are different
to those you are used to doesn't mean they are not safe. Nothing strange
about this rule when you are used to it.

Stefan