Switching to ground....

[David Rind]

I landed at BED a couple of days ago, and as I was rolling out
the controllers switched, so I never got the usual instruction
to "turn off at Golf, ground .7". Since Golf was the first
taxiway to turn off on anyway, I made the turn off.

Tower was now so busy (common at BED) that I could not get a word
in on the frequency. With the controller switch, I had clearly
been forgotten -- the new controller told someone else to turn off
on Golf before noticing that I was there, not moving. After
probably 60-90 seconds the frequency was clear enough for me to
ask whether she wanted me over on Ground.

At the time, and in retrospect, I think my choice to stay on
Tower frequency was correct under the regs, but silly -- that
I should have just contacted Ground and told them I was switching
over since I was sure Tower really wanted me on Ground but had
forgotten me.

I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
get permission to change to Ground.

--
David Rind

[Bob Noel]

In article >, David Rind
> wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> get permission to change to Ground.

It's rare, but not unusual for the BED tower to not do the "left
at Golf, ground .7" thing. It's happened to me more than once.
I just turn off and tune ground. At BED, ground is much quieter
than the tower frew. But in the above scenario, I probably should
also monitor the tower (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't).

--
Bob Noel

[Dan Luke]

"David Rind" wrote:
> At the time, and in retrospect, I think my choice to stay on
> Tower frequency was correct under the regs,...

From the AIM: "A pilot who has just landed should not change from the
tower frequency to the ground control frequency until directed to do so
by the controller."

> ...but silly -- that I should have just contacted Ground and
> told them I was switching over since I was sure Tower really
> wanted me on Ground but had forgotten me.

> I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> get permission to change to Ground.

I would have done just as you did.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Newps]

David Rind wrote:

> I landed at BED a couple of days ago, and as I was rolling out
> the controllers switched, so I never got the usual instruction
> to "turn off at Golf, ground .7". Since Golf was the first
> taxiway to turn off on anyway, I made the turn off.
>
> Tower was now so busy (common at BED) that I could not get a word
> in on the frequency. With the controller switch, I had clearly
> been forgotten -- the new controller told someone else to turn off
> on Golf before noticing that I was there, not moving. After
> probably 60-90 seconds the frequency was clear enough for me to
> ask whether she wanted me over on Ground.
>
> At the time, and in retrospect, I think my choice to stay on
> Tower frequency was correct under the regs, but silly -- that
> I should have just contacted Ground and told them I was switching
> over since I was sure Tower really wanted me on Ground but had
> forgotten me.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> get permission to change to Ground.

The by the book answer is to stay with the tower. The right and
practical thing to do is contact ground.

[Stefan]

Newps wrote:

> The by the book answer is to stay with the tower. The right and
> practical thing to do is contact ground.

There have been more than one accidents due to pilots doing some self
defined "right and practical thing".

Stefan

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Rind wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> get permission to change to Ground.

That's what the AIM recommends. That's what I would've done.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> There have been more than one accidents due to pilots doing some self
> defined "right and practical thing".
>

Please provide an example.

[Ronald Gardner]

Flew into BED a few years ago, seems they have a problem remembering who
is where. I was on a short final after they forgot about me, 1/2 mile
out and they cleared the AC behind me to land before clearing me. My
thought is whether this is an FAA training sight. Yes they are busy but
not that busy they should not have Control of the situation. Later when
we left, I asked for a straight out, keep the nose down got the speed up
and got away from them as soon as possible.

Ron Gardner

David Rind wrote:

> I landed at BED a couple of days ago, and as I was rolling out
> the controllers switched, so I never got the usual instruction
> to "turn off at Golf, ground .7". Since Golf was the first
> taxiway to turn off on anyway, I made the turn off.
>
> Tower was now so busy (common at BED) that I could not get a word
> in on the frequency. With the controller switch, I had clearly
> been forgotten -- the new controller told someone else to turn off
> on Golf before noticing that I was there, not moving. After
> probably 60-90 seconds the frequency was clear enough for me to
> ask whether she wanted me over on Ground.
>
> At the time, and in retrospect, I think my choice to stay on
> Tower frequency was correct under the regs, but silly -- that
> I should have just contacted Ground and told them I was switching
> over since I was sure Tower really wanted me on Ground but had
> forgotten me.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> get permission to change to Ground.
>
> --
> David Rind
>

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>>There have been more than one accidents due to pilots doing some self
>>defined "right and practical thing".

> Please provide an example.

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

[rwerw]

I disagree.

The by the book answer is to stay with the tower.

The right and practical thing is to monitor tower on one radio while
calling ground and explaining the situation on the other radio. This way
you satisfy the regulations and do your job, which is to communicate
effectively without causing problems, while using common sense and
following the CFR's (there is no such thing as FAR's for pilots anymore).


Newps > wrote in news:iBTdc.110547$w54.785621
@attbi_s01:

> The by the book answer is to stay with the tower. The right and
> practical thing to do is contact ground.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in 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.
>

If he switched to ground while still on the runway it's a different
situation.

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> If he switched to ground while still on the runway it's a different
> situation.

No, he had already left the runway. (Otherwise there couln't have been
an "incursion".)

Of course each situation is different. All I wanted to say is that it is
usually a good idea to stay with "the book". Many "book" rules have been
written with blood.

Stefan

[Jeremy Lew]

I have done the exit at Golf and switch thing several times (the last being
only a few days ago). Clearly, you need to get off the runway if there's
someone landing and the tower has forgotten about you. I might wait somewhat
longer at an unfamiliar airport before switching (or use COM2, like other
people have said), but we all know the drill at BED, I don't see it as a
safety issue at all, and have never had a controller bat an eyelash.

Jeremy

"David Rind" > wrote in message
...
> I landed at BED a couple of days ago, and as I was rolling out
> the controllers switched, so I never got the usual instruction
> to "turn off at Golf, ground .7". Since Golf was the first
> taxiway to turn off on anyway, I made the turn off.
>
> Tower was now so busy (common at BED) that I could not get a word
> in on the frequency. With the controller switch, I had clearly
> been forgotten -- the new controller told someone else to turn off
> on Golf before noticing that I was there, not moving. After
> probably 60-90 seconds the frequency was clear enough for me to
> ask whether she wanted me over on Ground.
>
> At the time, and in retrospect, I think my choice to stay on
> Tower frequency was correct under the regs, but silly -- that
> I should have just contacted Ground and told them I was switching
> over since I was sure Tower really wanted me on Ground but had
> forgotten me.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> get permission to change to Ground.
>
> --
> David Rind
>
>

[Tony Cox]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > If he switched to ground while still on the runway it's a different
> > situation.
>
> No, he had already left the runway. (Otherwise there couln't have been
> an "incursion".)

Did the Fokker roll back onto the runway?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, he had already left the runway. (Otherwise there couln't have been
> an "incursion".)
>

Eh? You said it was a runway incursion, that an accident was averted
because an Airbus managed to abort it's takeoff, and the offending Fokker
could not be warned because it had already
tuned in ground frequency.

How could there be a runway incursion if the offending aircraft was not on
the runway? Why did the airbus abort it's takeoff if the offending aircraft
was off the runway?

[Stefan]

Tony Cox wrote:

> Did the Fokker roll back onto the runway?

No. After landing, he was instructed by the tower to leave the runway
and taxi to the apron via taxiway xy. Other than one would expect, this
particular taxiway is not controlled by Ground but by Tower, because it
crosses another runway. The Fokker crew was not aware of this but
thought "well, we're on the taxiway, let's switch to Ground". Ground
wasn't aware of this, because they don't care what's on this taxyway,
and Tower couldn't contact them anymore.

Of course the Fokker should never have entered that crossing runway
without permission in the first place.

For details and an airport map look at the link I posted earlier.

Stefan

[G.R. Patterson III]

rwerw wrote:
>
> The right and practical thing is to monitor tower on one radio while
> calling ground and explaining the situation on the other radio.

What other radio? Some of us are lucky to have 1.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> No. After landing, he was instructed by the tower to leave the runway
> and taxi to the apron via taxiway xy. Other than one would expect, this
> particular taxiway is not controlled by Ground but by Tower, because it
> crosses another runway. The Fokker crew was not aware of this but
> thought "well, we're on the taxiway, let's switch to Ground". Ground
> wasn't aware of this, because they don't care what's on this taxyway,
> and Tower couldn't contact them anymore.
>

So how did he have a runway incursion on a taxiway?


>
> Of course the Fokker should never have entered that crossing runway
> without permission in the first place.
>

Ah, so he had it when he crossed the other runway. Well, the tower
shouldn't have instructed him to taxi to the apron if that involved crossing
a runway being used by a departing aircraft. Regardless what frequency he
was on, if the runway incursion ocurred while the aircraft was correctly
following an instruction from the tower the tower controller has to bear a
good share of the blame.


>
> For details and an airport map look at the link I posted earlier.
>

I clicked on it, got a .pdf file in German.

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Ah, so he had it when he crossed the other runway. Well, the tower
> shouldn't have instructed him to taxi to the apron if that involved crossing
> a runway being used by a departing aircraft.

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.

> the tower controller has to bear a
> good share of the blame.

No, as I pointed out. 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.

>>For details and an airport map look at the link I posted earlier.
>
> I clicked on it, got a .pdf file in German.

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

Stefan

[Marty]

"David Rind" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> At the time, and in retrospect, I think my choice to stay on
> Tower frequency was correct under the regs, but silly -- that
> I should have just contacted Ground and told them I was switching
> over since I was sure Tower really wanted me on Ground but had
> forgotten me.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> get permission to change to Ground.
>
> --
> David Rind
>
>
Dave,
From all that I have been taught and been able to find in the AIM &
FARs,waiting was the correct move.

However...,if holding at the taxiway placed your aircraft in danger,it would
fall to......

Sec. 91.3

Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of
this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
report of that deviation to the Administrator.



Sec. 91.123

Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate
from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency
exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision
avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a
pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in
VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that
pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an
ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic
alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an
ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as
possible.
(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this
subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed
report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC
facility, if requested by ATC.
(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may
operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has
been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control
purposes.

Marty

[TaxSrv]

> (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]

Stefan wrote:

> ... security management ...

Oops, I meant safety management, of course.

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Marty]

"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

[Stefan]

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

[Martin Hotze]

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

[Martin Hotze]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Stefan]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

But Tower issued an instruction to taxi to a point beyond that particular
taxiway. Tower authorized an operation in an area beyond it's
responsibility or authority. Tower erred.


>
> You got it.
>

That is inherently unsafe.


>
> Yes, it's perfectly safe (as safe as something can be, of course).
>

No, it's not at all safe. You're relying on pilots to understand that an
instruction does not mean what it says. Anyone that believes that does not
understand what safety is. Instructions should mean what they say, that's
fundamental to safety.


>
> 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.
>

The rules are not safe where two aircraft can adhere literally to their
separate instructions and occupy the same point at the same time. Based on
your messages, that is the case in Germany. It then follows that German
procedures are not as safe as they could be. Safety would be increased if
Germany adopted US procedures.

[David Rind]

Jeremy Lew wrote:
> I have done the exit at Golf and switch thing several times (the last being
> only a few days ago). Clearly, you need to get off the runway if there's
> someone landing and the tower has forgotten about you. I might wait somewhat
> longer at an unfamiliar airport before switching (or use COM2, like other
> people have said), but we all know the drill at BED, I don't see it as a
> safety issue at all, and have never had a controller bat an eyelash.
>
> Jeremy

Jeremy --

The "get off the runawy" part is clear -- even without the tower
saying "turn left at Golf", you are supposed to turn off at the
first taxiway that is practical -- and I've often exited the
runway before they told me to. I've also had the experience
in the past where they had likely forgotten that they had
failed to switch me to ground, but usually the frequency
is clear and I can just tell the tower that I am on Golf
and want to taxi -- occasionally when I do this I get surprised
in that the tower really does want me to stay with them during
the taxi. What made this situation unusual was that they had
forgotten me and I couldn't get a word in....

David

--
David Rind

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> The rules are not safe where two aircraft can adhere literally to their
> separate instructions and occupy the same point at the same time.

A taxi instruction is never a clearance to enter a runway, I don't see
what's so difficult about that.

But I'm ready to admit that you're right and I'm wrong. And I was wrong
when I stated in my first post, where all this began, that it can be a
safety issue when one leaves the tower frequency without the tower's
kowledge, too.

If it makes you feel good, continue to change frequencies at your
discretion without telling anybody and if sometimes you'll happen to fly
abroad, ignore local rules when they don't please you. Just please tell
me beforehand, so I can avoid that airspace.

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> A taxi instruction is never a clearance to enter a runway, I don't see
> what's so difficult about that.
>

It is in the US, and thus for most operators.


>
> But I'm ready to admit that you're right and I'm wrong. And I was wrong
> when I stated in my first post, where all this began, that it can be a
> safety issue when one leaves the tower frequency without the tower's
> kowledge, too.
>
> If it makes you feel good, continue to change frequencies at your
> discretion without telling anybody and if sometimes you'll happen to fly
> abroad, ignore local rules when they don't please you. Just please tell
> me beforehand, so I can avoid that airspace.
>

What have you against sharing airspace with a safety-minded pilot?

[Newps]

> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The point is that taxiways are managed by Ground but runways
>>by Tower.

Generally, yes. But not always.

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:


> A taxi instruction is never a clearance to enter a runway, I don't see
> what's so difficult about that.

It routinely is. You can cross all runways on the way to your assigned
runway. Those runways may or may not be in use.

[BTIZ]

"David Rind" > wrote in message
...
> I landed at BED a couple of days ago, and as I was rolling out
> the controllers switched, so I never got the usual instruction
> to "turn off at Golf, ground .7". Since Golf was the first
> taxiway to turn off on anyway, I made the turn off.
<snip>
> I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> get permission to change to Ground.
<snip>
> --
>
David, in your own post, you state that the tower DID tell you to contact
ground. In the first paragraph, "turn left at Golf, ground .7".. most towers
will shorten the statement as BED did, "most" ground controls are always
121.x.. so the ".7" is 121.7

BT

[David Rind]

BTIZ wrote:
> "David Rind" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I landed at BED a couple of days ago, and as I was rolling out
>>the controllers switched, so I never got the usual instruction
>>to "turn off at Golf, ground .7". Since Golf was the first
>>taxiway to turn off on anyway, I made the turn off.
>
> <snip>
>
>>I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
>>do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
>>get permission to change to Ground.
>
> <snip>
>
>>--
>>
>
> David, in your own post, you state that the tower DID tell you to contact
> ground. In the first paragraph, "turn left at Golf, ground .7".. most towers
> will shorten the statement as BED did, "most" ground controls are always
> 121.x.. so the ".7" is 121.7
>
> BT

Sorry to take up bandwith with this, but please look at that
first paragraph of mine you quoted. I said I "never got" such
an instruction. I'm well aware that had tower actually said
to me "ground, .7" I would have been all set. Unfortunately,
they did not do so. I operate out of BED, so I expect to hear
them say "turn left at Golf, ground .7" and they didn't in the
confusion of switching controllers in the tower.

--
David Rind

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:



>> A taxi instruction is never a clearance to enter a runway, I don't see
>> what's so difficult about that.

> It routinely is. You can cross all runways on the way to your assigned
> runway. Those runways may or may not be in use.

Almost... in the USA, you have permission to cross all runways on the
way to your assigned runway, EXCEPT the active runway.

For example, you are cleared taxi to runway 18 from the FBO at
position A. You may cross runway 4-22, but must hold short of 18-36
and get permission to cross 18-36 before proceeding northbound on the
west taxiway to takeoff runway 18: (Best viewed with fixed width fonts).


----18
| | 4
----|---/-----<- A-FBO
| | /
| |/
| /|
| / |
22 |
| |
----36


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 197 Young Eagles!

[BTIZ]

ahhhh...
BT

"David Rind" > wrote in message
...
> BTIZ wrote:
> > "David Rind" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I landed at BED a couple of days ago, and as I was rolling out
> >>the controllers switched, so I never got the usual instruction
> >>to "turn off at Golf, ground .7". Since Golf was the first
> >>taxiway to turn off on anyway, I made the turn off.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>I'm wondering if anyone disagrees and thinks the right thing to
> >>do was what I actually did -- stay with the Tower until I could
> >>get permission to change to Ground.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>--
> >>
> >
> > David, in your own post, you state that the tower DID tell you to
contact
> > ground. In the first paragraph, "turn left at Golf, ground .7".. most
towers
> > will shorten the statement as BED did, "most" ground controls are always
> > 121.x.. so the ".7" is 121.7
> >
> > BT
>
> Sorry to take up bandwith with this, but please look at that
> first paragraph of mine you quoted. I said I "never got" such
> an instruction. I'm well aware that had tower actually said
> to me "ground, .7" I would have been all set. Unfortunately,
> they did not do so. I operate out of BED, so I expect to hear
> them say "turn left at Golf, ground .7" and they didn't in the
> confusion of switching controllers in the tower.
>
> --
> David Rind
>
>

[Stefan]

Newps wrote:

>> A taxi instruction is never a clearance to enter a runway,

> It routinely is.

I've learnt that it is in the USA. In my litle quarrel with Steven I
just said it was not so where I live. There actually is life outside the
USA.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> What have you against sharing airspace with a safety-minded pilot?

Safety means knowing ad adhering to local rules. When some day I'll fly
in the USA, I'll happily learn ad adhere to the US rules, whether they
please me or not. I expect the same vice versa.

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Safety means knowing ad adhering to local rules.
>

Safety also means having safe and logical rules. The rules in the US are
logical and safe. The rules in Germany are illogical and unsafe.

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> ... in the USA, you have permission to cross all runways on the
> way to your assigned runway, EXCEPT the active runway.

Then I've committed an awful lot of runway incursions without ever being
told about it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Almost... in the USA, you have permission to cross all runways on the
> way to your assigned runway, EXCEPT the active runway.
>

That's not quite right either. In the US, you have permission to cross all
runways, on the way to your assigned runway, except the ASSIGNED runway.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then I've committed an awful lot of runway incursions without
> ever being told about it.
>

Well, you have if you crossed the assigned runway. If you merely crossed
other active runways that were not assigned to you then you're okay.


§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with an
operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take
off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from
ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is
not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that
runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that
intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. 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.

[Andrew Sarangan]

I am not clear why 'cross any intersecting runways' is a particuarly safe
thing to do. This may make sense at a familiar airport where you know the
taxiways and intersecting runway. At unfamiliar airports, I get extremely
nervous when crossing an intersecting hold short line. There could be
more than one way to get to the assigned runway, and you may be following
a different route than the one the controller had in mind and
inadvertantly cross an active runway. At unfamiliar airports I stop and
verify clearance to cross. I've had controllers get annoyed at me for
that, but better be safe than sorry. Given the increased rate of runway
incursions, this rule never made any sense to me.




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Then I've committed an awful lot of runway incursions without
>> ever being told about it.
>>
>
> Well, you have if you crossed the assigned runway. If you merely
> crossed other active runways that were not assigned to you then you're
> okay.
>
>
> § 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
>
> (i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport
> with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or
> taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate
> clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff
> runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that
> assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but
> is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to
> that assigned takeoff runway. 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.
>
>

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> The rules in the US are
> logical and safe. The rules in Germany are illogical and unsafe.

So be it, if it helps to make you feel better. Just be sure you never
leave the logical and safe USA.

Stefan

[Newps]

wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>A taxi instruction is never a clearance to enter a runway, I don't see
>>>what's so difficult about that.
>
>
>>It routinely is. You can cross all runways on the way to your assigned
>>runway. Those runways may or may not be in use.
>
>
> Almost... in the USA, you have permission to cross all runways on the
> way to your assigned runway, EXCEPT the active runway.

Precisely what I just said.

[Teacherjh]

>>
but is a clearance to cross other runways that
intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway.
<<

Ok, so you are cleared to runway 21. One taxi route takes you across runway
8-26, another equally direct one does not. You are not given a taxi route.

I take it (in the US) you may choose your route and cross 8-26.

Anybody take it differently?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
> EXCEPT the active runway.

Precisely what I just said.
<<

More than one runway may be active. However only one runway is the ASSIGNED
(and active) runway.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> Ok, so you are cleared to runway 21. One taxi route takes you across runway
> 8-26, another equally direct one does not. You are not given a taxi route.
>
> I take it (in the US) you may choose your route and cross 8-26.

I suppose it would be, but I cannot recall being told to taxi to someplace at a
controlled field and not being given a taxi route when there were two equally direct
routes.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Marty]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> but is a clearance to cross other runways that
> intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway.
> <<
>
> Ok, so you are cleared to runway 21. One taxi route takes you across
runway
> 8-26, another equally direct one does not. You are not given a taxi
route.
>
> I take it (in the US) you may choose your route and cross 8-26.
>
> Anybody take it differently?
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Jose,

No, I have always been given a route when cleared to taxi to the assigned
runway. If it is not a direct route,you get intersection turns and generally
holds at any intersecting active runways.

Once at a large airport I needed to get to a radio shop on the other side of
the field. The PTT on the mike fell apart when I ack.the taxi instructions
to FS after landing.
I called the tower, by phone,from the FS and told them my dilemma &
intentions. Winds were light and variable,so they were using all 3 runways
and I had to cross all three. We agreed to use non-radio with me monitoring
the ground frequency(they were quite busy). I would taxi to an active and
hold till I got the green light to cross it. It made fast work of the trip
as each time I got the light,he was talking to another plane somewhere else
on the field.
The point of all this is that proper communications are the key to success.

As far as the Hamburg incident,sorry I can't resist!

"What we have here is a failure to communicate!" 8^)

Marty

[Peter Clark]

On 11 Apr 2004 14:58:19 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>>>
>> EXCEPT the active runway.
>
>Precisely what I just said.
><<
>
>More than one runway may be active. However only one runway is the ASSIGNED
>(and active) runway.

What about airports with parallel runway operations? KBOS perhaps?
If they're using both 4L and 4R for takeoffs and landings, which one
is the assigned and active runway? If it's 4R, can I land and cross
4L without clearance? I also believe the German way is strange - if
I'm landing 4R, and the tower tells me "taxi to the ramp via Henry,
Frank, ground on .5 once clear 4L" I'm reading that clearance to mean
that they aren't planning on rolling someone on 4L before they've seen
me cross, not that I'm going to use H, F to the ramp, stopping before
4L to call up again and make sure that the runway is clear before I
cross it.

[Bill Denton]

Active Runways - Runway(s) where aircraft are taking off and landing.

Assigned Runway - Runway you have been instructed to take off from (or land
on).




"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On 11 Apr 2004 14:58:19 GMT, (Teacherjh)
> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> EXCEPT the active runway.
> >
> >Precisely what I just said.
> ><<
> >
> >More than one runway may be active. However only one runway is the
ASSIGNED
> >(and active) runway.
>
> What about airports with parallel runway operations? KBOS perhaps?
> If they're using both 4L and 4R for takeoffs and landings, which one
> is the assigned and active runway? If it's 4R, can I land and cross
> 4L without clearance? I also believe the German way is strange - if
> I'm landing 4R, and the tower tells me "taxi to the ramp via Henry,
> Frank, ground on .5 once clear 4L" I'm reading that clearance to mean
> that they aren't planning on rolling someone on 4L before they've seen
> me cross, not that I'm going to use H, F to the ramp, stopping before
> 4L to call up again and make sure that the runway is clear before I
> cross it.
>

[Tobias Schnell]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:07:00 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>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.

I assume you are referring to Germany here as well. IMHO a taxi
clearance to a point beyond a runway implies a clearance to cross it.
If you have a reference for your theory, I'd be very interested in
that.

> Often Ground controllers are
>employees of the airport, Tower controllers are employees of ATC. Ground
>"controllers" needn't even be controllers at all.

Sorry, but this is plainly wrong. At least in Germany "Ground"
controllers on the major airports are DFS-employees and "real"
controllers. You probably have "Apron"-controllers in mind, but they
don't do any movement control on taxiways, never mind taxiways which
have runway intersections.

>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.

I've never heard a controller omit the "hold short" part, and for good
reason.

Regards
Tobias

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> So be it, if it helps to make you feel better.
>

My feelings have nothing to do with it. Drop your nationalist attitude and
compare the procedures logically and you'll agree that US procedures are
superior.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, so you are cleared to runway 21. One taxi route takes you across
runway
> 8-26, another equally direct one does not. You are not given a taxi
route.
>
> I take it (in the US) you may choose your route and cross 8-26.
>

Correct.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> What about airports with parallel runway operations? KBOS perhaps?
> If they're using both 4L and 4R for takeoffs and landings, which one
> is the assigned and active runway?
>

The one that follows "taxi to" is the assigned runway.


>
> If it's 4R, can I land and cross 4L without clearance?
>

No.

[Judah]

The reg seems to support the statement that the "Taxi To" instruction
permits you to taxi across ALL other runways, even if they are active. It
only prohibits you from actually entering or crossing the one runway to
which you are assigned (ie: taxiing to)...


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Then I've committed an awful lot of runway incursions without
>> ever being told about it.
>>
>
> Well, you have if you crossed the assigned runway. If you merely
> crossed other active runways that were not assigned to you then you're
> okay.
>
>
> § 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
>
> (i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport
> with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or
> taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate
> clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff
> runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that
> assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is
> a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to
> that assigned takeoff runway. 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.
>
>
>

[Judah]

It's important to remember that authorization from ATC does not relieve the
pilot of responsibility for safety. There is nothing wrong with stopping at
the hold short line and taking a look to make sure you are not about to
taxi into someone's takeoff or landing roll...

But once you have verified it is safe, you do not require additional
permission from Tower/Ground to continue...


Andrew Sarangan > wrote in
. 158:

> I am not clear why 'cross any intersecting runways' is a particuarly
> safe thing to do. This may make sense at a familiar airport where you
> know the taxiways and intersecting runway. At unfamiliar airports, I
> get extremely nervous when crossing an intersecting hold short line.
> There could be more than one way to get to the assigned runway, and you
> may be following a different route than the one the controller had in
> mind and inadvertantly cross an active runway. At unfamiliar airports I
> stop and verify clearance to cross. I've had controllers get annoyed at
> me for that, but better be safe than sorry. Given the increased rate of
> runway incursions, this rule never made any sense to me.
>
>
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Then I've committed an awful lot of runway incursions without
>>> ever being told about it.
>>>
>>
>> Well, you have if you crossed the assigned runway. If you merely
>> crossed other active runways that were not assigned to you then you're
>> okay.
>>
>>
>> § 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
>>
>> (i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport
>> with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or
>> taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate
>> clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff
>> runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that
>> assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but
>> is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to
>> that assigned takeoff runway. 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.
>>
>>
>

[Judah]

In the US, a Hold Short instruction REQUIRES a confirmation readback from
the pilot. I have heard Tower Controllers rebuke pilots for failing to
properly read back a hold short instruction (ie, replying with "wilco").

If no hold short instruction is given, though, no hold short is required.

Tobias Schnell > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:07:00 +0200, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> I assume you are referring to Germany here as well. IMHO a taxi
> clearance to a point beyond a runway implies a clearance to cross it.
> If you have a reference for your theory, I'd be very interested in
> that.
>
>> Often Ground controllers are
>>employees of the airport, Tower controllers are employees of ATC.
>>Ground "controllers" needn't even be controllers at all.
>
> Sorry, but this is plainly wrong. At least in Germany "Ground"
> controllers on the major airports are DFS-employees and "real"
> controllers. You probably have "Apron"-controllers in mind, but they
> don't do any movement control on taxiways, never mind taxiways which
> have runway intersections.
>
>>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.
>
> I've never heard a controller omit the "hold short" part, and for good
> reason.
>
> Regards
> Tobias

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> The reg seems to support the statement that the "Taxi To" instruction
> permits you to taxi across ALL other runways, even if they are active. It
> only prohibits you from actually entering or crossing the one runway to
> which you are assigned (ie: taxiing to)...
>

Yes, that's what I said.

[Bill Denton]

While I wouldn't dispute that you are making a valid safety argument from
one perspective, I see several problems if you examine it from other
perspectives.

What you are describing is a situation analogous to driving an automobile
and stopping at every intersection, even though you have the green light.

A couple of problems that I see:

Following aircraft - Obviously, following aircraft should taxi in a manner
to avoid running over you, but in reality, expected behavior also enters
into that. If you were to just suddenly stop halfway down a long taxiway you
would be creating a similar hazard.

Traffic management - I would imagine that ground uses such techniques is
spacing and sequencing such that aircraft "A" can proceed, followed by
aircraft "B", with aircraft "C" crossing between aircraft "A" and "B".

So, it seems that this is another situation where, at first glance, an
action might appear to be increasing safety, when in fact it is reducing
safety...



"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> It's important to remember that authorization from ATC does not relieve
the
> pilot of responsibility for safety. There is nothing wrong with stopping
at
> the hold short line and taking a look to make sure you are not about to
> taxi into someone's takeoff or landing roll...
>
> But once you have verified it is safe, you do not require additional
> permission from Tower/Ground to continue...
>
>
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote in
> . 158:
>
> > I am not clear why 'cross any intersecting runways' is a particuarly
> > safe thing to do. This may make sense at a familiar airport where you
> > know the taxiways and intersecting runway. At unfamiliar airports, I
> > get extremely nervous when crossing an intersecting hold short line.
> > There could be more than one way to get to the assigned runway, and you
> > may be following a different route than the one the controller had in
> > mind and inadvertantly cross an active runway. At unfamiliar airports I
> > stop and verify clearance to cross. I've had controllers get annoyed at
> > me for that, but better be safe than sorry. Given the increased rate of
> > runway incursions, this rule never made any sense to me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> > ink.net:
> >
> >>
> >> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> Then I've committed an awful lot of runway incursions without
> >>> ever being told about it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, you have if you crossed the assigned runway. If you merely
> >> crossed other active runways that were not assigned to you then you're
> >> okay.
> >>
> >>
> >> § 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
> >>
> >> (i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport
> >> with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or
> >> taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate
> >> clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff
> >> runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that
> >> assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but
> >> is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to
> >> that assigned takeoff runway. 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Jeremy Lew]

Right. My main point was (or was meant to be) that one you have exited of
your own volition and are stopped past the hold short line, I can't fathom
it being a safety issue whether you talk to tower or ground before moving
again. You may have been told to stay with tower for taxi before, but I'll
bet it wasn't during one of those periods when tower frequency is saturated.

Jeremy

"David Rind" > wrote in message
...
> Jeremy Lew wrote:
> > I have done the exit at Golf and switch thing several times (the last
being
> > only a few days ago). Clearly, you need to get off the runway if
there's
> > someone landing and the tower has forgotten about you. I might wait
somewhat
> > longer at an unfamiliar airport before switching (or use COM2, like
other
> > people have said), but we all know the drill at BED, I don't see it as a
> > safety issue at all, and have never had a controller bat an eyelash.
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> Jeremy --
>
> The "get off the runawy" part is clear -- even without the tower
> saying "turn left at Golf", you are supposed to turn off at the
> first taxiway that is practical -- and I've often exited the
> runway before they told me to. I've also had the experience
> in the past where they had likely forgotten that they had
> failed to switch me to ground, but usually the frequency
> is clear and I can just tell the tower that I am on Golf
> and want to taxi -- occasionally when I do this I get surprised
> in that the tower really does want me to stay with them during
> the taxi. What made this situation unusual was that they had
> forgotten me and I couldn't get a word in....
>
> David
>
> --
> David Rind
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
>
> I am not clear why 'cross any intersecting runways' is a particuarly safe
> thing to do.
>

What do you feel is unsafe about it?


>
> This may make sense at a familiar airport where you know
> the taxiways and intersecting runway. At unfamiliar airports, I get
> extremely nervous when crossing an intersecting hold short line. There
> could be more than one way to get to the assigned runway, and you
> may be following a different route than the one the controller had in
> mind and inadvertantly cross an active runway.
>

If there is more than one possible route and the controller has one
particular route in mind he should instruct you to taxi via that route.


>
> At unfamiliar airports I stop and verify clearance to cross. I've
> had controllers get annoyed at me for that, but better be safe than
> sorry. Given the increased rate of runway incursions, this rule
> never made any sense to me.
>

By all means, if you've reason to doubt the safety of crossing a particular
runway at a particular point and time then verify the instruction. But that
does not necessarily require halting your taxi. You should be able to talk
and taxi at the same time. You might respond that congestion on the ground
control frequency forces you to stop while waiting for a chance to get a
word in, but one of the things that contributes to frequency congestion is
pilots asking for verification of clear, properly issued instructions.

[Newps]

Judah wrote:
> The reg seems to support the statement that the "Taxi To" instruction
> permits you to taxi across ALL other runways, even if they are active.

It does. You can cross anything to get to your assigned runway. All
runways are always active, you have no way of knowing if a runway isn't
being used short of a notam.

[Newps]

Judah wrote:

> It's important to remember that authorization from ATC does not relieve the
> pilot of responsibility for safety. There is nothing wrong with stopping at
> the hold short line and taking a look to make sure you are not about to
> taxi into someone's takeoff or landing roll...

There's no need to stop. Do an S turn on the taxiway prior to the
runway if you need to but you shouldn't stop.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Gsyec.115362$gA5.1473344@attbi_s03...
>
> It does. You can cross anything to get to your assigned runway.
>

No, you can't. You cannot operate on the assigned runway at any point. If
it's required to cross the assigned runway at some point you must get
further clearance to cross the runway.

[David Brooks]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Gsyec.115362$gA5.1473344@attbi_s03...
>
>
> Judah wrote:
> > The reg seems to support the statement that the "Taxi To" instruction
> > permits you to taxi across ALL other runways, even if they are active.
>
> It does. You can cross anything to get to your assigned runway.

At Paine field, most hangars and the two flight schools are on the east
side, and it is routine to get the instruction "Taxi to runway 34L at A4,
cross 11". I don't really know why they throw in that little redundancy;
perhaps there have been enough transient pilots in the past wasting a
transmission to get permission to cross 11/29.

We all look left and right crossing 11/29 anyway, of course.

> All
> runways are always active, you have no way of knowing if a runway isn't
> being used short of a notam.

Or the ATIS.

-- David Brooks

[Newps]

David Brooks wrote:

>>
>>>The reg seems to support the statement that the "Taxi To" instruction
>>>permits you to taxi across ALL other runways, even if they are active.
>>
>>It does. You can cross anything to get to your assigned runway.
>
>
> At Paine field, most hangars and the two flight schools are on the east
> side, and it is routine to get the instruction "Taxi to runway 34L at A4,
> cross 11". I don't really know why they throw in that little redundancy;
> perhaps there have been enough transient pilots in the past wasting a
> transmission to get permission to cross 11/29.

Some FAA regions require that the controllers specifically state any
runways that need to be crossed, so you will never get a clearance as
simple as "Taxi to rwy 34" if that route takes you across a runway at
any point. We don't require that here in the Northwest Mountain Region.
If at any point you come up to your assigned runway you may not cross it.


>>All
>>runways are always active, you have no way of knowing if a runway isn't
>>being used short of a notam.
>
>
> Or the ATIS.

If the ATIS states that a runway is closed then it will be a notam.

[David Brooks]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:XeBec.21232$wP1.42631@attbi_s54...

> Some FAA regions require that the controllers specifically state any
> runways that need to be crossed, so you will never get a clearance as
> simple as "Taxi to rwy 34" if that route takes you across a runway at
> any point. We don't require that here in the Northwest Mountain Region.

Aren't we in the same region?

> If at any point you come up to your assigned runway you may not cross
it.

Hm - I wonder how many people understand that you can't cross the assigned
runway to get to your taxi-to point (if, for example, your destination is on
its far side).

-- David Brooks

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in
:

> While I wouldn't dispute that you are making a valid safety argument
> from one perspective, I see several problems if you examine it from
> other perspectives.
>
> What you are describing is a situation analogous to driving an
> automobile and stopping at every intersection, even though you have
> the green light.

The analogy is more like this: all the intermediate lights are red, and
you are told to go through all of them without stopping.


>
> A couple of problems that I see:
>
> Following aircraft - Obviously, following aircraft should taxi in a
> manner to avoid running over you, but in reality, expected behavior
> also enters into that. If you were to just suddenly stop halfway down
> a long taxiway you would be creating a similar hazard.
>
> Traffic management - I would imagine that ground uses such techniques
> is spacing and sequencing such that aircraft "A" can proceed, followed
> by aircraft "B", with aircraft "C" crossing between aircraft "A" and
> "B".


I would have no problem if ground asks me to follow another aircraft. The
problem arises when you are navigating on your own in the dark and you
come across a hold shord line that you were not expecting. Should you go
blasting through it, or should you stop and inquire?


>
> So, it seems that this is another situation where, at first glance, an
> action might appear to be increasing safety, when in fact it is
> reducing safety...
>
>
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
and you
come across a hold shord line that you were not expecting. Should you go
blasting through it, or should you stop and inquire?
<<

I'd inquire. (it actually came up recently). If it was a line I =was=
expecting that's another thing though.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
>
> The analogy is more like this: all the intermediate lights are red, and
> you are told to go through all of them without stopping.
>

That's true of Germany, according to Stefan, but it's not true of the US.

[Newps]

David Brooks wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:XeBec.21232$wP1.42631@attbi_s54...
>
>
>>Some FAA regions require that the controllers specifically state any
>>runways that need to be crossed, so you will never get a clearance as
>>simple as "Taxi to rwy 34" if that route takes you across a runway at
>>any point. We don't require that here in the Northwest Mountain Region.
>
>
> Aren't we in the same region?

Yep.

>
>
>> If at any point you come up to your assigned runway you may not cross
>
> it.
>
> Hm - I wonder how many people understand that you can't cross the assigned
> runway to get to your taxi-to point (if, for example, your destination is on
> its far side).

That's pretty basic. Everybody should know that when I say Taxi to Ry34
you can cross anything on the way to Ry34, except of course Ry34 itself.

[David Brooks]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:8TCec.123174$K91.337096@attbi_s02...
> >> If at any point you come up to your assigned runway you may not cross
> >
> > it.
> >
> > Hm - I wonder how many people understand that you can't cross the
assigned
> > runway to get to your taxi-to point (if, for example, your destination
is on
> > its far side).
>
> That's pretty basic. Everybody should know that when I say Taxi to Ry34
> you can cross anything on the way to Ry34, except of course Ry34 itself.

Agreed, but I was wondering if you would, or could, issue a taxi to an
intersection on the far side of the assigned runway (say from the ramp at
the west end of your taxiway B to run up on B on the east side of 10L; the
AOPA diagram doesn't show the BIL intersection numbers)

-- David Brooks

[Newps]

David Brooks wrote:

> Agreed, but I was wondering if you would, or could, issue a taxi to an
> intersection on the far side of the assigned runway (say from the ramp at
> the west end of your taxiway B to run up on B on the east side of 10L; the
> AOPA diagram doesn't show the BIL intersection numbers)

Yes, we do all the time. One of the cargo companies has their fleet of
Beech 99's over there. They taxi all the time to the postal ramp which
is between C and D on the south side. In that case it is either "hold
short" or "taxi to the ramp". If they want to take off and they want
the full length they have to tell me. Otherwise we will say taxi to ry28R.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> My feelings have nothing to do with it. Drop your nationalist attitude
and
> compare the procedures logically and you'll agree that US procedures are
> superior.

Apart from the one that says you can clear more than one aircraft
to land when the prior one hasn't landed and vacated the runway.

Paul

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> Apart from the one that says you can clear more than one aircraft
> to land when the prior one hasn't landed and vacated the runway.
>

How so?

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:58:50 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Apart from the one that says you can clear more than one aircraft
>> to land when the prior one hasn't landed and vacated the runway.
>>
>
>How so?

I've heard "N1234, number two, cleared to land, traffic is on 1/4 mile
final, be ready to go around" out of a tower before.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"Paul Sengupta" > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > My feelings have nothing to do with it. Drop your nationalist attitude
> and
> > compare the procedures logically and you'll agree that US procedures are
> > superior.
>
> Apart from the one that says you can clear more than one aircraft
> to land when the prior one hasn't landed and vacated the runway.

OK, as someone who's not an American (but who flies in America), I have
to ask: what's inferior about this procedure? I have experience with
both ways; the US way doesn't strike me as inherently worse than the
obvious alternative.

Hamish

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Apart from the one that says you can clear more than one aircraft
> to land when the prior one hasn't landed and vacated the runway.

OK, as someone who's not an American (but who flies in America), I have
to ask: what's inferior about this procedure? I have experience with
both ways; the US way doesn't strike me as inherently worse than the
obvious alternative.
<<

I think he's (or she's) implying that if you are cleared to land behind traffic
that has not cleared the runway, and subsequently that traffic fails to clear
(gets a flat, for example), you would need to have your clearance withdrawn or
ammended. If you go NORDO at that time (or there is frequqncy congestion) you
would then have to visually notice that the runway is occupied, and deviate
from your clearance to avoid creating artwork.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
(Teacherjh) wrote:

> > Apart from the one that says you can clear more than one aircraft
> > to land when the prior one hasn't landed and vacated the runway.
>
> OK, as someone who's not an American (but who flies in America), I have
> to ask: what's inferior about this procedure? I have experience with
> both ways; the US way doesn't strike me as inherently worse than the
> obvious alternative.
> <<
>
> I think he's (or she's) implying that if you are cleared to land behind
> traffic
> that has not cleared the runway, and subsequently that traffic fails to clear
> (gets a flat, for example), you would need to have your clearance withdrawn
> or
> ammended.

Well, tower would tell me to go around, or I'd do that myself and tell
tower when possible... no big deal. Being based at Oakland (KOAK) with
a bunch of training going on all the time, you kind of get used to the
occasional forced go-around.

>If you go NORDO at that time (or there is frequqncy congestion)
> you
> would then have to visually notice that the runway is occupied, and deviate
> from your clearance to avoid creating artwork.

Is there anyone landing at towered airports who *doesn't* look
carefully to see whether the runway's obstructed in any way or not
after being cleared to land (Cat III approaches excepted)? I'm
regularly cleared number 4 or 5 to land at Oakland, and you can bet
your life I check bloody carefully whether there's anyone on the runway
or about to cross it. As I would when landing at (say) Bankstown (YSBK)
having been cleared the other way.

Hamish

[Newps]

Teacherjh wrote:

> I think he's (or she's) implying that if you are cleared to land behind traffic
> that has not cleared the runway, and subsequently that traffic fails to clear
> (gets a flat, for example), you would need to have your clearance withdrawn or
> ammended.

Not necessarily. Depends what they are flying and what you are flying.
If they are in a single or a twin and so are you then there's no
reason there can't be two aircraft on the runway at the same time.


If you go NORDO at that time (or there is frequqncy congestion) you
> would then have to visually notice that the runway is occupied, and deviate
> from your clearance to avoid creating artwork.

Not necessarily.

[Eclipsme]

This what I was always told, but when in doubt, verify with the controller.

Harvey

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> The reg seems to support the statement that the "Taxi To" instruction
> permits you to taxi across ALL other runways, even if they are active. It
> only prohibits you from actually entering or crossing the one runway to
> which you are assigned (ie: taxiing to)...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
> >
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Then I've committed an awful lot of runway incursions without
> >> ever being told about it.
> >>
> >
> > Well, you have if you crossed the assigned runway. If you merely
> > crossed other active runways that were not assigned to you then you're
> > okay.
> >
> >
> > § 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
> >
> > (i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport
> > with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or
> > taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate
> > clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff
> > runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that
> > assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is
> > a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to
> > that assigned takeoff runway. 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.
> >
> >
> >
>