Switching to ground....

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

"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.

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

"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?

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

"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.

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

"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?