Switching to ground....

"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:

... 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.

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

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