Dublin: 2 x RYR in contact during taxi. Both damaged.
Whatever happened to 'no more than three instructions per transmission?'
I used to fly in and out of Dublin in 2000-2005, and did not find it a problem, but I guess it is much busier now?
Agree that perhaps the layout and taxy way designation need to be revised. And maybe aircraft should be given instructions to intermediate holding points, rather than all the way.
Were ASR's put in for the rain invisible markings etc.?
I used to fly in and out of Dublin in 2000-2005, and did not find it a problem, but I guess it is much busier now?
Agree that perhaps the layout and taxy way designation need to be revised. And maybe aircraft should be given instructions to intermediate holding points, rather than all the way.
Were ASR's put in for the rain invisible markings etc.?
Last edited by Uplinker; 15th Oct 2014 at 16:54.
Actually, coincidentally, I have been pondering whether we might have to resort to motor vehicle style traffic lights and maybe even roundabouts or give way junctions on airfields one day?
There are an awful lot of radio transmissions involved with taxying at large or busy airfields these days, so perhaps a system of traffic lights might be part of the answer?
We already have red stop bars of course, but would there be any reason not to have traffic lights at each junction with say green arrows which illuminate at the appropriate time to tell us that we were cleared onwards, and which way to turn? This might be easier and cheaper to implement than the long rows of green lights on the taxiways seen at Heathrow and Gatwick etc.
I would envisage that important clearances such as lining up, taking off, or crossing active runways should still require voice clearance and readbacks.
There are an awful lot of radio transmissions involved with taxying at large or busy airfields these days, so perhaps a system of traffic lights might be part of the answer?
We already have red stop bars of course, but would there be any reason not to have traffic lights at each junction with say green arrows which illuminate at the appropriate time to tell us that we were cleared onwards, and which way to turn? This might be easier and cheaper to implement than the long rows of green lights on the taxiways seen at Heathrow and Gatwick etc.
I would envisage that important clearances such as lining up, taking off, or crossing active runways should still require voice clearance and readbacks.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right, Skyjob. I have very frequently had instructions just like that given to my while still decelerating through 100kts on landing. It's not just the complexity of the instructions but also their timing in giving them. Of course, anyone that has been there will also be familiar with the exact opposite style of taxy instruction of "follow the company ahead", no route, no limit, no clue! If the one ahead goes the wrong way, so will you! To be fair, the controllers don't show any sign of irritation or exasperation when I ask them for something more specific.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:Ian W
And as I said before a few extra square meters of concrete would solve most problems.
And as I said before a few extra square meters of concrete would solve most problems.
A few square meters of concrete may cost an immediate capital amount but the cost benefit could be huge. Many airports now are rebuilding ORPs in the form of penalty boxes just short of the runway so aircraft can be reordered for departure or be held out of the way of taxiing aircraft if given a ground hold. This is a very simple option; it is non-technical has no advanced electronics and works. The concrete is also probably cheaper than an electronic system.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think DUB are reluctant to spend money on concrete - they must be digging for gold, the amount of times the dig up the space between Link 4 and 5! I genuinely wonder if it's a job creation scheme.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think many an airport can learn from Amsterdam, with multiple ground controllers, several runways with individual tower controllers and plenty of gates and intersections...
Standard comms unless advised is to be followed.
Standard comms unless advised is to be followed.
- Initial contact with APP/ARR: State only C/S
- Initial contact with TWR: State C/S and RWY
- Contact GND immediately after RWY is vacated
- All ACFT give way to ACFT vacating RWYs
- All ACFT give way to ACFT on TWY A and TWY B, except if ACFT is vacating RWY
- TWY A clockwise
- TWY B anti-clockwise
- R/T instruction inbound:
- Via N: Taxi via TWY A and northside of AD
- Via S: Taxi via TWY Q
- A & B preferential and Low visibility one way taxi routes; all others routes may be used two-way depending on RWY combination
- R/T instruction outbound:
- Via N: Taxi via TWY B and northside of AD
- Via S: Taxi via TWY A and TWY Q
- Standard or Alternative push‐pull/push‐back procedures for each stand published
Referencing the post about seeing the wing tips of most airliners I have not found that to be true. In fact my experience is the opposite. On the 757/767 you certainly can't see the wingtips and I don't recall being able to see them on the 737-800.
A-SMGCS 4 ? I will look that up.
EHAM sounds sensible, and is sort of what I am thinking, but it requires good knowledge of the airfield and procedures. Paris LFPG has a similar system, but again you have to know and understand it. Such local taxi knowledge requires reading of the preamble on the plates, then trying to remember it all as you turn off the runway. Rome LIRF is a good(bad?) example of this.
I was just wondering if the taxy flow could be made a lot more automatic and thus require far less intervention from ATC. For example if the taxiways were laid out more like conventional roads, e.g. with "Give Way" signs etc., then the ATC instruction "At Bravo 2 give way to the 737 from your right" would not have to be given or read back, it would just happen automatically.
The idea would be that aircraft were cleared to push and start by ATC, and when ready, would be cleared, again by ATC to taxy to the runway holding point via a certain route which could be designated Alpha, Bravo etc. Such routes could for example take one from certain points near the apron all the way to the runway holding points, and be drawn on the plates as such. Several taxi routes could follow the same taxiways, for example Alpha might go from terminal one to 23R and Bravo might both go from terminal two to 23R, but they would both share the latter portions of the same taxiways, just like the tube map shows different lines which actually use the same tracks. Once on a taxi route though, the traffic flow would be largely self regulating, leaving the ATC ground frequency much clearer for issuing non-normal instructions, and reducing the 'machine gun' type of taxi clearances.
Complications might include crossing other runways, slot management and LVP conditions. Having clearances to intermediate holding points would solve the first, and having the 'penalty box' system to reorder aircraft would solve the second. And anyway, ATC would still be overseeing the taxying, so they could overide a give way junction if need be, by giving a voice command, but this would be relatively rare in a well thought out system. During LVP's, I guess ATC could become more involved.
EHAM sounds sensible, and is sort of what I am thinking, but it requires good knowledge of the airfield and procedures. Paris LFPG has a similar system, but again you have to know and understand it. Such local taxi knowledge requires reading of the preamble on the plates, then trying to remember it all as you turn off the runway. Rome LIRF is a good(bad?) example of this.
I was just wondering if the taxy flow could be made a lot more automatic and thus require far less intervention from ATC. For example if the taxiways were laid out more like conventional roads, e.g. with "Give Way" signs etc., then the ATC instruction "At Bravo 2 give way to the 737 from your right" would not have to be given or read back, it would just happen automatically.
The idea would be that aircraft were cleared to push and start by ATC, and when ready, would be cleared, again by ATC to taxy to the runway holding point via a certain route which could be designated Alpha, Bravo etc. Such routes could for example take one from certain points near the apron all the way to the runway holding points, and be drawn on the plates as such. Several taxi routes could follow the same taxiways, for example Alpha might go from terminal one to 23R and Bravo might both go from terminal two to 23R, but they would both share the latter portions of the same taxiways, just like the tube map shows different lines which actually use the same tracks. Once on a taxi route though, the traffic flow would be largely self regulating, leaving the ATC ground frequency much clearer for issuing non-normal instructions, and reducing the 'machine gun' type of taxi clearances.
Complications might include crossing other runways, slot management and LVP conditions. Having clearances to intermediate holding points would solve the first, and having the 'penalty box' system to reorder aircraft would solve the second. And anyway, ATC would still be overseeing the taxying, so they could overide a give way junction if need be, by giving a voice command, but this would be relatively rare in a well thought out system. During LVP's, I guess ATC could become more involved.
Last edited by Uplinker; 16th Oct 2014 at 06:35.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker, this (your suggestion) is generally how most airports are already laid out.
It becomes an issue when the taxiways are named differently along the same route and where ATC insists of naming each bit of taxiway between two intersections uniquely for reference and starts using them in the taxi clearance.
The Amsterdam standard taxi routes could be rewritten to resemble DUB style from:
Similarly the Dublin layout could be revised to convert a clearance from:
Reading the above examples, which would be the better one to challenge and change?
It becomes an issue when the taxiways are named differently along the same route and where ATC insists of naming each bit of taxiway between two intersections uniquely for reference and starts using them in the taxi clearance.
The Amsterdam standard taxi routes could be rewritten to resemble DUB style from:
- Delta 4 via the South; into
- Via Victor, at Victor Mike Right on Zulu, Cross Zulu 2 and Zulu 1, Turn Right onto Quebec, Left on Bravo, Continue Passing Alpha 2, Alpha 3 and Alpha 4, Left at Alpha 5, Cross Taxiway B, Onto Ramp (to be named) and Parking at Delta 4.
Similarly the Dublin layout could be revised to convert a clearance from:
- Link 5, Fox Outer, Link 4, Foxtrot 3, Foxtrot 2, Hold Short Link 2, Give Way to the Shamrock A321 coming from the right at Bravo, Then via Alpha Continue Foxtrot 1, Echo 1 to Hold Short Runways 28 & 34; into
- Echo 1 via Foxtrot, Giving Way to Shamrock A321 at Bravo.
Reading the above examples, which would be the better one to challenge and change?
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sailvi, you can see the wing tips of the 737, but if the no.3 window is fogged up, as is usually the case early in the morning in very damp conditions, you can only see them if you lean all the way forward and put your head within 2" of the upright between the no.1 and no.2 windows and look over your shoulder. It is no way to taxy an aeroplane! If the no.3 window is clear of fog and rain, then you can see the wing tip without leaning forwards much.
It seems perverse that the automotive industry is producing cheap kits for ultrasonic parking sensors, reversing cameras and so on for vehicles which are easy to manoeuver and see out of, but the aviation industry has no interest in making aircraft easy to taxi (or even fly - handling characteristics are getting worse on every new model). I know that part of it is volumes - there are many more cars than aircraft, so it is a bigger market, but with the mark ups in aviation, you'd think someone would be taking it seriously. How hard can it be to have a few strategically placed small cameras, like those used almost as throw away items by the media, connected to a relatively small display? Useful for seeing airborne non-normals as well as for taxi clearance. Why are there no improvements for information to pilots unless the authorities mandate it?
It seems perverse that the automotive industry is producing cheap kits for ultrasonic parking sensors, reversing cameras and so on for vehicles which are easy to manoeuver and see out of, but the aviation industry has no interest in making aircraft easy to taxi (or even fly - handling characteristics are getting worse on every new model). I know that part of it is volumes - there are many more cars than aircraft, so it is a bigger market, but with the mark ups in aviation, you'd think someone would be taking it seriously. How hard can it be to have a few strategically placed small cameras, like those used almost as throw away items by the media, connected to a relatively small display? Useful for seeing airborne non-normals as well as for taxi clearance. Why are there no improvements for information to pilots unless the authorities mandate it?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aluminium Shuffler, I wholeheartedly agree
The problem is certification.
No industry is as regulated as aviation.
Few industry have as little margins.
How hard can it be to have a few strategically placed small cameras, like those used almost as throw away items by the media, connected to a relatively small display? Useful for seeing airborne non-normals as well as for taxi clearance. Why are there no improvements for information to pilots unless the authorities mandate it?
No industry is as regulated as aviation.
Few industry have as little margins.
I generally agree with most of the last two posts.
SKY: imagine if road transport was directed by an agency using radios. Instead of giving way, at a T junction or roundabout, vehicles would have to wait and get clearance, one by one to proceed, and the other traffic would have to be told (and read back) instructions to give way. It would be chaos and unworkable. I just wonder now that the airfield traffic density is so high whether ATC still needs to direct every single part of every single traffic movement, or whether some junctions could be made 'automatic', by the use of 'Give Way' signs or traffic sensing traffic lights etc.
Simpler is better in my book, and being given a machine gun taxi clearance as we are still exiting the runway and I as PNF am going through after landing flows and checklists, and doing single engine stuff as well as writing the clearance down, looking on the taxi chart and keeping PF right - is not conducive to safe operations ! Whereas, "Join Zulu and hold at X-Ray 3" where 'Zulu' takes you all the way to the apron entrance via two 'Give Way' junctions and is drawn as such on the chart, is easy to remember, read back and follow.
AS: Cameras on wing tips. Absolutely, why not? I always have a heart-in-the-mouth feeling as I watch the wingtip of the A330 and hope I am right when I tell the Captain that it is going to clear - Not easy to tell with the perspective and it being so far back
Night time ops might be tricky though, because you might need lighting for the camera, and of course ANYTHING to do with aeroplanes has not one but two zeros added to the price !
SKY: imagine if road transport was directed by an agency using radios. Instead of giving way, at a T junction or roundabout, vehicles would have to wait and get clearance, one by one to proceed, and the other traffic would have to be told (and read back) instructions to give way. It would be chaos and unworkable. I just wonder now that the airfield traffic density is so high whether ATC still needs to direct every single part of every single traffic movement, or whether some junctions could be made 'automatic', by the use of 'Give Way' signs or traffic sensing traffic lights etc.
Simpler is better in my book, and being given a machine gun taxi clearance as we are still exiting the runway and I as PNF am going through after landing flows and checklists, and doing single engine stuff as well as writing the clearance down, looking on the taxi chart and keeping PF right - is not conducive to safe operations ! Whereas, "Join Zulu and hold at X-Ray 3" where 'Zulu' takes you all the way to the apron entrance via two 'Give Way' junctions and is drawn as such on the chart, is easy to remember, read back and follow.
AS: Cameras on wing tips. Absolutely, why not? I always have a heart-in-the-mouth feeling as I watch the wingtip of the A330 and hope I am right when I tell the Captain that it is going to clear - Not easy to tell with the perspective and it being so far back
Night time ops might be tricky though, because you might need lighting for the camera, and of course ANYTHING to do with aeroplanes has not one but two zeros added to the price !
Last edited by Uplinker; 18th Oct 2014 at 11:01.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certification should be little problem. One has to marvel at the irony that many legacy airlines now have forward and downward looking cameras of pretty good resolution to give the passengers something to look at on the IFE, yet we can't get something identical in operation for safety critical purposes.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ian W
1. If you have turned off an active taxiway and then have to hold at a specified holding point then make sure you are clear of the taxiway and at the holding point. If for whatever reason you do not want to pull all the way forward tell Ground that you are still blocking the taxiway.
As an aside, back in about 2000 I heard DUB ATC telling a Ryanair flight to slow down... Clocked at 68kts on the parallel taxiway after landing on 28
(clocked with a radar gun!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's happened to RYR at DUB again, according to this:
@irishexaminer: #LATEST: Two planes clip each other on tarmac; Dublin Airport investigating | http://t.co/t5L0MveACR (SN) http://t.co/WMUxuzLBCH
Ryanair has released a statement reading: “Two of our aircraft were taxiing slowly to the runway at Dublin Airport this morning. The winglet of one aircraft appears to have scraped the tail fin of the other," said Ryanair.
"Both aircraft were under the instruction of Dublin Airport Air Traffic Control at the time. Customers have been bussed back to the terminal and will board replacement aircraft to continue their journeys to Edinburgh and Zadar. Ryanair apologises sincerely to customers for any inconvenience caused.”
@irishexaminer: #LATEST: Two planes clip each other on tarmac; Dublin Airport investigating | http://t.co/t5L0MveACR (SN) http://t.co/WMUxuzLBCH
Ryanair has released a statement reading: “Two of our aircraft were taxiing slowly to the runway at Dublin Airport this morning. The winglet of one aircraft appears to have scraped the tail fin of the other," said Ryanair.
"Both aircraft were under the instruction of Dublin Airport Air Traffic Control at the time. Customers have been bussed back to the terminal and will board replacement aircraft to continue their journeys to Edinburgh and Zadar. Ryanair apologises sincerely to customers for any inconvenience caused.”