SQ A380 meets aerobridge at Sydney Airport
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ A380 meets aerobridge at Sydney Airport
Maybe those pilots out there who are keen to taxi on without proper clearance should take note. I'm not sure of the exact circumstances here, but an earlier poster stated there was no marshaller or bridge operator. If that was the case, just because ATC wanted the taxiway clear, doesn't mean you should put the aircraft in danger. Better to make a few aircraft wait 5 minutes than to damage yours, to cancel the outgoing service, and to disrupt your own pax and airline. I've seen this before and will no doubt see it again.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ A380 meets aerobridge at Sydney Airport
Aircraft taxiing onto bay without correct clearance and striking equipment not correctly stowed, or even at least the 6 near miss events that I have personally seen,and were moments from damaging the aircraft. And all because of ATC and pilot impatience.
Often the comment is "ATC asked us to move onto bay to clear the taxiway", yet the pilot, who even though has the final say, is taking direction from some guy located in a tower, probably miles from that specific bay, and has no real visual for what the conditions are on the ground.
To put it another way, is it better to wait 60 seconds or so for correct clearance or marshalling, or do you prefer to explain why you allowed the aircraft to be damaged. The choice is simple. And I would bet my left one, the ATC guy won't be there holding your hand either.
Often the comment is "ATC asked us to move onto bay to clear the taxiway", yet the pilot, who even though has the final say, is taking direction from some guy located in a tower, probably miles from that specific bay, and has no real visual for what the conditions are on the ground.
To put it another way, is it better to wait 60 seconds or so for correct clearance or marshalling, or do you prefer to explain why you allowed the aircraft to be damaged. The choice is simple. And I would bet my left one, the ATC guy won't be there holding your hand either.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Abbott-like solution...
Aircraft taxiing onto bay without correct clearance and striking equipment not correctly stowed, or even at least the 6 near miss events that I have personally seen,and were moments from damaging the aircraft. And all because of ATC and pilot impatience.
To begin with, remove landing fees. New revenue stream:
Pushbacks: airport fees, $50 to $200/minute from the time the pushback clearance is granted, to the time the aircraft requests a taxi clearance. Fee cancelled if the pushback is cancelled halfway through.
Taxi-onto-gate: airport fees, $100 to $500/minute for stopping on a taxiway because the gate is not ready to receive.
Somehow, I think that airlines will suddenly find enough cash to employ (or contract) sufficient ground handlers & marshallers.
Off the topic, but also I suspect that technical problems encountered during pushback might be met with a "pull back on to the gate please" rather than the current "can we sit here on the taxiway for five minutes please while we sort it out?"
