PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   SQ A380 meets aerobridge at Sydney Airport (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/540468-sq-a380-meets-aerobridge-sydney-airport.html)

phiggsbroadband 28th May 2014 11:17

My guess is that the air-bridge is re-usable... Alloy vs Steel.... Steel wins.

QFBUSBOY 28th May 2014 11:41

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.

Capt Fathom 28th May 2014 12:52

QFBUSBOY..

I've seen this before and will no doubt see it again.
Please tell us what you have seen before, and expect to see again.

QFBUSBOY 28th May 2014 14:03

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.

tdracer 28th May 2014 15:46

Wasn't it a Singapore 777 that ingested an LD3 while approaching the gate a few months ago?


Once can be a fluke, twice starts to constitute a pattern :sad:

No Fly Zone 29th May 2014 02:48

I'd love to hear the Captain 'splain this to his Ground Driving Teacher. :sad:

Oktas8 29th May 2014 04:54

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.
I have a theory, a "fence at the top of the cliff instead of ambulance at the bottom" kind of theory.

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?"


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.