Give way?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give way?
A simple situation.
A Heli is approching and cleared to the finalposition and must cross the taxiway.
A plane is on the taxiway.
Her a short videosequence.
Airfield is class “D” with Ground- and Tower-Freq.
The plane is handled by Ground, the Helo is handled by Tower.
Must a heli on air or a plane on ground give way?
What is the correct situation?
A Heli is approching and cleared to the finalposition and must cross the taxiway.
A plane is on the taxiway.
Her a short videosequence.
Airfield is class “D” with Ground- and Tower-Freq.
The plane is handled by Ground, the Helo is handled by Tower.
Must a heli on air or a plane on ground give way?
What is the correct situation?
PPRuNe Enigma
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure the fact that the heli is aiborne and the FW on the ground is relevant - both are effectively manouevring on the airfield.
Common sense would seem to be to do what the pilot in the vid does - wait until the FW has passed before crossing the taxiway behind it.
The "give way to the right" rule would again mean allowing the FW to pass first.
A more interesting situation would be the mirror image, with the FW coming along the taxiway from the left. Don't think I would just assume priority from the right and blast across in front of him.
Common sense would seem to be to do what the pilot in the vid does - wait until the FW has passed before crossing the taxiway behind it.
The "give way to the right" rule would again mean allowing the FW to pass first.
A more interesting situation would be the mirror image, with the FW coming along the taxiway from the left. Don't think I would just assume priority from the right and blast across in front of him.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the helicopter in this situation would, I believe, have the right of way (two aircraft taxiing [one just happens to be "air taxiing"] and converging, with the helicopter now on & in the right) common sense/airmanship dictates not blasting on in front of the fixed wing.
As I heard somewhere: "He was in the right" is a meaningless thing to have on your gravestone!
Gentleman Aviator
As I heard somewhere: "He was in the right" is a meaningless thing to have on your gravestone!
"He was right, dead right while driving along
But he was just as dead right, as if he'd been wrong!"
Rules and rights of way are never going to be a substitute for airmanship.
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come and try flying here. A skidded helicopter taxiing is an aircraft in flight, no matter what anyone says. Aircraft on the ground give way to aircraft in flight. Round here no one can get their heads around the idea.
There may be trouble ahead. Hmmmmmm...................
There may be trouble ahead. Hmmmmmm...................
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so other than stop where it is, what else can a fixed-wing on the ground do to quickly avoid a helicopter hover taxiing? Please don't suggest reverse thrust ......
Common sense should prevail.
It could be akin to another conundrum.......
An aircraft (Fixed or Rotary wing) is manoeuvering on the ground under visual signals from the ground marshaller. Part of the aircraft touches an obstruction and damage is sustained by either party.
Who gets the blame?
Common sense should prevail.
It could be akin to another conundrum.......
An aircraft (Fixed or Rotary wing) is manoeuvering on the ground under visual signals from the ground marshaller. Part of the aircraft touches an obstruction and damage is sustained by either party.
Who gets the blame?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you hit something whilst being marshalled, it is still the captain's responsibility.
In my view, this is one of those situations where no-one is right or wrong. The fixed wing was cleared to taxi, as was the heli. Whether the heli is in flight, isn't really relevant. How else does something like an R22 manoeuver on the apron under its own power?
To be honest, only one controller should have been in charge, rather than ground and tower. This could lead to loss of situational awareness, especially if they are seperate frequencies and neither traffic is aware of eachother.
In my view, this is one of those situations where no-one is right or wrong. The fixed wing was cleared to taxi, as was the heli. Whether the heli is in flight, isn't really relevant. How else does something like an R22 manoeuver on the apron under its own power?
To be honest, only one controller should have been in charge, rather than ground and tower. This could lead to loss of situational awareness, especially if they are seperate frequencies and neither traffic is aware of eachother.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In cases like this, my solution is usually to take the action that is safest, and causes the least inconvenience to all involved. I think I would have done exactly the same thing, let the fw get out of the way, and then proceed. ATC should never have allowed the situation to develop, but mistakes are made, and we have to deal with them the best way we can.
It is an interesting propostion however....one aircraft on tower and one on ground....could be the same controller but two different radio frequencies.
I would defer to commonsense here....as dangerous as that concept is to some. Having flown large helicopters over the years, I have developed a case of paranoia about blowing things about with the rotor wash and being the defendant in subsequent legal actions for damage to other aircraft, buildings, and people.
Thus....I will give way to anything and everyone if it prevents the possibility of damage to anything.
I would defer to commonsense here....as dangerous as that concept is to some. Having flown large helicopters over the years, I have developed a case of paranoia about blowing things about with the rotor wash and being the defendant in subsequent legal actions for damage to other aircraft, buildings, and people.
Thus....I will give way to anything and everyone if it prevents the possibility of damage to anything.
I'd say that ground (who would be controlling both aircraft) most likely would have cleared the helo to air transit behing the taxiing xxxx...the pilot would then have acknowledged that clearance and complied. If it were an uncontrolled airfield then you've got to use some common dog when taxiing. I disagree with the poster who said airborne aircraft are priority over taxiing...when you're clear of the flight strip, you belong to ground and are subject to his directions. Bottom line, though, is that if there is a conflict, as a helicopter you've got the ability to come to a hover and sort it out...BEAUTY!!
My two sheckles worth.
HP
My two sheckles worth.
HP
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Wales
Age: 48
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I'm missing something here. Everyday, whilst returning to the apron, tower will instruct me to "give way to fixed wing traffic north/south on taxiway A/B/C then continue to parking."
If given a clearance to cross with no mention of traffic, then I would just hold and confirm.
LB
If given a clearance to cross with no mention of traffic, then I would just hold and confirm.
LB
I think I'm missing something here. Everyday, whilst returning to the apron, tower will instruct me to "give way to fixed wing traffic north/south on taxiway A/B/C then continue to parking."
If given a clearance to cross with no mention of traffic, then I would just hold and confirm.
LB
If given a clearance to cross with no mention of traffic, then I would just hold and confirm.
LB
HP
