F-HPJD is back in CDG.

Your smiley ":ugh:" would seem to suggest that this is a silly suggestion but many, many non US airports do this. Many have more than 1 ground freq that will cover the ramp and the taxiways in that area (for example ground north or ground south). Then the aircraft on the taxiways and the stands in one particular area are all on the same freq.

There are other ways of doing things than you do them in the USA. Sometimes they are better, believe it or not!

Coincidentally this same aircraft, F-HPJD, sustained damage to its tail cone last November while at CDG, due to wing tip contact by a taxiing AF A330.
If what is stated here is correct, "It had to stop a few meters from its parking stand as there was a problem with a truck blocking its access."

(Does anything about that scenario sound at all familiar?)

Photos of damage can be found here, and a short article on the collision here.

Perhaps not always....

Misd-agin, if ever you can find where Europe is, why not come and see how it's done at the major airports here. You might learn something ;)

FMGC

Your smiley "" would seem to suggest that this is a silly suggestion but many, many non US airports do this. Many have more than 1 ground freq that will cover the ramp and the taxiways in that area (for example ground north or ground south). Then the aircraft on the taxiways and the stands in one particular area are all on the same freq.



You should think about what you are suggesting here. What MIGHT have happened was a result for moving from one sector frequency to another while taxiing around on the ground. What is the difference if it is at one arbitrary point or another on the ground. Infact JFK already has multiple ground frequencies (121.9 and 121.65). Then there are about 10 different ramp freqs...

If you made 12 different ground freqs how would that be safer? as you make the orbit around the airport on taxiway A or B, you are suggesting that having your head down for 12 freq changes would be safer? Not to mention all the extra transmissions required to sign on and off of each freq?

Here is reality. JFK is a large busy airport. No one person can possibly be watching all aircraft movements. On the other hand, every aircraft commander IS responsible for the safe operation of HIS aircraft and must know how wide a gap he needs to taxi his aircraft forward. If he doesn't know that, he's not qualified to fly his jet. Airfrance was not broad sided. It struck a non moving object. Quite simply, no matter how large the aircraft, there is no, I repeat NO excuse for it.

Wino - I understand what you say and have operated in and out of the USA quite a lot. I think it is fair to say that the American system of having Ground Movement Control hand you off to Ramp Control, which is not staffed by ATC and doesn't have the big airport picture, is unusual if not unique to the USA.

More common is to have GMC control aircraft to their parking spot. What this probably means is that the GMC facility is bigger and has more staff than in the USA. No need for twelve different frequencies, many big airports use between one and four at the most, but no more than two is quite common.

Whilst USA orientated pilots will scoff at the possibility of the RJ crew notifying GMC that they were not clear of the taxiway, in a very large number of places outside the USA that would have been SOP.

Hotel Tango - I've found Europe many times over the last 21 yrs and so far all attempts have been successful. Matter of fact, I learned to fly in Europe. Kinda upsets the 'why don't you see the world beyond the U.S. arguement, doesn't it?

Some European cities, to include French cities :eek:, use the same 'outdated' U.S. style, ground control hands off to ramp control for parking.

And NO system will protect your wingtips better than the PIC will, or least should.

I'm curious, have you been to JFK? May 21st will be the 33rd anniversary of my first JFK landing. Private pilot, 163 hrs TT, night flight to JFK for experience.

parabellum - Whilst USA orientated pilots will scoff at the possibility of the RJ crew notifying GMC that they were not clear of the taxiway, in a very large number of places outside the USA that would have been SOP.
**********************

We don't 'scoff' at it. It's SOP in the U.S. also.

But ultimately it doesn't matter if the RJ forget to advise ground control that they weren't clear, or couldn't because of frequency congestation. You(we) are ultimately responsible for the safety of your(our) aircraft. No one else is.

Don't see anywhere in my posts on this or other threads on this subject where I have disagreed.

Shame it didn't happen this time then. There have been quite a few posters who have dismissed the idea of the RJ telling ground he wasn't clear, which surprises and disappoints me.

parabellum:

Perhaps he tried and couldn't get a word in edgewise? Or, perhaps he had bigger issues at the moment? Or, perhaps he anticipated clearing shortly?

It was a taxiway, not a runway.

Myself, I would reserve my disappointment toward the "hittee" pending all the crew and ATC interviews, and the transcript of the pertinent ATC and CVR tapes. (If the CVR tapes were still intact.)

Wino,

My point is that if ground were controlling that ramp and taxiway in that particular area of the airfield, which is what would have happened in most other parts of the world, then there would have been a good chance that such an accident might have been mitigated.

This RAMP freq thing seems to be a peculiarly US phenomena that nobody else does, maybe for good reason.

Does anyone know whether this event is being treated as an "accident" of the kind that requires a preliminary report within 30 days?

It would be good to have some hard facts, like the aircraft's actual speed, rather than relying on guesswork based on a video which may or may not be playing at real-time speed.

I have no disappointment with the 'hittee', until all facts are public, what I actually said was:


Which is totally different.

Globaliser
 

That's considered as an accident by the NTSB.
DCA11FA045A
So there will be a report.

fmgc - This RAMP freq thing seems to be a peculiarly US phenomena that nobody else does, maybe for good reason.


----------------------------------------


It's used in at least one major European hub, so saying "nobody else does", is wrong.

I've heard (through the grapevine) 10 kts, which would explain no one was injured in the RJ and the short stopping distance of the A380.

We shall see.

If you mean this, I think that you will find that it is a completely different animal:

De Gaulle De Icing Ramp/Taxi Control 131.75
De Gaulle De Icing Ramp/Taxi Control 122.175
De Gaulle De Icing Ramp/Taxi Control 122.125
De Gaulle De Icing Ramp/Taxi Control 121.675

misd-agin,

With the exception of GA ramps at some, no major European airport does this on the main ramps to my knowledge. Been to JFK many times and even visited ATC there (albeit some time ago).

Glad you know where Europe is ;)

The split US (or JFK) ramp/ground procedures may be different from the rest of the world. They may even be less smart than the rest of the world. But that really doesn't matter.

You drive on US roads, you drive on the right. No cop is going to accept "Americans drive on the wrong side of the road!" as an excuse for running into another car.

You fly into JFK, you should understand JFK's procedures and operate with them in mind. If you can't, turn down the assignment.

"When in Rome....."

If we had always taken that attitude in aviation we wouldn't be progressing safety.

In every accident or incident systems and procedures need to be questioned and changed if necessary. Wherever in the world that you are.