Pilot requiring marshaller but uses own instinct!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
piltdown man
I'm as keen as the next man to have extra eyes when I'm parking but rarely is said person looking at my extremities so to speak, just the nosewheel and the yellow line.
This is another thread.... Beyond the question I asked.
Perhaps I'll open it!!!!!
Keep a look out!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by spekesoftly
I don't think I can agree with that. From CAP 493 "Aerodrome control responsibility on the apron is limited to providing advice and instructions to assist the prevention of collisions between moving aircraft"
Taking an example - Pilot of an inbound PA34 is told: "After the B737 pushing from stand 22, park with the marshaller on stand 24". However, PA34 pilot decides to make his own arrangements, forcing the B737 to make an emergency stop. Bitter complaint from the 737 Captain ensues, and ATC file a 1261.
Taking an example - Pilot of an inbound PA34 is told: "After the B737 pushing from stand 22, park with the marshaller on stand 24". However, PA34 pilot decides to make his own arrangements, forcing the B737 to make an emergency stop. Bitter complaint from the 737 Captain ensues, and ATC file a 1261.
Originally Posted by Aloon
Spitoon...
Quote:
Aloon, this is a UK answer. In the UK such an instruction is not an ATC instruction but is probably, in effect, 'a message passed on behalf of the airport authority'. This is a reflection of the responsibilities of ATC on aprons in the UK - it is different elsewhere.
Maty..... A large part of the information passed on by ATC comes from somewhere else!!!! Does this make them think, ' ah well, it's someone elses fault!! ' I think not!!
ATC, GROUND, RADAR, and CONTROL all ' pass on ' information from others at some point. Someone else did the weather.. Someone else did the flightplan.. Someone else did the slot time!!!
Not sure that your 'UK answer' would hold up in court!!!!
I'm no expert, but I think you're WAY off the mark. Cheers anyway!!
So back to the original question!!...
Thanks for all the replies, a mixed bag of sorts!!
Quote:
Aloon, this is a UK answer. In the UK such an instruction is not an ATC instruction but is probably, in effect, 'a message passed on behalf of the airport authority'. This is a reflection of the responsibilities of ATC on aprons in the UK - it is different elsewhere.
Maty..... A large part of the information passed on by ATC comes from somewhere else!!!! Does this make them think, ' ah well, it's someone elses fault!! ' I think not!!
ATC, GROUND, RADAR, and CONTROL all ' pass on ' information from others at some point. Someone else did the weather.. Someone else did the flightplan.. Someone else did the slot time!!!
Not sure that your 'UK answer' would hold up in court!!!!
I'm no expert, but I think you're WAY off the mark. Cheers anyway!!
So back to the original question!!...
Thanks for all the replies, a mixed bag of sorts!!
More specifically, speke, you are quite right about the controller's responsibilities but you give a very specific example which is beyond the scope of the original question.
Aloon, you are a bit ambiguous about your area of expertise. Just in case there is any doubt about my expertise, I am a controller with over 20 years experience, I am quite aware of the origin of information that I pass on on behalf of a third party and of when I make up those instructions myself. My answer is a practical one - it was not intended to stand up in court. If you want an opinion of the legalities - for which I openly admit I have no professional qualification - I will be happy to offer one if you give sufficient information about the situation that concerns you.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chesire
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN T2
Just interested how you guys feel about parking on T2 main terminal at Manchester in my days on the ramp it seemed to be a comedy of errors on a daily basis during peak times, are you made aware of stand number L , C ,R on landing or do you just follow the lights on the wall or marsheller if the lights arn't working which was common in my day there...also remember a few occasions when aircraft were on right line but stopped short leaving there arse ends hanging over the service road requiring a tug to be attached quick before someone towing steps taking the tail off. Saw lots of collisions there. Would you guys put T2 manchester one of the worst places to park??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
Are you speaking in relating to a separate ground frequency for ground movements? Or movements that ATC control??
Not knowing you were a controller, I wasn't having a dig!!
Now that I know you are!!
I'll put it to you directly!!
I know the question is a little vague.... So lets put a little scenario into the mix...
Pilot ignores instruction to wait for marshaller.... Parks himself..... Hits a vehicle with his engine... bits go flying and hit a ground worker... What happens to the pilot now????
Now back to what happens everyday... Pilot ignores instruction to wait for marshaller.... Parks himself..... Shuts down and all is well... What happens to the pilot now????
Surely we are in the age of accident prevention rather than dissection???
It is likely that ATC won't be be particularly concerned in what a pilot does when he or she gets on to the apron.
Not knowing you were a controller, I wasn't having a dig!!
Now that I know you are!!
I'll put it to you directly!!
If a pilot is told by ATC 'parking stand 'x' with a marshaller' then decides to park himself without a marshaller, due to the fact he's not there instantly when needed...... Is this 'disobeying' ATCs instructions?? Is it punishable??
Pilot ignores instruction to wait for marshaller.... Parks himself..... Hits a vehicle with his engine... bits go flying and hit a ground worker... What happens to the pilot now????
Now back to what happens everyday... Pilot ignores instruction to wait for marshaller.... Parks himself..... Shuts down and all is well... What happens to the pilot now????
Surely we are in the age of accident prevention rather than dissection???
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birchington, Kent, England
Age: 82
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull up a Sandbag
I have no experience of marshalling in "civvy street" but did loads in my service career. I only ever had one pilot who ignored my "guidance" and parked his aircraft well away from where I desired to put it. Said pilot was most agrieved that, as it became obvious that I was being ignored, I threw the wands into the air and walked away.
Mutterings of insubordination were quickly quelled when ATC suggested to the pilot that if he didn't want an extremely large green jet transport parked on top of his small jet runabout, he should follow the marshaller's directions. An amicable solution was soon reached and said pilot was actually quite interested when a C5 parked nearby.
The moral of the story is that the pilot may not be in receipt of all the facts. Notwithstanding that, I acknowledge that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of his aircraft and rather than ignore a marshaller should stop until satisfied that all is well.
Mutterings of insubordination were quickly quelled when ATC suggested to the pilot that if he didn't want an extremely large green jet transport parked on top of his small jet runabout, he should follow the marshaller's directions. An amicable solution was soon reached and said pilot was actually quite interested when a C5 parked nearby.
The moral of the story is that the pilot may not be in receipt of all the facts. Notwithstanding that, I acknowledge that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of his aircraft and rather than ignore a marshaller should stop until satisfied that all is well.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brum
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 637
Anyone who has dealt with aircraft marshalling has read CAP 637 (& that supposedly includes Flight Deck) it deals with aerodrome markings including VDGS (Visual Docking Guidance Systems) which includes a manner of automated systems & also AGNIS (Azimuth Guidance for Nose In Stands) & PAPA (Parralax Aircraft Parking Aids), side marker boards/lines & of course the old faithful "Mirror" (good for Hosties to check their make up in as well!!).
This is an old document (1996) & is currently being updated, however it states "A pilot should not assume that a stand is safe to enter simply because the stand VGS is active or lit, where ground personnel are not present or the Pilot has any doubt about the position of any equipment on OR NEAR to the stand the aeroplane should be stopped immediately and assistance requested".
It go's on to state that “except under the guidance of a marshaller, an aeroplane should not be taxied onto a VDGS equipped stand where the guidance system is switched off"
It unfortunately says diddley about parking in an area where there is no VDGS (I take it that was the case at CWL?) but the main fact is that the Captain always has the ultimate responsibility, if he decides to enter a parking area without marshallers assistance or VDGS then its his neck that will be chopped if he prangs his bus!! Even if the marshaller makes an error & guides him the wrong way the captain gets smacked if there is an incident (the marshaller wont get off scot free but they will say that if the Captain was unsure then he should have stopped & called ATC for clarification).
This is why Marshaller training has got to be done properly so that the crews can place there trust without worry. I hope that this has bought some light onto your query Aloon?????
This is an old document (1996) & is currently being updated, however it states "A pilot should not assume that a stand is safe to enter simply because the stand VGS is active or lit, where ground personnel are not present or the Pilot has any doubt about the position of any equipment on OR NEAR to the stand the aeroplane should be stopped immediately and assistance requested".
It go's on to state that “except under the guidance of a marshaller, an aeroplane should not be taxied onto a VDGS equipped stand where the guidance system is switched off"
It unfortunately says diddley about parking in an area where there is no VDGS (I take it that was the case at CWL?) but the main fact is that the Captain always has the ultimate responsibility, if he decides to enter a parking area without marshallers assistance or VDGS then its his neck that will be chopped if he prangs his bus!! Even if the marshaller makes an error & guides him the wrong way the captain gets smacked if there is an incident (the marshaller wont get off scot free but they will say that if the Captain was unsure then he should have stopped & called ATC for clarification).
This is why Marshaller training has got to be done properly so that the crews can place there trust without worry. I hope that this has bought some light onto your query Aloon?????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers bruppy!!!
Thanks for the info bruppy!! I don't have the inclination to trawl through these things and as I say, I don't marshall so don't know off hand what to look for!
Though I hear from friends, of pilots not understanding certain marshalling instructions... I'm sure there are marshallers too who don't use certain signals that often, that perhaps they forget??
Though again not the question in hand... ( I go off the mark sometimes!! )
To conclude.... My view on this is... A pilot is in comand, always, and a marshaller is an 'aid' to parking. Pilot will get bigger bum slap than marshaller should something go wrong... But surely there's an element of trust to be included in the evaluation?? It seems clear cut, but yet vague!! On paper / in reality.... yet.. not my question!!
If a pilot ignores the requirement for a marshaller, then he/she is fully responsible should there be an incident. Job done!!
We got there - of sorts! - Thanks to all who took the time to reply....
I'm happy.....
A Load Of Old Nonsense - Aloon
Though I hear from friends, of pilots not understanding certain marshalling instructions... I'm sure there are marshallers too who don't use certain signals that often, that perhaps they forget??
Though again not the question in hand... ( I go off the mark sometimes!! )
To conclude.... My view on this is... A pilot is in comand, always, and a marshaller is an 'aid' to parking. Pilot will get bigger bum slap than marshaller should something go wrong... But surely there's an element of trust to be included in the evaluation?? It seems clear cut, but yet vague!! On paper / in reality.... yet.. not my question!!
If a pilot ignores the requirement for a marshaller, then he/she is fully responsible should there be an incident. Job done!!
We got there - of sorts! - Thanks to all who took the time to reply....
I'm happy.....
A Load Of Old Nonsense - Aloon
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, Aloon, wasn't ignoring your question - just been busy and forgot to check back how the thread was going.
You make a distinction between a separate ground frequency for ground movements or movements that ATC control. In the UK a separate frequency for issuing instructions and clearances etc. to aircraft on the ground (e.g. callsign of Ground or Planner) is ATC - this is often not the case in other countries, in fact, the UK is probably in the minority for these arrangements which blur responsibilities between ATC and others on the apron.
Moving to the situation you describe, pilots, like marshallers, operations people, controllers, and everyone else, sometimes break the rules - sometimes unwittingly, sometimes with ill-intent and sometimes because they think it won't do any harm. Parking without a marshaller is usually going to fall into the latter category and, of course, in most cases no harm is done.
When it does go wrong, with serious consequences, there will be investigations into how it happened so that recurrence can be avoided and, inevitably, so that blame can be apportioned. The causes and where the blame is determined to lie will depend upon the circumstances. Whilst the commander of the aircraft is always responsible for the safety of his or her aircraft, in an accident as you describe there will be many other parties involved/responsible and other legislation will be applicable (apart from aviation law which is what makes the commander responsible for the safety of the aircraft). In particular, Health and Safety at Work legislation and, in the UK, the HSE, will almost certainly be involved if someone is hurt in the accident.
Many of the measures required by H & S legislation require people to do what is reasonable. So in your example one would have to consider whether a number of things were reasonable...
But you are right, we should all try and be pro-active and stop such accidents. This is much easier than trying to second-guess what might happen in court! bruppy mentioned CAP 637 but there’s far more of relevance to your question in CAP 642.
You make a distinction between a separate ground frequency for ground movements or movements that ATC control. In the UK a separate frequency for issuing instructions and clearances etc. to aircraft on the ground (e.g. callsign of Ground or Planner) is ATC - this is often not the case in other countries, in fact, the UK is probably in the minority for these arrangements which blur responsibilities between ATC and others on the apron.
Moving to the situation you describe, pilots, like marshallers, operations people, controllers, and everyone else, sometimes break the rules - sometimes unwittingly, sometimes with ill-intent and sometimes because they think it won't do any harm. Parking without a marshaller is usually going to fall into the latter category and, of course, in most cases no harm is done.
When it does go wrong, with serious consequences, there will be investigations into how it happened so that recurrence can be avoided and, inevitably, so that blame can be apportioned. The causes and where the blame is determined to lie will depend upon the circumstances. Whilst the commander of the aircraft is always responsible for the safety of his or her aircraft, in an accident as you describe there will be many other parties involved/responsible and other legislation will be applicable (apart from aviation law which is what makes the commander responsible for the safety of the aircraft). In particular, Health and Safety at Work legislation and, in the UK, the HSE, will almost certainly be involved if someone is hurt in the accident.
Many of the measures required by H & S legislation require people to do what is reasonable. So in your example one would have to consider whether a number of things were reasonable...
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
But you are right, we should all try and be pro-active and stop such accidents. This is much easier than trying to second-guess what might happen in court! bruppy mentioned CAP 637 but there’s far more of relevance to your question in CAP 642.
