Re: [閒聊] 今天桃園小插曲

看板Aviation (航空板)作者 (PP卡)時間14年前 (2011/08/20 15:29), 編輯推噓12(12032)
留言44則, 13人參與, 最新討論串3/6 (看更多)
※ 引述《PriorityPass (PP卡)》之銘言: : http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/sling4atw_news.asp 他們知道有關CI919 的事情 節錄他們在網站上回答當時的狀況: OK, so that’s the rules. What a pity I have, in the same post, to write about the China 919 question! Actually, Jean and I only found out about the fiasco when my brother Andrew directed us to our own Facebook page late last night! After we landed ATC ground instructed us to taxi by taxiway “November Charlie to the end”. We were already on a taxiway, the name of which I don’ t recall. I was on the radio, Jean driving. We came to a multi-directional crossing about 40 meters off the active runway and I asked which way we should go. As it turned out November Charlie was marked with two boards, but it did an acute angle there, one sharp right, back towards the active runway at a gentle angle, the other gentle right, curving to parallel with the runway. The ATC said “turn right onto November Charlie”. Jean assumed he meant hard right, so commenced turning. ATC quickly chipped in “No, no”, so Jean continued the turn, on a tickie, doing a 360, and then headed off at the gentle right angle. Even if we’d gone down the sharp right 'on-ramp’ to the runway, it was a good 50 metres to the active runway junction and the “stop line” was a good 30 meters from where we were. Anyhow, being on the ground frequency, we didn’ t even realise that there’d been any consequence, since the China 919 flight was obviously on the tower frequency already. Hence we discovered that there’ d been problems only when this popped up on our Facebook page after we got to the hotel (we’d even spent three quarters of an hour on the far apron refueling and it wasn’t brought to our attention!). What must have happened is that the China Airlines flight was already rolling and saw us doing a turn back towards the runway. Although there was a good 50 meters for us to run to get to the active runway on that taxiway, it was at an acute angle, which perhaps he couldn’t see, so perpendicularly we were probably only 20 meters off the runway. Anyhow, he probably just thought “What the hell are these lunatics in this little mosquito doing? I’m not going to take any chances, I ’m hitting the brakes.” I assume that he must have hit them pretty hard and somehow burst a tyre. Hhhmmm, what a pity – it kind of bursts my bubble a bit – I thought we’d been doing so well. Anyhow, life has a habit of bumping you down a couple of rungs just when you think you’re up! 不知有誰解釋一下~ XD -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.160.42.182

08/20 15:51, , 1F
自我感覺良好
08/20 15:51, 1F

08/20 15:53, , 2F
跑道出口都會有編號,他裡面好像是搞不清楚編號,用出口角度
08/20 15:53, 2F

08/20 15:54, , 3F
判斷,昨天因為有一斷時間恍神,沒注意聽,回過神來,塔台已經
08/20 15:54, 3F

08/20 15:55, , 4F
叫919不要起飛XD 顯然這兩名老兄回到旅館才知道闖禍
08/20 15:55, 4F

08/20 16:38, , 5F
自我感覺很良好啊? 為什麼有關單位不是馬上去調查?離譜!
08/20 16:38, 5F

08/20 16:39, , 6F
她們還不知道是塔台呼叫CI停止起飛的吧?還以為教官看到蚊子
08/20 16:39, 6F

08/20 16:40, , 7F
看到最後那段...華航正式求償一下讓她們知道人生甘苦吧~
08/20 16:40, 7F

08/20 16:41, , 8F
讓我們台灣人對她們說【Hhhmmm, what a pity】吧~
08/20 16:41, 8F

08/20 16:56, , 9F
調查了啊...下禮拜會民航局開會調查,有人說能不能留人機下來
08/20 16:56, 9F

08/20 16:57, , 10F
調查,我們應該只能調查過後,若該飛行員有疏失只能去函南非
08/20 16:57, 10F

08/20 16:58, , 11F
民航局,有沒有處罰看對方民航局,基本上是不太能留置對方人機
08/20 16:58, 11F

08/20 16:58, , 12F
,所有的對話記錄已經都有保存,至於華航求償,那就去打民事官
08/20 16:58, 12F

08/20 16:59, , 13F
司吧。 外
08/20 16:59, 13F

08/20 17:00, , 14F
不過並沒有如記者講 只差500m,919剛要toga就被取消飛行許可
08/20 17:00, 14F

08/20 18:42, , 15F
太扯了..... 這種事情可以還讓他們先回去旅館的嗎?
08/20 18:42, 15F

08/20 18:43, , 16F
真有那麼狀況外 跟自己沒甚麼關係的人...
08/20 18:43, 16F

08/20 18:49, , 17F
這不是犯罪,這跟大家在道路上超速 闖紅燈 一樣,只要蒐證完
08/20 18:49, 17F

08/20 18:50, , 18F
後,回去就等通知,沒有什麼大不了問題,要賠償去打民事官司
08/20 18:50, 18F

08/20 18:51, , 19F
,不用說麼萬一,萬一有萬一的處理方法。
08/20 18:51, 19F

08/20 19:05, , 20F
沒再超過holdshort line的話,也不能算RWY incursion
08/20 19:05, 20F

08/20 19:10, , 21F
頂多說他誤解ATC,在滑行道上亂滑......要怎麼求償??
08/20 19:10, 21F

08/20 20:11, , 22F
全都把錯推到小飛機上,ATC完全沒錯???
08/20 20:11, 22F

08/20 20:24, , 23F
ATC!? 飛行員有應先知道機場動線的責任 不然應停止並詢問
08/20 20:24, 23F

08/20 20:25, , 24F
難道ATC要等小飛機真的往跑道移動才能取消華航許可?
08/20 20:25, 24F

08/20 20:32, , 25F
現在都下定論太早,大家都是聽新聞 記者拼湊,耐心等候調查報
08/20 20:32, 25F

08/20 20:32, , 26F
告吧。
08/20 20:32, 26F

08/20 20:49, , 27F
會在滑行道上轉360度就超扯了...ATC是避免該機又傻傻的闖
08/20 20:49, 27F

08/20 20:50, , 28F
進去 才會要華航放棄起飛 除非華航機上有乘客受傷
08/20 20:50, 28F

08/20 20:51, , 29F
不然航機沒受損 還真沒啥可以告..只能跟註冊國申訴開罰
08/20 20:51, 29F

08/21 01:22, , 30F
china919是國航吧......人家callshgn明明是dynasty
08/21 01:22, 30F

08/21 01:23, , 31F
callsign
08/21 01:23, 31F

08/21 01:30, , 32F
其實如果照他這裡說的 那其實也不是什麼很嚴重的事啦
08/21 01:30, 32F

08/21 01:32, , 33F
離停止線都還有30m tower用高安全標準要求ci abort
08/21 01:32, 33F

08/21 01:33, , 34F
只是剛好遇到妓者喜歡把是說得很嚴重...擾亂視聽
08/21 01:33, 34F

08/21 01:34, , 35F
至於調查了話 要把人機留下來也要看國際法的規定
08/21 01:34, 35F

08/21 01:34, , 36F
請國際公法強者補充
08/21 01:34, 36F

08/21 02:12, , 37F
不過最後有提到 他們看樣子暫時沒辦法離開台灣了
08/21 02:12, 37F

08/21 04:14, , 38F
有個疑問 小飛機生場了話也可以請求FOLLOW ME吧?
08/21 04:14, 38F

08/21 04:14, , 39F
請求的話要另外付錢嗎?
08/21 04:14, 39F

08/21 08:27, , 40F
follow me 要額外付錢
08/21 08:27, 40F

08/21 08:29, , 41F
留下來應該是經過民航局調查,調查完之後也就放人
08/21 08:29, 41F

08/21 16:39, , 42F
轉360度是不是等於沒轉的意思
08/21 16:39, 42F

08/22 10:17, , 43F
原文是說轉了 360 以後再往微右那個彎前進
08/22 10:17, 43F

08/22 20:47, , 44F
在大機場裡滑行的小飛機視野很差,看錯滑行道很正常!
08/22 20:47, 44F
文章代碼(AID): #1EJs9Lsx (Aviation)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1EJs9Lsx (Aviation)