This Lynyrd Skynyrd Debut Track Seemed to Eerily Foreshadow a Tragic Plane Crash Four Years Before It Happened

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Taxi and Ground Movement

    NOTICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION N JO
    Air Traffic Organization Policy
    Effective Date:
    June 30, 2010
    Cancellation Date:
    March 10, 2011
    SUBJ: Taxi and Ground Movement Operations
    1. Purpose of This Notice. This notice amends Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)Order JO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, Paragraph 3-7-2, Taxi and Ground Movement Operations, by deleting the phraseology and procedure of issuing “taxi to” when authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, thus allowing an aircraft to cross all runways/taxiways which the taxi route intersects except the assigned runway.

    2. Audience. This notice applies to the Terminal Services organization and all associated air traffic control facilities.

    3. Where Can I Find This Notice? This notice is available on the MYFAA employee Web site at https://employees.faa.gov/tools_resources/orders_notices/ and on the air traffic publications Web site at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications.

    4. Explanation of Policy Change. This change establishes the requirement that an explicit runway crossing clearance be issued for each runway (active/inactive or closed) crossing and requires an aircraft/vehicle to have crossed the previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued. At airports where the taxi route between runway centerlines is less than 1,000 feet apart, multiple runway crossings may be issued after receiving approval by the Terminal Services Director of Operations.

    5. Procedures. Change FAA Order JO 7110.65, paragraph 3-7-2, to read as follows:
    3-7-2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS Issue the route for the aircraft/vehicle to follow on the movement area in concise and easy to understand terms. The taxi clearance must include the specific route to follow. When a taxi clearance to a runway is issued to an aircraft, confirm the aircraft has the correct runway assignment.
    NOTE-
    1. A pilot’s read back of taxi instructions with the runway assignment can be considered confirmation of runway assignment.
    2. Movement of aircraft/vehicles on nonmovement areas is the responsibility of the pilot, the aircraft operator, or the airport management.
    a. When authorizing an aircraft/vehicle to proceed on the movement area, or to any point other than assigned takeoff runway, specify the route/taxi instructions. If it is the intent to hold the aircraft/vehicle short
    of any given point along the taxi route, issue the route and then state the holding instructions.
    NOTE-
    1. The absence of holding instructions authorizes an aircraft/vehicle to cross all taxiways that intersect the taxi route.
    2. Movement of aircraft/vehicles on nonmovement areas is the responsibility of the pilot, the aircraft operator, or the
    airport management.
    Phraseology, no change.
    06/30/10 N JO 7110.528
    2
    EXAMPLE-
    “Cross Runway Two Eight Left, hold short of Runway Two Eight Right.”
    “Taxi/continue taxiing/proceed to the hangar.”
    “Taxi/continue taxiing/proceed straight ahead then via ramp to the hangar.”
    “Taxi/continue taxiing/proceed on Taxiway Charlie, hold short of Runway Two Seven.”
    or
    “Taxi/continue taxing/proceed on Charlie, hold short of Runway Two Seven.”
    b. When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, state the departure runway
    followed by the specific taxi route. Issue hold short restrictions when an aircraft will be required to hold short
    of a runway or other points along the taxi route.
    PHRASEOLOGY-
    “Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary).”
    or
    “Runway (number) taxi via (route as necessary)(hold short instructions as necessary).”
    EXAMPLE-
    “Runway Three Six Left, taxi via taxiway Alpha, hold short of taxiway Charlie.”
    or
    “Runway Three Six Left, taxi via Alpha, hold short of Charlie.”
    or
    “Runway Three Six Left, taxi via taxiway Alpha, hold short of Runway Two Seven Right.”
    or
    “Runway Three Six Left, taxi via Charlie, cross Runway Two Seven Left, hold short of Runway Two Seven Right.”
    or
    “Runway Three Six Left, taxi via Alpha, Charlie, cross Runway One Zero.”
    c. Aircraft/vehicles must receive a runway crossing clearance for each runway that their taxi route
    crosses. An aircraft/vehicle must have crossed a previous runway before another runway crossing clearance
    may be issued.
    NOTEA
    runway crossing clearance is required to cross or operate on any active/inactive or closed runway.
    EXAMPLE-
    “Cross Runway One Six Left, hold short of Runway One Six Right.”
    06/30/10 N JO 7110.528
    3
    d. When an aircraft/vehicle is instructed to “follow” traffic and requires a runway crossing, issue a
    runway crossing clearance in addition to the follow instructions and/or hold short instructions, as applicable.
    EXAMPLE-
    “Follow (traffic), cross Runway Two Seven Right.”
    or
    “Follow (traffic), cross Runway Two Seven Right, hold short Runway Two Seven Left.”
    e. At those airports where the taxi distance between runway centerlines is less than 1,000 feet, multiple
    runway crossings may be issued with a single clearance. The air traffic manager must submit a request to the
    appropriate Terminal Services Director of Operations for approval before authorizing multiple runway
    crossings.
    REFERENCEFAAO
    JO 7210.3, Para 10-3-10 MULTIPLE RUNWAY CROSSINGS
    Renumber subparagraphs d thru f as f thru h.
    6. Distribution. This notice is distributed to the following Air Traffic Organization (ATO) service
    units: Terminal, En Route and Oceanic, and System Operations Services; the ATO Office of Safety;
    Office of the Service Center; the Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service; the William J. Hughes Technical
    Center; and the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center.
    7. Background. The FAA Runway Safety Call to Action Committee issued several recommendations
    to address improving runway safety across the NAS. In response to the Committee’s recommendations,
    the ATO convened a Safety Risk Management Panel to evaluate the safety of the Committee
    recommendations. These are two of the recommended changes from the Call to Action Committee.
    Changes will also be made to the AIM and AIP. Title14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91.129(i),
    will be changed after the completion of the rulemaking period.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    Famílias acionarão Airbus nos EUA

    Famílias acionarão Airbus nos EUA

    Consultor americano que atuou no caso da TAM afirma que “projeto do jato é defeituoso”

    Marcelo Ambrosio

    Ainda que as causas do acidente com o A330 da Air France jamais venham ser realmente conhecidas, para as famílias das vítimas os caminhos para minorar a dor das perdas que sofreram estão abertos. Isso porque para o direito, em qualquer país, não há distinção sobre o motivo do desastre quando o que conta realmente é a morte de quem era transportado. Um dos maiores estrategistas do mundo nesse tipo de processo judicial esteve ontem no Rio para discutir com parentes de vítimas do voo AF447 e deixou claro esse recado: não importam as causas, o fabricante tem o ônus. O mexicano George Hatcher integra a equipe de um escritório de advocacia (Masry & Vittoe), cuja expertise mundial é a de arrancar de empresas de transporte somas altíssimas, a maioria das vezes, em acordos judiciais, como indenização por danos morais.

    Hatcher costuma fazer extensas investigações particulares antes de se decidir por recomendar que o escritório atue nesse ou naquele incidente. No caso do desastre do Atlântico, cujo montante de pagamentos pode alcançar o valor recorde de US$ 700 milhões de dólares, o veredito já foi dado.

    – Vamos processar a Airbus. Tenho uma lista de 700 pilotos com os quais costumo discutir. Dois deles são comandantes da ativa do A330 e, embora não se conheçam, disseram a mesma coisa: foram os computadores defeituosos os responsáveis pela perda da aeronave. O Airbus, na avaliação deles, é um projeto defeituoso – definiu o consultor, cuja atuação junto às famílias de vítimas do acidente com o Airbus da TAM em Congonhas o levou a um processo em fase adiantada em uma corte da Flórida, nos EUA. São 77 famílias representadas pelo escritório e uma vitória já alcançada, que foi o acordo com a companhia aérea.

    O que define o caso é o fato de que algo falhou e que o passageiro nada podia fazer para alterar esse quadro. As companhias tem noção disso e tentam jogar com o tempo e com a possibilidade do menor dispêndio de dinheiro possível. A escolha dos tribunais americanos, especialmente na Flórida, segue a lógica da possibilidade de sucesso.

    O consultor garante que lá, em casos como o do AF447 ou do A320 da TAM, decisões são mais céleres e rígidas. A idéia de ingressar com uma ação na França não está descartada, mas os EUA seguem como a 1ª opção. A justiça brasileira é séria, na avaliação do especialista, mas demorada. A remuneração do escritório segue as mesmas regras das demandas trabalhistas, com o cliente arcando com custos após a sentença. Os advogados ficam com 30%.

    – As cortes da Flórida são rigorosas, tem uma simpatia pelo drama das famílias e não perdem tempo. Os acordos nos EUA são os mais altos no por isso. No caso do acidente de Congonhas são processos que somam US$ 100 millhões e a audiência na corte já está marcada, para março de 2010. Fizemos um acordo parcial com a TAM, mas há outros réus, como a BFGoodrich, responsável pelos freios, e a Pratt&Whitney, fabricante das turbinas, uma das quais estava com o reverso quebrado.

    A ação relativa ao caso da Air France deve ser aberta também na Flórida, onde há um centro de treinamento do consórcio europeu e um escritório comercial.

    – Incluiremos também a Honeywell, que fabricou os computadores e os produtore dos softwares. Desde 2001 há alertas sobre essa questão nos aviões e nada mudou. Foram feitos 5.200 jatos pela Airbus até hoje e eles já tiraram 2.600 vidas, 600 em três desastres – acrescenta.

    O mais complicado é calcular o valor de cada indenização, valor que leva em conta fatores, como idade, expectativa de vida ativa, etc.

    – Para a Justiça americana, não há limite para esse valor – completa Hatcher, que conhece todos os representantes nos 77 processos relativos à TAM. – Conversei muito com todos eles esse tempo.

    Terça-feira, 21 de Julho de 2009 – 00:00

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.