Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport

[lomapaseo]

Advance


Post #145 correctly states the A380 is an ICAO Cat F aircraft. It is also only 3/4" less than the maximum permitted wingspan for that category.

Does JFK airport meet the ICAO standards for operations of Cat F aircraft?

If not, why does the FAA and the Port Authority permit Cat F operations?
Published procedures are a work-around to mitigate risk from a known safety problem; they do not eliminate risk nor do they reduce risk to that contemplated by the standards internationally agreed.

If JFK does not meet ICAO standards for the type why are operators of Cat F aircraft permitted by their State of Registry to use JFK?

Whilst we are at it, does any runway at JFK meet the ICAO standards for the aircraft? (Or at LHR or CDG or SYD or anyplace else?). If the runways do not meet the standards why would anyone believe the taxiways do? But do they?

Questions about who was moving and who was stopped - and where - and why should all be covered in the investigation and the objective evidence published in the report. We do not need to demean ourselves by guessing.

First action should be to prevent recurrence. How will that be done until international standards are complied with? (and if they need amending do that too.)

And whilst we all remember the travesty of justice that the CDG Concorde blame game was, perhaps this is an opportunity to (a) Teach the french a hard lesson, or (b) Show them how justice is best served?


I like your clarity of thoughts and recommendations :ok:

as it points the way to prevention rather than joining in the "blame game" , well almost, except for the last paragraph :)

[mary meagher]

Not so long ago, Heathrow was constantly under construction. Builders encroaching on taxiways, big jets edging round tight corners.

How many times did this result in a wingbender, I wonder? and if not a lot, how was it prevented?

[aterpster]

Advance:

What defines an ICAO CAT F aircraft?

Is a 747 a CAT F aircraft?

[RatherBeFlying]

The tight squeeze between the RJ terminal and A was an accident waiting to happen once A380s began taxiing on A.

Perhaps signs at the appropriate distance declaring Get your tail past here before contacting apron would help.

If I was Airbus Industrie, I'd make up the signs and have the local tech crews plant them.

If you want to get fancy, have flashing lights illuminate the obstruction when it interrupts the beams so the A380 crews would know the way was blocked.

[Touny]

Hi,
I think the aircraft category is defined by wingspan...
a cat G aircraft must have a wingspan above 80 m (An 225)
cat F between 65m and 80m (A380 / An 124 / C5 B Galaxy...)
cat E between 52m and 65m (777-300 / A340-300)
cat D 36m and 52m (A310-300 / B707-300)
cat C 24m and 36m... (B737-800 / A321)



A 747-600X or 500X or 400X QLR has a wingspan above 65 m, so cat F.
a 747-400 ER or 300 or 200 has a wingspan less than 65m, consequently it's a cat E aircraft.

[KBPsen]

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/kbpsen/icao-1.jpg

[pattern_is_full]

Perhaps signs at the appropriate distance declaring

Get your tail past here before contacting apron

would help.

Hmmm - If pilots already can't see where their wingtips are, I suspect keeping track of just where their tail is is even harder. :ooh:

[surplus1]

Not a bad idea, but don't single out the A380, I think the 747-8 and the An-225 fit into the same category as far as width is concerned.


You are correct about the AN-225 but since it is a cargo-only aircraft it would not like be in that area.

You are not correct about the B747-8. While it may be a category F aircraft, It's wing span is 11.3m shorter than the A-380 [68.5m v 79.8m]. In the identical conditions it is not only possible but highly probable that a 747-800 would NOT have hit the CRJ.

[WilyB]

I believe Air France had a score to settle.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/assets_c/2011/04/ATT00063-thumb-560x420-122359.jpg

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/assets_c/2011/04/ATT00060-thumb-560x420-122362.jpg

(Pictures from Flightblogger)

:p

[ChristiaanJ]

If I remember correctly from articles in the early days of the A380 'arrival on the scene', the ICAO aircraft size category is based on a "box", with cat. F being 80m long, 80m wide and ?? m high. The A380 was sized to just fit inside the "box".
Airports are supposed to be designed and operated using the same criteria.

I tried to Google the subject, but without any success, sorry....
Anybody else ?

[SimJock]

I tried to Google the subject, but without any success, sorry....
Anybody else ?

US Airport Design uses documents like this, they seem to prefer 'Aircraft Design Group'

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13_chg10.doc

[lgwpave]

Mary raised the question :

Not so long ago, Heathrow was constantly under construction. Builders encroaching on taxiways, big jets edging round tight corners.

How many times did this result in a wingbender, I wonder? and if not a lot, how was it prevented?To clarify, some of this work was the reconstructing of the taxiways to provide Code F (A380) clearances - some areas are still to be done.

A lot of planning is carried out to clearly define work areas and, if necessary, taxiway block closures based on aircraft wingtip clearances/jet blast areas. This ensures that both aircraft and construction workers are safe from each other and I'm unaware of any incidents where the two have met.

[MPN11]

Or, indeed, penetrating the obstruction surface while landings and/or takeoffs are in progress, to be technical. But it's really ATC's job to look after that.

Hmm ... I think the Airport/Aerodrome Operating Authority actually has that responsibility. ATC are humble servants, albeit providers of professional advice which may/may not be heeded.

My local airport has operated for decades with buildings which penetrate the 1:7 OCS. Only now is that being addressed, thanks to a new Airport Director [not the SATCO].

[jumpseater]

Advance
Post #145 correctly states the A380 is an ICAO Cat F aircraft. It is also only 3/4" less than the maximum permitted wingspan for that category.

Does JFK airport meet the ICAO standards for operations of Cat F aircraft?

If not, why does the FAA and the Port Authority permit Cat F operations?

Yes it does, thats why A380's and other types operate there .... What ICAO 'runway standard' are you on about? be specific there are so many to chose from.
When new aircraft such as the A380 come into service US airports have to look at the airport design standards, within these they cover the relationship between airplane physical characteristics and the design of airport elements. Any variations from the 'standard' requires FAA safety assessments with operational mitigations or restrictions put in place. Just like many other national authorities procedures worldwide. Simples.

[Shell Management]

And whilst we all remember the travesty of justice that the CDG Concorde blame game was, perhaps this is an opportunity to (a) Teach the french a hard lesson, or (b) Show them how justice is best served?

Sort of correct as the Continental maintenance error would have been subject to a massive fine if FAA had found it so no suprise that a foreign juristiction took action after it was involved in multiple fatalities.

I like your clarity of thoughts and recommendations :ok:

as it points the way to prevention rather than joining in the "blame game" , well almost, except for the last paragraph :)

Justice is not about blame its about accountability:ok:

[ChristiaanJ]

US Airport Design uses documents like this, they seem to prefer 'Aircraft Design Group'Thanks, I'll read that soonest.

[Globaliser]

Further up this thread (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/448494-air-france-jet-clips-smaller-plane-new-yorks-jfk-airport-3.html#post6366893), Huck posted a diagram of the relevant part of the airport (http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l165/Hvck/jfk.jpg).

Looking at this end of the terminal on Google Maps, it looks like all the lettered stands have been more recently grafted on to an existing terminal. Is that correct? Does their proximity to the taxiway and the shape of the area inside the "bowl" increase the likelihood that if something isn't right on the apron, an arriving aircraft will have to hold short at a position where it might not have completely cleared the taxiway?

I can't help wondering whether - if one is looking for holes in the cheese rather than trying to assign fault or cast blame - adding all these gates exactly where they are might not have been such a good idea, if their position increases the risk that an incident like this might occur.

[Huck]

it looks like all the lettered stands have been more recently grafted on to an existing terminal. Is that correct?

Most definitely. Initially I'm sure pax were walked across the ramp to their jets. Then the airline built a thin, c-shaped structure to shelter them.

JFK has seen every era in modern aviation, from piston airliners to the 380. At some point maybe they should have lined up bulldozers side-by-side, scraped the whole thing off into the bay and started over. But they did something else - just made it work as they could.

I remember the TWA terminal with its stunning jetways that could reach over the wings of a 747. Now it is surrounded by A320s....

[bubbers44]

Not knowing how far your wings extend upgrading to a bigger airplane is no excuse for hitting another object. It is like knowing when to flare for landing when going to a bigger airplane. You have to learn your new equipment and fly it properly, and taxi.

[M609]

Heathrow has a quite good chart in the AIP regarding A380 ground ops: AD 2 EGLL 2-1 (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-1EC57DE0D40386E4F2460C44E1041294/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGLL_2-3_en_2011-03-10.pdf)

As far as the lynch mob in here goes.....hang the AF crew and all that....

Sure, captain has the ultimate responisibility for his a/c but:

In the bowls of DOC444 we find:

7.1.1.1 Aerodrome control towers shall issue information and clearances to aircraft under their control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome with the object of preventing
collision(s) between:

........

e) aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area.

I´m sorry, but GND at JFK did not quite achieve that last point there. I know the US is not quite ICAO compliant when it comes to ATC, but there is blame to go around for more than just the AF guys. The fact that JFK might be thight for the A380, and that aircraft not clearing the TWY without telling GND is not a reason to hang the pilot, it´s a reason to ask why JFK allow A380 ops in the first place in that narrow pier area.

[Airbus_a321]

@m609
it´s a reason to ask why JFK allow A380 ops in the first place in that narrow pier area. ...I agree see #239

it's just much too easy always to blame the skipper. the:mad:guys on the ground/tarmac are to blame for this me$$

and it's all about money. money making the American way: take the fees from the big birds, but do not invest one single $ to accommodate them properly :yuk:

[Capn Bloggs]

The APRON IS NOT a part of the MANOEUVRING AREA
Taxiways are. :ok::ok:

[aterpster]

airbus321:

and it's all about money. money making the American way: take the fees from the big birds, but do not invest one single $ to accommodate them properly :yuk:

Oh please, give it a rest. I operated the L1011 into all three New York area airports for a few years. Before that the 767 into JFK. Before that the 727 for many, many years. With all three of those aircraft I had to stop plenty of times because wingtip clearance wasn't assured. I had enough common sense to stop when there was any doubt.

ATC is not all seeing, nor all attentive; not in the U.S., not even in Europe.

Part of seasoned, prudent pilot experience is to know that JFK has always been a chaotic place.

[Suzeman]

Somebody asked about A380 Operations at other airports and whether they meet ICAO requirements. Below is some stuff extracted from the UK AIP for
Manchester / EGCC which has a daily EK A380 service, scheduled to operate around lunchtime so normally in daylight and a not very busy time of day. The AN-124 is an irregular visitor - maybe half a dozen times a year.

You will see that some of the taxiways do not meet the standards (49m - should be 55m) but the mitigation is to provide escorts. The UK CAA will not have authorised these procedures and A380 ops in general at EGCC without a robust safety case being presented by the Airport Authority.

EGCC AD 2.20 — LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS

g. Ground Movement Restrictions

iv A380 and AN-124 aircraft will be provided with wing-tip escort vehicles on taxiways northside of Runway 05L/23R.

vi. A380 aircraft - Taxiway routes available are shown on page AD 2-EGCC-2-3, marked in yellow. Reduced taxiway centre-line to object clearance of 49 m applies along Taxiways Alpha and Juliet

Chart here
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-1EC57DE0D40386E4F2460C44E1041294/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGCC_2-3_en_2011-01-13.pdf

Also from the UKAIP for Manchester

h. Ground Manoeuvring Restrictions
i. ATC instructions will normally specify the taxi route to be followed. This does not necessarily guarantee clearance from other aircraft,
vehicles and obstructions on the manoeuvring area.

ii. Pilots are reminded of the need to exercise caution on wingtip clearances from other aircraft when manoeuvring in close proximity on the
ground. Particular care should be taken in the runway holding areas and at runway crossing points.

Hope this helps

[Loose rivets]

Interesting. So Manchester provides the escort - presumably because it wants the revenues and perhaps even the kudos. Just how do they do this without assuming some responsibility?

Perhaps a tablet of stone delivered to the captain. "You taxi at your own risk."


To absolve themselves during high court action, I would imagine the wording would have to be more . . . involved.


I think everything hangs on what the AF skipper was thinking/saying at the moments leading up to the collision. If he was giving the taxiing 100% of his attention, then I think the local system/procedures/staff are failing him to some degree.

Having said this, I have a gut feeling it will be found he was distracted into the office at this crucial time. The view from that seat at my suggested 150M must be, erm, spectacular.

[DA50driver]

The argument you guys have going is a cultural one.

Do you want to have freedom which brings with it responsibility? (Screw up and you're in trouble). Or do you want the government to hold your hand and tell you what to do at any given time?

(Take it like a man or run hide behind your mothers skirt when things go wrong?).

The AF Captain screwed up, end of story. I have been in tight spots and stopped to ensure that I have had enough room. I would rather get yelled at for tying up traffic than bending the airplane.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

LR, there is wording in every OPS manual that I've ever read to the effect that:

"Even under marshallers direction, follow me cars, stand guidance etc.. it is still the Captain that is responsible for avoiding collision when moving under own power"

It is, therefore, the captain who is responsible for any collisions which may happen.

Full stop, end of story.

I always taxi at my own risk.

[Shanewhite]

On the A380 engine failure thread, it was mentioned that the crew were rushing about looking out of the cabin windows trying to see what had happened, but were unable to, and I asked the question why it would not be possible to mount a camera or two at points where they could see the engines, since CCTV cameras about the size and weight of a fag packet can be obtained for only few pounds.

Would it not also be a good idea to install one looking forward from each wingtip to see any obstructions that might be looming in their path?

[Capt Groper]

Unfortunately an Aircraft Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) for ground aircraft (A/C) movements, like TCAS airbourne, could have avioded this accident. It is not possible to see wing tips from many wide bodied A/C.

Also improved taxi cameras could also help avoid this type of accident. These technogies have all been available in modern vechicles for some years.

The system works like this; it's not until a certain amount of accidents occur that authorities mandate the inclusion of technology to avoid future accidents. For example, EGPWS, TCAS and RAAS. It's a reactive world.

It will be the pilots and possibly ATC who will be the fall guys. However one could also argue that A/C Manufactures and Civil Aviation Authorities are severly lacking in proactice practices. :mad:

[Nardi Riviera]

JW411 said "Congo line" here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/448494-air-france-jet-clips-smaller-plane-new-yorks-jfk-airport-4.html#post6365996

I believe you mean the "CONGA line": Conga line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conga_line)

Besides, I've heard that taxying at such airports is worse than complicated approaches...

[jumpseater]

LRInteresting. So Manchester provides the escort - presumably because it wants the revenues and perhaps even the kudos. Just how do they do this without assuming some responsibility?

Perhaps a tablet of stone delivered to the captain. "You taxi at your own risk."

Now you're just being silly.
It matters not if it is an A380 or a Cessna 150. If it's being marshalled or using a 'follow me', it's still the aeroplane drivers final responsibility not to hit anything. The size of the aircraft is utterly irrelevant. Procedures exist the world over for specific aircraft smaller than A380's. Kudos or any of that other BS doesn't come into it, the responsibility of the marshaller and aircrew are the same, they're just using different equipment.

'Marshallers' have training and procedures to provide safe guidance regardless of the size of aircraft, they have a responsibility/duty of care to do just that. They are not infallible, therefore the Captain must satisfy himself that the guidance provided is appropriate, and stop/query it if unhappy. This doesn't just apply to aircrew it applies to 'tuggies' and 'spanner w###ers' riding the brakes of an aircraft under tow. If an incident occurs then the operations staff will probably have to take a share of the blame, but that 'share' will depend on each individual circumstance.

The captain is unliklely to get off without any liability in a ground incident where his aircraft hits another object, because he taxi's at his own risk.

[Loose rivets]

Now you're just being silly.


Well, sarcasm is often called irony on PpruNe, I don't know why, I was intending to be plain sarcastic.


We have OPS manual SOPs that make it quite clear where the buck stops, and we have blanket legislation substantiating the logic of these SOPs. Yet, we blithely allow skippers into situations which require them to maneuver in difficult circumstances. Occasionally, very difficult circumstances. Oh, but don't worry, someone will help by writing something like:


ii. Pilots are reminded of the need to exercise caution on wingtip clearances from other aircraft when manoeuvring in close proximity on the
ground. Particular care should be taken in the runway holding areas and at runway crossing points.

I think this is a contender for the most mind-numbingly banal statement ever to be put in any aviation manual, but there, that's just me again.




I recall one skipper in the early days of jet transport who likened being a pilot to - something like - traversing a gorge on a tightrope with crocodiles snapping from below. Funny the things that stick in one's mind, but he was right. He also taxied more slowly than anyone I've met before or since.

I was never quite sure if he instilled confidence, or radiated a lack of the same.

20,000 hours in a log book seems to be no protection from that transition from being a respected and incident-free aircrew member, to feeling that first shudder through the airframe. Horrific. My heart really goes out to this guy.

I think this forum should be about brainstorming in general, so incidents like this can be--all but--eliminated, and one thing that's coming out of this to me, is that pilots will be put in ever increasing danger of falling into traps set by others, then being told they are responsible.

As I've said, my gut feeling is that in this case he may have looked away and therefore culpable, but as a general rule, I don't think a blanket refusal of any form of responsibility by the airport/ATC authorities helps long term flight safety, or the industry as a whole.

[ChristiaanJ]

I think this forum should be about brainstorming in general, so incidents like this can be--all but--eliminated...In that context, I'm amazed nobody 'picked up' on an earlier post about the C5, which seems to have additional taxying lights in the wingtips, lighting up anything that may get in the way of those very wingtips.
Sounds like the answer to me, but then I'm just an engineer, I don't taxy 'heavies' in the night....

[fr8tmastr]

"Responsibility
The argument you guys have going is a cultural one.

Do you want to have freedom which brings with it responsibility? (Screw up and you're in trouble). Or do you want the government to hold your hand and tell you what to do at any given time?

(Take it like a man or run hide behind your mothers skirt when things go wrong?).

The AF Captain screwed up, end of story. I have been in tight spots and stopped to ensure that I have had enough room. I would rather get yelled at for tying up traffic than bending the airplane. "




+1

Sure there are always many factors that go into a dinged airplane, but the buck stops in that front left seat. I would rather take the responsibility and the freedom to make my own decisions now and then.

I can all but guarantee that captain won't even get close to another aircraft for the rest of his career. Additionally, with all the training this will generate it will probably be a while before any 380 runs into something.

[bubbers44]

Maybe JFK should be closed for all A380 flights that taxi at high speed without knowledge of their wingspan. Up until now JFK has not had any abnormal problems with jets running into each other. Just close US airports to the A380 until they can resolve their problem. It isn't ours, we don't build any jets with a wing span our airports can't handle. It isn't our job to adapt to what other people want to fly. Let them pay for the separation of taxiways. This incident involved a smaller jet on the ramp, not a taxiway.

The FAA and US ATC had little to do with this incident. The PIC should have known his wingtip clearance and avoided the collision.

I have always known mine and after 23,000 hrs never clipped a wing. It isn't that hard.

Dumbing down taxiing to a beam of light off a wingtip coincides with automation to make flying so simple a caveman could do it but it looks like it is going that way so why not. I'm so glad I'm retired.

[JCviggen]

Dumbing down taxiing to a beam of light off a wingtip coincides with automation to make flying so simple a caveman could do it but it looks like it is going that way so why not. I'm so glad I'm retired.

What's so bad about a visual aid as opposed to having to guesstimate?

If your idea of flying is that it should be more difficult in order to be safer then I'm glad you're retired too.

[Earl of Rochester]

A 'safe' but 'brisk' taxi helps to keep things flowing nicely, I just don't see the speed as an issue here. To me its purely a matter involving contact between the two birds.

There needs to be a 'do not exceed' push back point which takes into account the length and wingspan of the largest category aircraft to operate in a specific area.

[Patty747400]

Guys,

Aircraft of every airline, make and model have been hitting each other for ages. Why spend 15 pages discussing this just because it's a 380 this time?

[dixi188]

CJ,
The L188 Electra has / had "clearance lights" shining down from the wing tip like the C5. This illuminates a spot on the ground to help with taxiing.
The A380 needs this and a camera to see it.

[Ben_S]

How about lazers on the wing tips projecting a visible marker of exactly where the tips are. Seems simple enough?

[k3k3]

They would just lead you into a false sense of security, as soon as you started turning swept wing growth was make the lasers worse than useless.

Wing tip taxi lights to illuminate the general area in front of the wing would be useful, I don't know if the A380 has these or not.

[HM79]

Fun facts (note I wrote facts) about the event:

COM CRJ7 was stationary in the ramp for over four minutes prior to the collision. The aircraft was positioned so a B763 was able to taxi past on the alpha taxiway.

The A388 was taxied left on to alpha, against the prevailing flow of traffic because that is how the airport operator (The Port Authority of NY and NJ) wants the A388 moved. The bravo taxiway is only available when alpha is closed. The A388 cannot turn right on alpha because of clearance with the service roads.

The A388 did not depart JFK the morning after the event and as of 4/15 was still at JFK.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Did someone just seriously suggest attaching l@sers to wingtips?

That would be very popular with fellow pilots on the ground I'm sure :ugh::ugh:

[Fargoo]

The 380 is still at JFK (Reg F-HPJD)

Not sure where the previous poster got info that it flew off the next day?

[HM79]

Air France collision taxing at JFK (http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads/39846-Air-France-collision-taxing-at-JFK/page5)

The previous poster saw the airplane with his own eyes!

[lomapaseo]

There needs to be a 'do not exceed' push back point which takes into account the length and wingspan of the largest category aircraft to operate in a specific area

but this is a "push-in" problem. In other words he was not yet fully in the barn.

[Fargoo]

Air France collision taxing at JFK

The previous poster saw the airplane with his own eyes!

Still sat on the tarmac at JFK with a slat missing and the wingtip stripped down?

[Fargoo]

HM79 - I wasn't meaning you, someone posted much earlier in this thread that the 380 had flown home the next day.

[terryb99]

Yes, post #235, the poster claimed the A380 was back flying 24 hours after the incident.

[robertbuenos]

bubbers44, post #281, said :

"Maybe JFK should be closed for all A380 flights that taxi at high speed without knowledge of their wingspan."

The 380 was taxiing at 9 kt. Don't trust video...


PS: Don't know how to quote, tried the "quick reply button" but did not work:confused:

[BusyB]

I understand the B744-8F has wingtip downward facing lights to help judge clearances:ok:

[repariit]

FAA's La Hood was just interviewed by Chris Wallace on a variety of topics. Relative to this thread, he pronounced "human error was involved", and then ducked the follow-up question: "Who screwed up?" by saying that the NTSB is still working to determine that.

[stepwilk]

"...and then ducked the follow-up question: "Who screwed up?" by saying that the NTSB is still working to determine that."

Why would you say he "ducked the question"? Sounds like a reasonable answer to me--indeed the very answer that is often suggested right here on this forum.

[barit1]

Starting at the top of the list - Who decided that class f a/c could use this taxiway? Where is the engineering documentation? Or - was it a political edict? :eek:

[charliemouse]

"On the A380 engine failure thread, it was mentioned that the crew were rushing about looking out of the cabin windows trying to see what had happened, but were unable to, and I asked the question why it would not be possible to mount a camera or two at points where they could see the engines, since CCTV cameras about the size and weight of a fag packet can be obtained for only few pounds.

Would it not also be a good idea to install one looking forward from each wingtip to see any obstructions that might be looming in their path? "

:ugh:

Yes - what a great idea. Lets taxi around not looking out the window - but watching TV instead...

Safety cameras have such a great track record in other walks of life too don't they. No brainer really...

How about: Look where you are going and know the width of your vehicle. Just like every other thing that moves on land, water or air.

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE reading PPRUNE - but there is some :}

[bubbers44]

Maybe the video was at times 2 speed. It doesn't make much difference, the captain needs to know where his wings are when he upgrades to a bigger airplane. The guy sitting on the ground he hit was ordered to hold for a 767 before taxiing so it wasn't his fault or ATC's fault. Every captain is responsible for his aircraft. The A380 captain screwed up by not clearing his wing. Does anybody disagree with that? I don't want to put the captain down but think it will all go on his shoulders after the investigation.

[Capn Bloggs]

The guy sitting on the ground he hit was ordered to hold for a 767 before taxiing so it wasn't his fault or ATC's fault.
The A380 was cleared along a blocked taxiway? Sure, good airmanship dictates you try not to run into anything, but ATC should have told the A380 to stop. What's the point of having ATControl otherwise?

[KKoran]

The A380 was cleared along a blocked taxiway? Sure, good airmanship dictates you try not to run into anything, but ATC should have told the A380 to stop. What's the point of having ATControl otherwise?
I suppose when ATC clears you to the runway holding point, you would would blame the controller for not telling you to stop before hitting the preceding aircraft waiting to depart.

[Stiffco]

bubbers44

Is that a bit of protectionism := creeping in there ...

[pattern_is_full]

Looks like Chuck Berry needs to add some "pilots' verses" to It Wasn't Me!

Toolin' down the taxiway, on my way to France
Whacked into a CRJ and, boy, I made 'er dance!
It wasn't me, Boss! No no, it wasn't me!
It musta been some other body, unh-uh Boss, it wasn't me!

The taxiways are narrow, the ATC's unheard,
Just blame it all on JFK - and not my lovely bird!
It wasn't me, F-A-A, it wasn't me!
It musta been some other body, Nossir Cap'n, It wasn't me!

[Annex14]

There have been 3 posts that I consider solid and helpful in the case, too many in my opinion bear a fowl taste of patriotism and protectionism.
Those three post I think are helpful were TurboDAWG #145, lomapaseo #246 and Loose Rivets # 278.
Not much to add, but few facts, taken from ICAO Annex 14, charts and Google Earth aerials.

TWY "A" and "B" width less than 25 m - ICAO recommendation for Cat. "F" type aircraft not fullfiled.

Safety distance TWY "A" -centreline to objects min. 57,5 m - ICAO recommendation for Cat "F" type aircraft not fulfilled ( here I consider the service road and the cars using it as "object")

Safety distance centreline TWY "A" and "B" - min 97,5 m ICAO recommendation for CAT "F" type aircraft not fulfilled.

Notwithstanding these known shortcomings the FAA and the Port Authority of New York has certified KJFK for A 380 operations.

Finally, if a taxi clearance is issued it must be assured the intended taxi path is clear and safe to be used by the recipient of that clearance. Once a clearance is issued the conduct of that motion has to be monitored closely, especial in known difficult conditions.

As was posted before: that is why there is Ground Control and what those in charge get payed for.
Jo

[aterpster]

annex14:

There have been 3 posts that I consider solid and helpful in the case, too many in my opinion bear a fowl taste of patriotism and protectionism.

Who appointed you to make such profound judgments? I didn't defend the chaos that is typically JFK, rather I stated that fact. I also stated that I have come to a stop many times at JFK and many other airports over the years when there was any doubt whatsover about wingtip clearance.

Since you didn't include me in your esteemed list, I presume my observations and operating procedures must have been in your "fowl" (foul) taste category.

I am at a loss to understand your logic.

[Gonzo]

Finally, if a taxi clearance is issued it must be assured the intended taxi path is clear and safe to be used by the recipient of that clearance. Once a clearance is issued the conduct of that motion has to be monitored closely, especial in known difficult conditions.

If crews believe an ATC taxi instruction is a guarantee of a clear route, why do half of them call up for taxi with a tug blocking their way (possibly still attached) and even ground personnel on the taxiway ahead of them?

From the UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1:
"Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions........to assist pilots in preventing collisions between.........aircraft moving on the apron, and aircraft and vehicles on the manoeuvering area".

[glad rag]

I think a previous poster has hit the nail on the head.

No-one is (I believe) absolving the aircraft commander of any responsibility, but, as in so many incidents/accidents before, there is a chain of events/failings that lead to the mishap. To deny that denies the opportunity to learn and ensure that robust and sustainable measures are put in place to prevent this happening again

To believe otherwise demonstrates a very hidebound view of ALL aspects of flight safety, both on the ground and in the air...

[Union Jack]

Interesting to see that our friends on the French forum are keeping a fairly low profile on the case at issue, but with some curious observations at
http://www.pprune.org/french-forum/448557-air-france-et-380-ne-font-pas-bon-menage.html

Amongst other comments, such as ""seigneur de l'atlantique" "lord of the Atlantic", they include:

#3 les tests psycho a la con d'AF n'avaient-ils pas detecte que ce cdb est un kamikaze?

Did psychological testing at AF not show that this skipper is a kamikaze?

and

# 10 Quand j'atterris à cdg je suis toujours surpris dont la majorité de leurs avions roulent comme des fangio de nuit.

When landing at CDG I'm always surprised that the majority of their aircraft roll like boy racers.

As they say in France "Aucun commentaire" - "No comment".....


Jack (not Jacques)

[BOAC]

If Annex14 in post#308 is correct, there should be some action at JFK!

[flynerd]

I sure feel sorry for the captain of the A380. I feel he is going to wear the majority of the blame for this near tragedy, so we await the report.
That said, in the end there needs to be some resolution of why it happend and how such an occurence can be avoided in the future. :ouch:

So let's leave it to the FAA work on that.

In the meantime, I am sure there will be many other suggestions here. The problem is that the posters have no concrete ideas how to prevent more such events.
Lots of freely given suggestions... some of which may be in the final report. I just think a major contributory factor is that JFK is not A380 friendly. But then again, which airport is?

FN

[Loopdeloop]

The captain shouldn't shoulder all the blame. As the flight safety goalkeeper his job is made all the harder when teamed up with a crappy defence. In no particular order:
1. The FAA
2. JFK ATC
3. The other members of his crew.
In my opinion, JFK ATC are a huge flight safety problem that needs addressing. They speak too quickly, use non standard RT and aggressively bite your head off if questioned or asked to repeat an instruction. None of this is of benefit to flight safety and most of it is a hindrance. When you combine a third world airport with poor controllers, taxiing around JFK can be considered to be a very high threat environment.

[aterpster]

Loopdeloop:

In my opinion, JFK ATC are a huge flight safety problem that needs addressing. They speak too quickly, use non standard RT and aggressively bite your head off if questioned or asked to repeat an instruction. None of this is of benefit to flight safety and most of it is a hindrance. When you combine a third world airport with poor controllers, taxiing around JFK can be considered to be a very high threat environment.

JFK was a major airport for my former airline. I flew in there from 1964 to 1990. It has always had issues during busy times. It used to be it was busy from about 2:00 PM to 9:00 PM, or so. That has changed. It is busy starting much earlier now.

Chaotic, yes; third world, hardly. Those kinds of negative terms do nothing but invoke emotion. In effect, what I think you are saying is the AF captain would have been just fine had he been at a first world airport. At a first world airport a commuter airplane with its tail in a questionable position relative to the taxiway would not be a problem. An A380 pressing on as in "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead," would not have been a problem at a first world airport even with the commuter bird postured as it was at JFK.

Of course, controllers at first world airports never have accent or speaking issues, even when the ground traffic is overwhelming.

BTW, for those of you who live in countries where the national government owns all those first world airports, that is not the case in the U.S. With the exception of KDCA and KIAD, the U.S. national government does not own or operate airports. JFK, LGA, and EWR are owned by the Port of New York Authority which is an entity of of NY and NJ.

A lot of money has been spent on JFK, especially in the past several years. As to the controllers, they work for the FAA, but most of them are from the New York metro area. They have bidding rights, thus choose to live where most Americans would not.

One good way to avoid JFK is simply not have New York as a destination. It is Paris with a New York accent. Most of us choose to avoid the place(s).

[misd-agin]

Annex 14 - there's no room at JFK to have the spacing for Cat F a/c. There are several other options - waiver(approved), don't fly there, or be more vigilant.

[DX Wombat]

A polite question - has anything been heard about the condition of the passengers on the CRJ or does no news mean that nobody sustained any injury worth mentioning in the press?

[glad rag]

Any more on the story/rumour that delta was stopped short after almost being hit by a truck on taxi in?:hmm::hmm:

Just how many different agencies control the ground movements at/around this terminal........;);)

[JW411]

As I have already commented in a previous post, 99% of the people on this forum have absolutely no experience of taxiing a wide-body aircraft around JFK at night (or even by day for that matter).

Like everyone else in ATC at JFK, the Ground Controllers are amongst the busiest human beings on this planet.

The traffic, especially in the rush hours, is so intense that they simply do not have time to have what we who are used to operating at relatively quiet airports such as Heathrow or Gatwick would call a normal conversation.

How can any of you out there expect a Ground Controller at JFK to notice that a regional jet has not quite got on his company stand unless the captain buts in with a warning that he is not exactly where he is supposed to be?

Bear in mind that the Ground Controller simply cannot see the whole airfield even if he had time to look.

Then we can get down to governance.

I had an incident one night at Kennedy which happened on the ramp. The FAA were on my cockpit almost before I had closed the fuel levers, but once the inspector had established that the incident happened after I had left the taxiway and that his Ground Controller was not involved, then it was a matter for the New York Port Authority who controlled all of the terminals and he was off like a rat up a drainpipe!

[Piper_Driver]

Beware - Engineer with PPl commentary.

I have heard suggestions of lasers or forward facing camera that could be added to enhance situational awareness for the flight crew during taxi. These each have their drawbacks. I have not yet heard a suggestion to use sonar. This technology is use on autos and trucks to aid in parking. Sonar beams can be highly directed and provide range information as will as obstruction direction. This combined with a smart processing algorithm that takes into account speed and tiller position could be used to predict an imminent collision. An aural warning could be used to alert the flight crew.

I can't think of any drawbacks to this solution, and it is not expensive to implement.

[Annex14]

I am really sorry that some of the members in this thread felt "stepped on their toes" or as is a phrase "I came too close to someones house" with my choosen wording in the previous post.

I am well aware of the differences on the two sides of the Radio/RADAR. Imagination also stretches far enough to understand the problems and concerns on the airborne side of my former business. Thats why there is still great respect and appreciation about the professionalism practiced.

Never the less, I think it is not undue to point to obvious information that may have played a major or attributive role in the event that is discussed in this thread.

I fully underwrite, using a phrase again, that "caution and vigilance are the better part of heroism" Means, of cause it is pilots task not to run into an obstacle - if !!!! he has a chance to realize there is something in his way.

But in the case at hand, even before an investigation has shown any final facts and responsibilties, a whole thunderstorm - thats my opinion - of uncomfortable comments are hailing on those AF pilots.

Finally, I think I can imagine the stress and the probably uncomfortable working conditions on a TWR like KJFK. Wouldn´t like to swap!!
Still, in times where even small countries allow themself the luxury of Aerodrome Radar, on an major aerodrome like JFK there should be no point of invisible parts of the Manoeuvring Area.

[Patty747400]

I'm surprised that so many pilots believe that getting a taxi clearance means that the intended taxi route is clear of obstacles.

Reading their posts I'm not surprised that these accidents occur.

[glhcarl]

As I have already commented in a previous post, 99% of the people on this forum have absolutely no experience of taxiing a wide-body aircraft around JFK at night (or even by day for that matter).

Add me to that 99%. However, I am undoubtly in the minority because I have driven around the access road at JFK. I spent the summer of 1988 as an on-site rep for an OEM and would have to drive the different terminals. It was scary with airplanes, trucks, tugs, baggage loaders, etc all moving in different directions, I am suprized there are not more incidnts. Every time I started to go from terminal 1 to terminal 5 I remembered those soothing words of the man I replaced, "don't worry the car and everyone in it is insured for a million dollars"!

[KKoran]

Still, in times where even small countries allow themself the luxury of Aerodrome Radar, on an major aerodrome like JFK there should be no point of invisible parts of the Manoeuvring Area.
KJFK has an ASDE-X (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6296) system; however, aerodrome radars lack the fidelity that would have allowed the ground controller to tell if the CRJ was impinging on the taxiway.

[Annex14]

Yep, thought so. But wasn´t there some years ago another competitive desighn introduced at the west coast?? Thought hat produced better - higher fidelity - information. The name was something with "Amass". Came too late or was too expensive ??
Anyway, I think someone has to work on that KJFK case - the one or the other direction.
Jo

[Annex14]

I am glad that with all the sophistication going on in nowadays world people haven´t found a way to fumble on the "North Atlantic Oscillation". Now and than even in those Gulf Stream pampered states on the other side of the pond real winter occures !!
Glad for you and your fellow companions in your homecountry that you are used to and trained to master such events.

By the way "Third World" can happen everywhere, needs only few components.
Just to remind those having English as there mother tongue, ICAO regulations mention a total of 6 languages to be used in aviation fields, English, Arabic,Chinese,French, Russian and Spanish.
Of course it is legal to use these languages in their native environment, as practice and experience shows to many of those flying around in this world.
And therefore, who in the world is brave ?? enough to expect that those used to speak a different language can not easily brought to their linguistic limits???
My experience has told me spending few more seconds for clear and understood instructions can save many minutes of otherwise needed time.
Jo

[Loopdeloop]

JW411 - Do some research into the number of movements at JFK and LHR then you might see the comedy in describing LHR as "quiet". It may seem quiet but that's simply because the air traffic controllers make it seem that way. If you can find the audio on the net of the BA 777 accident there a couple of years ago then you'll see what I mean.

[Annex14]

LoopdeLoop:
May be this link is of help. It´s the German Wiki site but the numbers everyone can read I guess.
Liste der größten Flughäfen nach Passagieraufkommen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_gr%C3%B6%C3%9Ften_Flugh%C3%A4fen_nach_Passagierauf kommen)
Hope it works.
By the way, I agree ! the amount of chatter says nothing about the real amount of traffic handled, especially when homebread phrases are used and not ICAO standard.
Jo

[MikeNYC]

Annex14,

Here's the relevant Wiki link in English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_traffic_movements

Your link was to the ranking of busiest by passenger movements, putting LHR at #4. The relevant figure here (in my opinion) is the number of total plane movements, which I linked to, with LHR at #13...both rankings put LHR as "busier" than JFK, but far behind other US airports.

[Annex14]

Thanks a lot, that is the listing I was looking for. This one says a lot more and still it shows what I assumed, JFK behind London, Paris and Frankfurt. Except for CDG the others were built at a comparable timeframe as JFK, but I haven´t heard of similar problems caused by airport layout. Could it be that "cost saving" or "gain maximation" has stopped cold any good intention of change ??
Jo

[KKoran]

Annex 14,

AMASS is a system that provides an alert to controllers of a potential situation (primarily a runway incursion). It uses data from a standard ASDE (aerodrome) radar, so the fidelity would be no better.

[grimmrad]

@ atepster :" One good way to avoid JFK is simply not have New York as a destination. It is Paris with a New York accent. Most of us choose to avoid the place(s). " (can someone tell me how to get the quotes in if I hit quote? Doesn't work for me)

Eh - have you been in Paris or NYC? Some people though say it (NYC) is the most exciting city in the world. One thing it certainly does, which is it has members of all peoples all over the world which alone makes it a fascinating place? Pretty it ain't - but fascinating it is.

Back to AF and the 380...

[grimmrad]

Might make more sense to look at traffic movement at certain hours as there are certain times of the day when it is just insane there. Especially in the evening when the WB go out to Europe you can sit for an hour or more taxying (no, not doing that myself, I let someone else drive)...

[stepwilk]

"Eh - have you been in Paris or NYC?"

Muy condescending. Dr. Grimmrad, apparently you're not at all familiar with who aterpster is.

[Sygyzy]

One of the problems at many US airfields-certainly JFK and LAX-is that the ramp is 'owned' by (usually) a company with it's own freq whereas the taxiways are controlled by the ATC tower. This has probably provided the conflict in this instance. The commuter had signed off from the freq that the A380 was on and probably had no knwoledge that the A380 was bearing down on him.

This happens nowhere else in the world so talk of 'busiest airfield' is wide of the mark. At LHR even though the ground control is sometimes split at busy times into North and South (as at LAX) the controller looks after the a/c until it's parked, not until it's about to go into the ramp area.

[grimmrad]

Not meant to be condescending but surprised by his argument, thus the question. And no, I am not familiar with who he (aterpster) is and quite frankly it doesn't matter to me as I think his argument is wrong (not the person) - and the argument should be jusged independent of the person based on facts (I am a scientist after all). He could be Delanoe or Bloomberg for that matter...
Paris with a New York accent? Paris goes back to the Romans, has churches going back to 1200 DC or earlier, not to mention the Louvre (we have the Metropolitan but that is not in a former royal palace). But I agree, that this is not worth arguing over (and I love Paris btw). So - enlighten me, always eager to learn. And I don't want to distract the thread from the real issue.

[Pugilistic Animus]

grimmrad


he's talking about the traffic conditions not how lovely Paris is :rolleyes:

[aterpster]

grimmrad:

Eh - have you been in Paris or NYC? Some people though say it (NYC) is the most exciting city in the world. One thing it certainly does, which is it has members of all peoples all over the world which alone makes it a fascinating place? Pretty it ain't - but fascinating it is.

Never been to Paris, although I did see the E-file tower poking up above the stratus once on a flight from FCO to BOS.

As to NYC, more specifically Manhattan, as a crewmember I had probably 400 or more 24 or so hour layovers there. (A few 72 hour layovers with holiday cancellations.) Plus, when I was on my pilot union's MEC I would spend several days at a time there. My first brief visit was in 1951 when I was 14 years old. Then, before my airline days I spent a week there in 1961 and two weeks in 1962 on business.

I mostly enjoyed the place so long as someone else was paying my bills. But, I never did enjoy the horrible rides from JFK to midtown and back again.

So, I certainly had my fill. No way I would go back there using my money.

As to Paris, I couldn't begin to afford that place. My other views about Paris are generally not shared. :) If I was loaded and had a French guide, then, yes, I would love to visit Paris.

[Locked door]

Ref that list of the busiest airports Heathrow only has two runways, all the others above have many more. Therefore I think that measured by aircraft movements per runway Heathrow is easily the busiest in the world.

LD

[pattern_is_full]

I think that measured by aircraft movements per runway Heathrow is easily the busiest in the world.

In terms of wear and tear on individual strips of concrete, perhaps.

In terms of traffic flow, airports (ORD, MDW, JFK) with crossing runways are often only operating two or three at any one time, so the traffic flow and management problems may be just as "concentrated" as Heathrow's. Depends on a host of factors.

[Bearcat]

is the A380 back flying? and is the RJ a write off?

[aterpster]

pattern is full:

In terms of traffic flow, airports (ORD, MDW, JFK) with crossing runways are often only operating two or three at any one time, so the traffic flow and management problems may be just as "concentrated" as Heathrow's. Depends on a host of factors.

I flew into ORD and JFK a whole lot. MDW only a few times in the late 1960s when I was flying the DC-9-10. ORD has been improved a lot since I retired, but the JFK runway layout remains the same and it is interwoven to LGA because of proximity. JFK can operate only two runways at a time; 13L/R; 31L/R, 4L/R, or 22L/R. The exception, wind permitting when 22s or 4s are being used, they can squeeze in an occasional heavy international departure on 13R or 31L.

[Fargoo]

is the A380 back flying? and is the RJ a write off?

The A380 is still showing sat at JFK.

[Bearcat]

I remember years ago an ogden catering truck whacked into the side of an EIN 330 in JFK and burst the stringers it was so bad.....aircraft in situ for a couple of weeks there as airbus sent their specialists over to repair it. I presume the same for the a380.

Re the RJ, the tail got such a smack/ lateral loading, I wouldnt be suprised if they binned it.

[Falconpilot]

Hello there,
flying the 744, and the hardest of it is the taxi in a busy airport, at night, with rain, with a controller that issues many instructions in somewhat a strange way.

JFK is one of the worst for that.

Just let the NTSB give the report, it will be better.

And don't forget, it can happen to everybody.

[grimmrad]

aterpster: couldn't agree more, I hate the rides (and the prices) in NYC AND in Paris. Leaving NYC at evening rush hour is a nightmare on the street and in JFK (EWR is a bit better, LGA not much).

And there are some experiences on a trip to Paris as a student I do certainly not share (very nice ones though). Envying you for that view onto the city though.

[By George]

The 380 was still parked around the back on the 18th but I couldn't see it anywhere when I left two days later. I've flown to my share of third-world airports and JFK is one of them. Even though it's a mess I've always liked the style of ATC. They do a good job with what they've got and have a sense of humour.

[Me Myself]

I agree, NYC, although at times quite hectic, is a very interesting and challenging airport and at least New Yorkers are for real and like those sun tanned, face lifted, hormon pumped and self concerned californians.
Like they say in Australia, there's nothing cool about a tan !
If the ATC boys chew your head off, then bloody do the same and everything gets back to normal. This is NYC for God's sake !
You still have to give the boys a bow for what they do in this mad house, specially in the kinds of foul weathers NYC gets in winter and summer.

As to the 380 speed, it was exactly 9 kt. The film's speed was accelarated at double the speed by the network who put it online.
As to whose fault ? Let the NTSB do their job.

[grimmrad]

Don't forget that his is one - if not the - busiest airspace in the world (I assume). Sitting in central park you can watch the traffic over your head... Can't be easy for ATC.

[DX Wombat]

See here (http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/busiestairports.htm) for the world's busiest airports top 30.
According to the Airports Council International:
The council listed London as the city with the busiest airspace,

[grimmrad]

Airport it maybe less busy but how about airspace above it? There is EWR and LGA in it vicinity - and its amazing especially at night how many wide bodies you see curving over our heads...

[421dog]

I wonder to what extent the experience level of the participants contributes to the overall perception of "busyness" as well. I've felt a lot more stressed flying into TEB or MDW when there were a (relatively small) bunch of guys, many of whom were likely fairly newly minted, stepping on each other to announce their presence to approach than I have in other situations with substantially more participants who were content to dial the frequency, hit the ident after it was clear that there was unlikely to be a break in the action, and wait for the controller to get the job done in his own good time.

[fmgc]

I have only flown into the USA in a widebody a few times.

Once an Aircraft enters the ramp (Termial 2 in this case) the aircraft will switch to RAMP Control (131.375), They are No longer talking to ground control. The aircraft is in the Judistriction of Ramp control, not JFK Ground Control.

It would seem to me that this RAMP Control is a source of problems and lack of coordination at US airfields leading to such accidents.

If both were on the same freq then there would have been a chance that the RJ would have told ground that he was not on stand and ground could have stopped the AF.

It would appear that there are many human factors issues here. The holes in the cheese lined up..........

[misd-agin]

Imagine JFK, or any other major airport, if ALL the ramp instructions were done on ground control also. :ugh:

[sb_sfo]

In SFO at least, ramp control on the A side of the International Terminal is contracted out to service companies. I believe UA handles it on the opposite side, as they are the main tenant there. They are not ATC qualified or supervised folks from the conversations I have had with a buddy in ATC.

[Suzeman]

is the A380 back flying?

Looks like it departed on 24th late afternoon according to ACARS as AF397V

Destination not known - CDG or TLS possibly?

[johan_jnb]

F-HPJD is back in CDG.

[fmgc]

Imagine JFK, or any other major airport, if ALL the ramp instructions were done on ground control also.

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!

[Checkerboard 13]

F-HPJD is back in CDG. 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 (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4969494/?threadid=4969494&searchid=4970050&s=collision+at+CDG+between+the+A380#ID4970050) 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 (http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads/38416-Air-France-has-basically-stopped-A380-service-to-JFK), and a short article on the collision here (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2010/11/04/air-france-a380-out-of-service-after-run-in-with-a330/).

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

[Hotel Tango]

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 ;)

[Wino]

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.

[parabellum]

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.

[misd-agin]

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.

[misd-agin]

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.

[parabellum]

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.


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



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.

[aterpster]

parabellum:

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.

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.)

[fmgc]

Wino,

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.

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.

[Globaliser]

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.

[parabellum]

Myself, I would reserve my disappointment toward the "hittee"


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



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.


Which is totally different.

[llagonne66]

That's considered as an accident by the NTSB.
DCA11FA045A (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110412X23201&key=1)
So there will be a report.

[misd-agin]

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.

[WilyB]

It would be good to have some hard facts, like the aircraft's actual speed,

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.

[fmgc]

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

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

[Hotel Tango]

misd-agin,

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

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 ;)

[pattern_is_full]

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....."

[fmgc]

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.

[pattern_is_full]

Those aren't mutually incompatable approaches.

It's quite possible that one final outcome of this accident will be a recommendation to JFK to change their procedures. Or their taxiways. ;)

That does not relieve the PIC of responsibility for following and taking into account the procedures, however bad, in effect at the time and place he is operating his/her airplane. And looking out the window to see what is in the way.

[fmgc]

I agree.

It's the pic that stops the last hole in the Swiss cheese from lining up and causing an accident.

[bubbers44]

I think the final outcome of this investigation will be all PIC's are required to not let their wings hit anything. Ground control has a lot of stuff going on and I don't think their job is making sure the captain doesn't misjudge his wing clearance. If so we will need a lot more ground controllers with a lot more taxi data. Why is it so hard to taxi your aircraft without help for wing tip clearance? I never needed it. Of coarse that was only 23,000 hrs.

[OKhalsa]

OK, my 2 cents worth. AF A380 pilots stuffed up; they were taxiing a really heavy plane with a huge amount of momentum at a reasonable speed for the conditions. It was a mistake any of us could have made; imho the AF and F/O skipper are going to be held responsible with the necessary penalties and a big lesson learnt. AF will probably take into account the mitigating circumstances which certainly favour a more lenient view to the error.

In the dark environment, it was difficult to make out the position of the RJ. What more with the myriad of flashing beacons from other planes and ground vehicles in the vicinity.

Have anyone operated into LAX lately during misty/foggy night hours? The plethora of flashing red and amber lights with ground vehicles darting around are sure enough to put one into a stroboscopic induced syncope. Add this to the non stop chatter on ground frequency with the F/O having to contact ramp tower on another, the overload of one's visual and aural senses together with the need to navigate the complex taxiway system due to sporadic partial closures of certain taxiways, can truly be overwhelming. I ain't a skygod, it is sure taxing for an average pilot.

[Koan]

Perhaps at JFK as in EWR razor thin staffing levels leads to the situation where one waits forever for everything as the rampers are busy doing something else, RJ arrivals being low on their list of priorities Hold short of the gate. "Ops we need marshalers". Minutes later some dude with uniform worn gangsta' style, hat cocked sideways, casually sashays or perhaps languidly saunters into view to show to crew and pax there is no hurry at all. Of course the FOM requires two wing walkers. "Ops, yeah we need wing walkers at gate whatever". Wait another five minutes. Maybe they have their required lighted wands, maybe not. Hopefully an A380 doesn't blast by and take your tail off. Get guided in, no jetway driver. Another call to Ops. Twenty minutes or so have passed by the time everyone deplanes...:ugh:

[cheapendale]

Sad isn't it at the complete ****ty stuff pilots need to endure this day. Just came back form a 13 hour flight with 360 over pax with 19 wheelchair cases and docked into a gate with 2 aerobridges available and fully serviceable. Airport service staff insisted on using only one boarding bridge for disembarking and it took a good 40 over minutes for the whole process.

[d105]

Welcome to PPruNe I would say.

[Me Myself]

I see the thread has been dusted off a bit. Good job.

[pattern_is_full]

Agnostique, I'll give you a one-word difference between the two events - VIDEO.

The VIDEO showed a really big (nationality irrelevent) aircraft spinning around a rather small (nationality irrelevent) aircraft. That grabbed global (not just PPRuNE) attention.

Not sure - yet - how much damage was done in the 737-on-737 accident. Perhaps it should have stayed on R&N a bit longer.

[grimmrad]

Maybe Strauss-Kahn was on board the AF as well and wanted to get away fast :E

Couldn't resist, sorry. And I know he is assumed not guilty until proven otherwise...

[Annex14]

Guess for his wanted speedy departure even that video accelerated A 380 was moving to slow!!

But I am amazed this thread is still going.!! Thought all is said ?? Could add to my earlier post a few more reasons for the accident learned from this thread:
- A wreckless lory driver that cut off a planes travelling on the ramp
- Cramped parking and timeslots for use prevented a smooth taxy to position
- Probably - assumption - balloony, non standard, chat on ramp freq. prevented a warning in time from the RJ pilot that his tail was sticking into the safety space of TWY "A"
- A Ramp control that obviously is more involved in other tasks than safeguarding the activities in that area of responsibilty
- A "handover area" - ever heard about that at JFK ?? - Taxi/ Ramp not existing
- Probably an AF pilot trusting on the received clearance and assuming safe taxi lane
- AF crew probably distracted by other duties or the lighting situation at the place of the accident
- Razorblade thinned out (Quote) staffing in ATC

and so on and so on. I do not defer pilots responsibilties to other units or persons, but before someone should shed blame on another the conditions must fit international standards. Thats my personal opinion.
So lets look and wait what NTSB - FAA and Port Authority are party in that case and shouldn´t run the investigation - findings will be.
Jo

[valvanuz]

Fender-bender for 2 Delta planes at ATL Thursday night | 11alive.com (http://www.11alive.com/rss/article/190817/40/Fender-bender-for-2-Delta-planes-at-ATL-Thursday-night)

By the way, you could park a 737 on EACH wing of the A380

[glad rag]

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/AC_A380_20101101.pdf

4-4-0 page 2 FIGURE 1:ok:

[jumpseater]

SM
As long as NYPA allows the use of taxiways below Annex 14 standards this sort of thing will happen

Well done SM with that single line, you have managed to confirm that your knowledge of ICAO and how it works, specifically Annex14, is as woefully lacking as your knowledge in other areas of aviation.:ok:

You can of course prove to us 'doubters' of your knowledge of aviation, which taxiway fails to meet Annex 14 and specifically, why.

Over to you ... :D

[MikeNYC]

Quote:
SM
As long as NYPA allows the use of taxiways below Annex 14 standards this sort of thing will happen
Well done SM with that single line, you have managed to confirm that your knowledge of ICAO and how it works, specifically Annex14, is as woefully lacking as your knowledge in other areas of aviation.

You can of course prove to us 'doubters' of your knowledge of aviation, which taxiway fails to meet Annex 14 and specifically, why.

Over to you ...

Additionally, I'd love to hear who NYPA is. I'm familiar with PANYNJ, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but what's NYPA?

[Brian Abraham]

Well done SM with that single line, you have managed to confirm that your knowledge of ICAO and how it works, specifically Annex14, is as woefully lacking as your knowledge in other areas of aviation.SMellie sure is a slow learner.

[Checkerboard 13]

AF were just unlucky they operate the largest modern aircraft to JFK.

And what was their excuse when one of their A330s struck this very same "largest modern aircraft" in an almost identical mishap at CDG a few months earlier?

[Willoz269]

A VERY similar accident happened yesterday between a B747 and an ERJ....let's hear the passionate people from this forum share their passion for the wingtip clearance of the 747, lest the double standards be brutally exposed...

Boeing 747 clips tail of American Eagle regional jet in Chicago - USATODAY.com (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/05/747-cargo-jet-clips-tail-of-american-eagle-regional-jet-in-chicago/704541/1)

[Capn Bloggs]

A picture tells a thousand words...

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w334/capnbloggs/Eva747-ER145.jpg

[BusyB]

The TV video shows the B744 nose wheel on the taxiway centreline as well.:ugh:

[grumpyoldgeek]

A VERY similar accident happened yesterday between a B747 and an ERJ....let's hear the passionate people from this forum share their passion for the wingtip clearance of the 747, lest the double standards be brutally exposed...


Absolutely. We need to ban those tiny death trap commuter airplanes that can't seem to park without getting hit by big proper airliners.

[By George]

On the 747 you can at least see your wing-tips, unlike some jets. Hate to be critical, but, even if you are on the line and the 'target' is over the equipment line, it is still no excuse to wack somebody. Got to keep the head outside and looking. Eva F/O in need of a serious flogging, but it'll be the Captains fault for not having eyes in the side of his head. Seen it all before, nothing changes, just the rego.

[misd-agin]

Captain didn't need eyes on the side of his head to see the RJ over the line. :=

[SMT Member]

Though pictures does of course not tell a whole story, they may sometimes provide very accurate suggestions as to what took place. From the pictures you're about to see here, I think it's safe to deduce that a) the EVA was on the centre-line and that b) the AA had not cleared the taxiway demarcation line, at the time of impact.

Whether a torn off arm belonging to a now-former FO should be used to flog the PIC to death can be debated, but there does seem to be evidence to suggest they collectively failed to maintain separation.

I know nothing of how LAX operates, but it would be interesting to learn what radio communications between ground/ramp and the two aircraft took place.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o538/jokke_dk1/EVAvsAAE_JFK_1.jpg

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o538/jokke_dk1/EVAvsAAE_JFK_2.jpg

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o538/jokke_dk1/EVAvsAAE_JFK_3.jpg

[JW411]

By George:

"On the 747 you can at least see your wingtips".

I never flew the 747 but I spent a lot of time on the DC-10. On the DC10-10 it was impossible to see the wingtips. On the DC-10-30 it was just, and only just, possible to see the wingtips. Even then, I would defy even the most experienced pilot to be able to judge within 10-15 feet or so exactly where their wingtip was on a DC-10 (nowadays I have enough trouble with a PA-28).

Does anyone else out there remember the inflatable rubber satellite terminal at LAX? It was as tight as a badger's ar*e. I often had kittens taxiing in there for the only guidance was to hope that the nosewheel was exactly on the centreline and that everything else was in exactly the correct place.

"Target over the equipment line"

I agree totally with you on this point. Taxiing a widebody is hard enough but the equipment line is one of your major safeguards. Anything over that line, stop and put the park brake on.

Finally, do we know for certain that the ERJ was not actually pushed back in front of the 747?

No, I didn't think so.

I've had that happen to me at Kennedy more times than I care to remember.

[Capn Bloggs]

Interesting the comments against the Eva 747. Not many comments about the obvious cause of the bingle being the ERJ parked/left way over the line! Pilots not noticing they'd stopped short, groundcrew not noticing, and so on and on. Judging by the other ERJ, this looks like a "normal" port for them. And the poor Eva crew gets sledged for not noticing/looking over their shoulder. They're probably maxxed out just trying to work out where they were going and understanding the locals on the R/T.

:)

[SMT Member]

ORD not LAX, thanks. Thanks for clarification as well.

My understanding is the 747 was taxing for take-off, the ERJ was pulling onto stand. Presumably the ERJ held short, rear end hanging over the line, for whatever reason. I don't think there's much rocket science to this one, but again - it would be nice to know if ramp/ground control issued a "hold" instruction or a warning to either or both aircraft. Since the prang did take place, I would assume they hadn't. Which still leaves the PIC up smelly waters without propulsion, for failure to keep a look-out. One would hope, though, such an occurrence (like that in JFK) would lead to a re-think of procedures and/or equipment.

[DownIn3Green]

Not to nit-pick here, but I think the crew of the 747 was aware of the RJ. Unless I'm mistaken, Eva was taxiing well left of the taxiway centerline...Just the same old lesson learned once again for the umpteenth time...:ugh:

[Machaca]

The RJ was pulling into G20, the 747 was right on the centreline of taxiway Alpha. Stopped at A13.

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/KORD-G20-01.jpg

[ATC Watcher]

The photos and the proposed scenario ( the ERJ pulling IN stand G20 in front of an opposite taxiing 747) tell other stories to me :

1) either it was a brief stop short of the G20 final stop just before coming in : and surely the ERJ crew knew there was going to be a problem with the 747 about to cross behind. Did they warn Ground control they were not " in" ?

2) or the ERJ was the since a long time, : Had they warned Ground ATC ? and surely seen the 3 photos on previous page, the ERJ was not merely sticking out a bit , but half a length . So the 747 crew should have been able to notice this.

3) The 747 was warned or saw the ERJ out and was trying to "overtake" the obstacle and failed. ( not sure what is the correct taxi centre line on last photo ).

So the ATC exchange tape would be interesting to hear . It isnormally very soon available on liveatc .. anyone has heard about it yet ?

[Ditchdigger]

It isnormally very soon available on liveatc .. anyone has heard about it yet ?

Nobody will.


We don't have Chicago Ground coverage at the moment, so we don't have it.

[armchairpilot94116]

Narrow escape for tiny commuter plane as 747 'jumbo' jet clips its tail on the runway and flips it TEN feet to the right | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152504/Narrow-escape-tiny-commuter-plane-747-jumbo-jet-clips-tail-runway-flips-TEN-feet-right.html)

"Narrow escape" claims the daily mail. Bet you didn't know EVA was
"vietnamese owned" now did you ? :ugh:


"it was like David hit Goliath" says CBS spokesman. Uh, shouldn't it be Goliath hits David?

[Hotel Tango]

DI3G, I think you're getting your lines confused. The EVA is bang on the CL.

[deSitter]

Since this has now happened twice under practically identical circumstances, perhaps the airport honchos will reassess the stupid manner in which RJs are crammed into terminal space meant for real airplanes. Check out the chaos at Atlanta on Googlymaps. I've seen better parking order at redneck barbecues.

[Hotel Tango]

Correct me if I am wrong, but at many major airports in the USA ramp control is not done by ATC. It's a seperate entity altogether. Furthermore, from my experience, there's not much (if any) co-ordination between ramp control and ATC. After landing an a/c will contact ATC Ground until approaching their ramp area when they will switch to the Ramp frequency. If for any reason ramp asks them to hold short of the gate and don't co-ordinate with ATC you have the recipe for this type of incident. That aside, the Eva F/O should have been keeping a look out and the ultimate fault lies there me thinks.

[claser111]

There are no doubts that ORD is a very busy airport, sometimes the ATC doesn't use a standard phraseology and the risk of a misunderstanding is very high... but when you're taxiing and you've an obstacle on your way you have to stop even if you have been instructed to move. If an airplane is stuck in the middle of a taxiway and you hit him you are responsible, the ERJ was still occupying the taxiway with its rear part, the crew must be able to assure the correct separation by himself. Awaiting for an official report, according to me there are no excuses!

[misd-agin]

It's daylight. Sunny. A plane has half it's fuselage extending over the obstruction line. It's right in front of you.

And guys want to blame the guy in the ERJ?
And give the 747 crew a pass on running into the ERJ?
Or blame ground control?

It's right in front of you. It's daylight. It's sunny. It's obvious that the ERJ is not clear of the taxiway. You are responsible for your aircraft. Repeat ad nauseum.

[ATC Watcher]

And guys want to blame the guy in the ERJ?
And give the 747 crew a pass on running into the ERJ?
Or blame ground control?

No one is here to blame anyone but to understand how this can happen ,as you said in broad daylight. There might be something interesting to learn.
If you think this could never happen to you , then you can always skip this thread.

[dflyer]

747 cargo plane clips commuter jet while taxiing in Chicago
By Todd Sperry, CNN
May 30, 2012 -- Updated 2156 GMT (0556 HKT)

A Boeing 747 clipped the tail of a commuter plane carrying passengers yesterday at O'Hare airport in Chicago Tuesday.

A Boeing 747's wing clips the tail of a much smaller Embraer-140
The smaller plane carried 18 passengers; the larger one was a cargo jet
No one was injured
(CNN) -- Passengers on an American Eagle flight arriving at Chicago's O'Hare airport got an unexpected jolt Wednesday when the right wing of a Boeing 747 cargo plane taxiing for departure clipped the tail of the commuter plane.
None of the 18 passengers and three crew members was injured, an American Eagle spokeswoman said.
American Eagle Flight 4265, an Embraer-140, had just arrived from Springfield, Missouri, and was taxiing to the gate when the incident occurred around 1 p.m. The 747 cargo plane involved in the collision, operated by EVA Airways, was heading to Anchorage, Alaska.
All passengers got off the smaller plane while officials inspected the damage to both, according to American Eagle spokeswoman Mary Frances Fagan.
O'Hare airport is the sixth busiest passenger airport in the world, according to the latest data available from Airport Council International, a trade organization representing airports.
The Chicago Tribune reported last year that federal officials launched an investigation focused on O'Hare airport after numerous mistakes made by air traffic controllers. The paper said the majority of errors involved failing to keep proper distance between planes on the ground and in the air.

[flyboyike]

Since this has now happened twice under practically identical circumstances, perhaps the airport honchos will reassess the stupid manner in which RJs are crammed into terminal space meant for real airplanes. Check out the chaos at Atlanta on Googlymaps. I've seen better parking order at redneck barbecues.



Are you suggesting the EVA would not have clipped a 737 had one been there in place of the ERJ? I would think the 737 being a bigger airplane (a real airplane, as it were), it would have been sticking out further and the EVA would have hit it even harder.

[Ditchdigger]

Maybe the tails of RJs should be painted the same color as hi-vis clothing....

[Skittles]

Blame who you want, but the suggestions that you should know exactly where your wing tips are on aircraft of this size are ridiculous.

Most people couldn't tell you where the back end of your Ford Focus is, let alone something which is hundreds of feet away. It's not ignorance or inability, it's one of those irritating human conditions on par with not being able to see through walls.

Can you become familiar enough to make a good estimate? Yes, of course, but it's an impossibility to do it within a few feet.

[Hotel Tango]

What do you think all those lines are for Skittles? If you're on the centerline than you know your wings are inside the wing clearance lines (see picture above). It would have been quite evident that the 145 was sticking out. I think they just assumed (poor airmanship) that the 145 would be clear by the time they got to that point and didn't expect it to stop short as it did. Pure speculation of course.

[Skittles]

As I said, I'm not saying they're devoid of blame or shouldn't have been expected to observe the unusual position of aircraft - I'm just saying that if there's anyone on here who can tell me that they can accurately identify the position of a wingtip on a 747/A380 etc then I'll happily call them a liar.

[CDRW]

Skittles - well said - again and again - the likes of aviators who can sit there and say" yes I know exactly where the wing tip is, yes I know exactly how far that ERJ tail is, Yes I know I got 4ft6in because the ERJ tail appears to be inside the line" is all bollocks! And misd-agin it was not "right in front of them".

If every time we think "it looks to close" and stop and ask for a wing walker then most US airports would grind to a halt.

[By George]

I hate to disagree and sound like a 'know it all' but on the 400 the wing tips are not only clearly in view but the winglet greatly helps in judging the distance. On a sunny day you can also see the shadow, some times of both the wing-tip and the obstacle.

[Hotel Tango]

But it´s not a question of being able to see or not to see your wing tips. It´s a question of situational awareness and good airmanship. Although the 145 was not "right in front of them" it was most evidently outside the designated clearance area. I still go by my theory that they (747) assumed it would be clear and got caught when the (145) stopped unexpectedly short (most probably on ramp frequency and not ATC frequency at that point).

[Semaphore Sam]

Sir:
I operated the 747 (SP, 100, 200, 300), the 400, and the L-1011. There were numerous times I and the F/O were not sure of clearance...most times probably clearance was ok. The key is...if you are not sure, STOP. The answer to pressure by ATC, is "NO!", and if more pressure is applied, "HELL NO!", with a little GFYourself implied. No Chief Pilot, or Flight Ops Manager, would dare question a Captain who said "I stopped because I was unsure of my wingtip clearance." I operated the same way in the US Air Force...if there was one UNFORGIVEN incident there, it was hitting a wingtip. Nobody EVER was punished for refusing to take a chance on clearance, but, if some poor chump 'took a chance', and hit, there was NO forgiveness. If there is ANY doubt whatever, STOP. There is NO downside for that (and, you are on the clock anyway). Huge downside for taking the slightest chance...your record, your career, etc. etc. No excuse allowed for poor vis, nighttime, etc etc. One safe answer..."STOP THE AIRCRAFT". Sam

[Island-Flyer]

Semaphore hit the nail on the head. It's just basic airmanship - when in doubt stop until that doubt is eliminated.

[armchairpilot94116]

What if they were not even in doubt but sure that they will pass by without incident ?

[TopBunk]

What if they were not even in doubt but sure that they will pass by without incident ?

Then you would never have anything about it, because there would have been no collision!

Semaphore is 100% spot on ... if in any doubt you stop, and that includes any time (certainly in a large aircraft like a B747) when anything transgresses the painted lines. As he says, you career is on the line, any collision is totally indefensible.

ex-B747-400 Captain

[CDRW]

When I was a fresh faced youngster in the right seat with two shiny bars, the old bold codgers in the left seat, with dulled out four bars gave me this advice -

"when it looks like there is just enough space to pass - there is not enough space to pass. When it looks like there is plenty of space, that's when there is just enough space to ,"

"laddy, you only get one chance at a taxi accident"

So whilst I generally agree with Sam, Tango and Top Bunk, I think it is being over simplistic to simply state " Its basic airmanship" or "totally indefensible"

In the airlines I have been in this has happened 5 times ( over 23 yrs) and I was able to chat with all 5 and each and everyone "thought" they had enough space. They were not trying to sneak past. By the grace of Him upstairs this has not happened to me, but how many times have we gone into, say a new airport, and occasionally had the exhaust orifice pucker up a notch as you thought - gosh this is a bit tight, as you taxi exactly on the taxi line and all other aircraft appear to be behind the lines ( it there is a line).

[misd-agin]

CDRW - when they hit it with the wingtip of course it wasn't in front of them.

They either followed the RJ, gave way to the RJ, or the RJ was sitting there the entire time the EVA 747 approached the impact point.

In broad daylight it's obvious that the RJ is not clear of the taxiway. Either the crew wasn't clearing their taxi path or they assumed they would clear the RJ's tail.