Who Should Have Prevented AI Jetblue fender bender?

[repariit]

A Jetbllue 320 pushed back partially, and stopped due to a tow bar problem. An arriving AI 777 clipped the 320's tail with its wingtip this morning. Will it be Ground Control, AI, or Jetblue's problem?

[AKAAB]

Unlike every other gate at JFK T6, JB doesn't use wing walkers when pushing from gates 1 & 2 into the IAT's area. That doesn't mean they would have been able to stop AI, but two more sets of eyes on the ground might have helped prevent it.

[Basil]

An arriving AI 777 clipped the 320's tail with its wingtip this morning.
On the basis of what you say then it's AI for tea without biscuits.

Recollect taxiing into Baku for the first time one night with 'Follow Me' but was not sure of wingtip clearance so stopped whilst FO and I assessed clearance. 'Follow Me' and ATC going nuts, our Station Manager on flight deck telling me there's plenty of clearance.
Only one opinion counted - guess whose? :)

[misd-agin]

^^^ exactly ^^^

"You're OK, you're OK."

Move it and I'll be even better "OK". :ok:

[groundfine]

Jetblue was the factor. AI had the responsibility. Quite clear cut.

[pattern_is_full]

While I'm in full agreement that, of the listed options, the AI crew had primary responsibility to prevent this accident/incident.....

....I'm also of the opinion that one can only be responsible for what one has the authority to control. In the broader sense of authority; capability. If one is denied the capability to make something happen, one cannot be held responsible for whether it happens or not.

If your control column/sidestick is disconnected from the controls, you can't be held responsible for the flight path of the aircraft.

If you do not have authority over your crew, you cannot be held responsible for that actions of that crew.

If the line of sight or other factors make it impossible to determine the location of the wing-tips, no pilot can be held fully accountable for the path of those wingtips.

I don't know about the Trip-7 in particular, but if increasing aircraft size is reducing the capability of ACs to know what every part of their aircraft is doing, and where it is doing it, that needs to be addressed by the "overlords" - aircraft builders, aircraft operators, and their regulators.

Shipbuilders know this - even 100 years ago they provided lookout stations, bridge wings, etc. (and more recently, walkie-talkies and CCTV) to maximize the capability of the Captain to know where the heck the parts of his ship were and what they were doing.

See third picture down...

Happenin' History: Sisters of Titanic (http://history.jonridinger.com/2012/05/sisters-of-titanic.html)

Probably time to look into wingtip cameras for aircraft where the "cockpit geometry" precludes an adequate view that allows judging wingtip location.

[Wellington Bomber]

aircraft under tow as the right of way

[Tankengine]

Was AI on the taxiway guidance line?:confused:
Was AI operating in accordance with it's clearance?:confused:
Why was it cleared into a position where it could contact an aircraft under tow, whether the tow bar broke or not?:confused:
Did JetBlue advise ground it had stopped?:confused:

Yes AI is at some fault but there could be many factors at play here.
Generally ground operations in the USA are frightening compared to most of the rest of the world.:ugh::hmm:

[Piltdown Man]

'Fault' - 'In the right' - 'Had right of way' and such like are pejorative terms best used by insurance companies, Mr. Plod and scum like lawyers when on a compo. hunt following a car smash. We all have an obligation to avoid accidents and 'nailing the guilty party' (nor firing, fining or shooting) will not prevent re-occurrence.

Now I've not flown a 777 nor operated at JFK but I'd still be asking questions about the stand layouts and markings, distances of taxiways from stands, the adequacy of the apron size vs aircraft size, taxi speed, responsibility the ATC on the apron, responsibility of operators to inform the authority regarding non-standard events, FDPs and Operations messages to both parties etc. before coming to any conclusion.

[clearblueskyy]

[QUOTE]Probably time to look into wingtip cameras for aircraft where the "cockpit geometry" precludes an adequate view that allows judging wingtip location.[/QUOTE


I'm thinking parasitic drag and high costs to company.

I guess it would be a lot easier to be alert and not take anything for granted,even when on ground !

[Schnowzer]

CBS,

Parasitic drag? Like the parasitic drag you get from lights?
High costs? Like the high cost you get from a ground collision and putting up 400 pax for a few days
Alert? Like a pilot would be after a 14hr flight from India

Yep let's put the onus on the pilots. Using the same logic let's only make safety improvements based on improving the bottom line. As someone who flies an aircraft with a video surveillance system, I would welcome a tip aid to provide additional awareness in those gigantic, well designed cul de sacs that seem to comprise the JFK ramps.

[wiggy]

I don't know about the Trip-7 in particular, but if increasing aircraft size is reducing the capability of ACs to know what every part of their aircraft is doing,

FWIW on the 777 you cannot see the wingtips from within the flight deck....in extremis one option would be to wind open the No2 windows and lean out for a look :uhoh:....

[Tinribs]

I recall an event some years ago when a passing 75 wacked the tail of a Midland 737 at the marshalling point 24l mctr

The Midland had not been albe to pull forward to the line

There was v serious outcome, I think the 737 was an eco nomic write off wacked tail detached nose leg etc. They had to repair it as no suitable replacement could be found

I can't remember what the outcome was but the argument went something like; you were not properly parked, you should have checked clearance you can see our tail we can't see if it clear of the taxiway

[Dawdler]

This almost seems to be a replay of this event also at JFK
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/448494-air-france-jet-clips-smaller-plane-new-yorks-jfk-airport.html

Which would perhaps appear to indicate a problem with ground control at that airport

[pattern_is_full]

(regarding wing-tip video cameras) I'm thinking parasitic drag and high costs to company.

How big and how expensive do you think video cameras are these days?

$US 45.00

http://i00.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/586259116_1/Free-shipping-90-deg-view-angle-Super-Tiny-color-video-mini-camera-10-5-10-5.jpg

The A380 already has a camera in the tail - unfortunately the field of view doesn't cover the wing tips. Mentioned in the discussion of the similar A380 tail-clipping incident at JFK a year or so back.

[captjns]

Been there before over the years. I set the Park Brake, and requeste wing walkers. Ground controllers may have been a bit peeved, but at least the jet was able to be used for the return trip without the use of duct tape.

That said when in doubt, stop the jet, before venturing into unknown territory.

[pigboat]

And not just at Kennedy. ;)

Ant vs -8 (http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=118&t=87652)

[WHBM]

Which would perhaps appear to indicate a problem with ground control at that airport
and then this ICAO standard phraseology to a non-US carrier :
.......I guess you're waiting for JetBlue....
What do US controllers do during the ICAO standards part of their training ? All go off for an extended coffee break ?

[nitpicker330]

Nothing ATC or other Aircraft say excuses the crew from hitting the other Aircraft, ever.
They should be looking outside the window and making sure THEY DON'T HIT ANYTHING during all ground operations ( with the exception of pushback )

Sorry but it's the AI crew at fault here, pure and simple end of story...:=

Everybody in charge of a moving vehicle ( Aircraft, Truck, Bus and Car ) should be clearly aware of the size of their vehicle and whether or not it will fit into the space they want to use, if not STOP.

[clearblueskyy]

How big and how expensive do you think video cameras are these days?

$US 45.00


Really ? A 45$ camera could do the trick .:ok:

I've never flown at JFK nor flown a 777 so cut me some slack,however what I said was my point of view.


The camera mount would definitely create drag though it may be considered negligible, but that would be an easy R&D decision to make.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Do you really think they'll just screw one to the wingtip without regard to anything?

I've got a video recorder smaller than my palm so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that you could stick a tiny one inside the nav light fairing, for example, bearing in mind you only need a cable and a lens with all the other gubbins elsewhere.

[flydive1]

Do you really believe that an aircraft certified camera would be only $45?

[clearblueskyy]

I wouldn't say it's impossible ...

Given the fact that its only used during ground operations, I don't see the difference between Wingtip cameras and the ones at the back of my Suzuki.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Airmann]

What about those proximity sensors they have on cars, surely that would be the way to go. Can be installed flush onto the wing surface and could give pilots a warning if they were getting too close to an object.

[poldek77]

Another example, two years ago:

Accident: Ryanair B738 and American B763 at Barcelona on Apr 14th 2011, both aircraft departed despite ground collision and passenger complaints (http://avherald.com/h?article=45363621&opt=0)

[Bobbsy]

By the time the cost of mounting the cameras in two wingtips (with due regard for aerodynamics etc) and the cost of putting in the wiring (specced to run somewhere near wing fuel tanks) is considered, it would be a LOT more than $45.

Against that though I guess the costs of delays asking for wing walkers or, worse, the cost of actual accidents needs to be factored in. Especially in planes where the wing tips cannot be seen from the flight deck windows it might still make economic sense.

[ATC Watcher]

Wingtip Cameras : a serious conideration on the A380,I was told but if installing them as part of the design would have be relatively inexpensive (e.g. as part of the nav lights wiring ) retrofitting is a totally new ball game and pricetag.

ATC in apron, for info in most large airports today, the Apron control is not done by ATC anylonger , but by a separate (read much cheaper) airport subcontractor ,
Normally procedure do exist that after receiving a gate or push back clearance, if you encounter a problem and need to stop during the manoeuvre you have to inform Ground control. But incidents reports show that this is rarely done , because when this happen , there is generally a problem that requires the CREW attention.

As to the "responsibility " side of things the guy that hits something with 4 stripes on his shoulders is the one.
Follow me's , parking lamps marshaller or ground control errors will get you extenuating circumstances but not much more.

[E_S_P]

^^
Totally agree.

PS The old Mk1 eyeball is FOC :}

[WHBM]

As to the "responsibility " side of things the guy that hits something with 4 stripes on his shoulders is the one.
Possibly this can be brought to the attention of (some) ATC in a certain, very aviation-developed large nation, who if you hesitate for a moment regarding their instructions, or even question them, will shriek, rant and rave over the airwaves about how you are holding up their plan.

Just speaking from experience .....