Dublin: 2 x RYR in contact during taxi. Both damaged.

[juice]

@EmzCarr: Stuck on a @Ryanair plane @DublinAirport clashed with another plane en route to runway lost top of our wing! http://t.co/uxVlTG84cX

Image at link above shows the damage. Delays reported.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1007/650519-ryanair-dublin-airport/

[Globally Challenged]

Ryanair said in a statement: 'Two of our aircraft were taxiing slowly to the runway at Dublin Airport this morning.

Well a first time for everything I suppose

[Torque Tonight]

I like the quote from the Ryanair statement:

"There was no impact on customers on board

So presumably both flights arrived at their destinations on time then!:}

[bnt]

Well, that's different:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/07/1412667013415_wps_29_image001_png.jpg

(via Daily Mail)

[bnt]

If I try to visualise the amount of force it took to shear the wingtip off like that, along with what I've experienced re Ryanair taxiing at DUB, then I agree with the eyewitness account that one plane was not going "slowly". :hmm:

[Torque Tonight]

60 ton aeroplane, plastic winglet. You could do that at 1 kt. That damage is not evidence of speed.

[JamesGV]

Was it "foggy" in DUB this am ?

Reason for delay on RYR interweb page..... "Change Of Aircraft".

What to do with this throw away culture, I do not know.

[Flymee 2 Da Moon]

Rings a few bells....

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45363621&opt=0

They will never learn while they maintain the expectation to rush when on the ground in order to achieve OTP.

[ATC Watcher]

RYR press release : "Both aircraft were under the instruction of Dublin Airport Air Traffic Control at the time.
and trying, at least for the mind of the uninformed, to divert the blame to ATC!

If I was working in Dublin ground, from now I know what I would do :E

[Sober Lark]

For ATC playback see EIDW3-Oct-07-2014-0530Z.mp3 (http://archive-server.liveatc.net/eidw/EIDW3-Oct-07-2014-0530Z.mp3) at 14 min

[rjay259]

When was 30kts slow??

[Just a spotter]

For some non-hysteria laden reportage along with some helpful photos ...

Investigation at Dublin Airport after two planes clip each other near the runway (http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-airport-planes-runway-1710016-Oct2014/)

[Alycidon]

Maximum speed on the apron is 15 kts, where did you get the 30 kts from?

[Carbon Bootprint]

From the Beeb (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29517339): It is understood tenders from Dublin Fire Brigade were sent to the airport as a precautionary measure.Obviously it was no big deal if DUB ARFF couldn't be bothered... :rolleyes:

[underfire]

I guess they shouldnt have held short so short.....

this image clears it up..

http://c2.thejournal.ie/media/2014/10/85208-image1412668325-2-630x472.jpg

[eastern wiseguy]

From the Beeb:
Quote:
It is understood tenders from Dublin Fire Brigade were sent to the airport as a precautionary measure.
Obviously it was no big deal if DUB ARFF couldn't be bothered...

In the UK certain categories of emergency response always require an outside presence as well as the resident force.


Whether this fell within one of those I wouldn't know.

[fa2fi]

Well, with one of the largest fleets in Europe and a vast amount of sectors flown every day as an airline then statistically this 'outfit' will have a larger amount of mishaps. Per sectors flown I do not have any concerns about FR's number of mishaps.

[Al Murdoch]

Ryanair is an incredibly safe/unsafe airline. I love/hate them. Their pilots are wonderful/awful.
End of thread.

[beamender99]

Ryanair jet has top of wing ripped off after planes collide at Dublin Airport | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783243/Jet-wing-ripped-two-Ryanair-planes-crash-airport-parking-accident.html)

or alternatively from the print version the headline re the event " Passengers in runway terror"

But I do like the cartoon.

[Bally Heck]

Looks like one of them was trying to make a slot.

[Globally Challenged]

I would say that one of them did make a slot (admittedly in the elevator of another aircraft) :E

[meekmok]

Globally Challanged, please use proper terminology. It's not an elevator, it's a "rear wing" :rolleyes:

[Capot]

Obviously it was no big deal if DUB ARFF couldn't be bothered...

Having the outside brigade on standby, if having some firefighters on standby is necessary, might have been to enable the Airport RFFS to revert to the published Category, although you might think that if the airport RFFS is on standby near a particular aircraft they would still be available for a full emergency elsewhere, unless the response time is compromised somehow.

[Burnie5204]

Airports have agreements with Local Authority Fire and Rescue (they have to under Civil Contingencies Act) and in that will be a PDA level (pre-determined attendance).

What this means is that they agree that if they have a certain type of emergency then the Local Authorities (Police, Fire and Ambulance) will send an agreed minimum number of appliances to ensure appropriate facilities are in place for the Worst Case Scenario in each category of incident because even if an airport has ARFF Cat10 they would not have the resources to fully deal with even a 737-300 (Cat 6 a/c) crashing on the runway.

For example this could be:
Aircraft Accident: 4 Police Officers, 1 Police Supervisor, 4 Ambulances, 2 Ambulance RRVs, 1 Ambulance Officer, 6 Fire Tenders, 1 Fire Command Vehicle
Full emergency standby (Pax): 4 Police Officers, 1 Police Supervisor, 4 Ambulances, 2 Ambulance RRVs, 1 Ambulance Officer, 6 Fire Tenders, 1 Fire Command Vehicle
Full Emergency standby (Cargo): 4 Police Officers, 1 Police Supervisor, 1 Ambulance, 1 Ambulance RRV, 3 Fire Tenders, 1 Fire Command Vehicle
Aircraft Ground Incident: 1 Police Officer, 2 Fire Tenders.

It's a precautionary thing and (certainly where I am) they are dispatched by an auto-dialler indicating the level of PDA required with the Police getting a follow up phonecall with initial details and receive full updates from the ARFF fire control as to the situation once they start making their way.

This will have been classed as an Aircraft Ground Incident (AGI), and possibly even an Aircraft Accident, and will therefore have received the appropriate PDA agreed for that. They may not be, and were not, needed but the Initial Action procedures have to be rigid in saying - it's an AGI so activate AGI PDA and if the ARFF commander then declares an aircraft accident, activate the AirAcc PDA (unless the ARFF Cdr says he does not need further local authority assistance)

Don't forget - ARFF categories are not about being able to fully deal with an incident but to be able to CONTROL a worst case scenario incident to increase the chances of survivability until Local Authority can provide backup. Where situation occurs that they are able to fully deal with to conclusion then local authority can be stood-down but until it is clear that the ARFF can deal with it themselves the Local Authority will always start making their way to the Rendezvous Point.

[Carbon Bootprint]

Having the outside brigade on standby, if having some firefighters on standby is necessary, might have been to enable the Airport RFFS to revert to the published Category, although you might think that if the airport RFFS is on standby near a particular aircraft they would still be available for a full emergency elsewhere, unless the response time is compromised somehow.Fair enough. My comment was actually intended more-or-less tongue in cheek at the lack of context in the BBC reference. I can appreciate the wisdom of having external fire resources tend to a minor mishap to avoid limiting normal flight operations.

[Capot]

And Burnie was quite right too; the local lads will respond automatically at a level graded to how the emergency is categorised. The level is usually on the cautious side, ie better to have too much than too little. But if they hang around when the emergency is apparently over it's probably to free the airport RFFS to restore/maintain Category. But an off-field emergency could quickly change their readiness to do that.

[Sean Dell]

Dublin has been asking for this sort of incident for years. Some of the worst labelling / most misleading taxiways I have ever had the misfortune of using. Coupled with an ATC that assume intricate local knowledge. Not surprised by the incident, but was surprised by the fact it happened to locals....

[Hangar6]

None involved , but let's wait for the official report !

[ayroplain]

Let's look back and see which other airlines have put aircraft together in similar ways. I don't think ryanair would be at the top of the list.
Yes, indeed, "people in glasshouses, etc". Remind me what airline fairly recently had a 747 totalled when its crew taxied into a building?

[Wisden Wonder]

You will upset the applecart 'aryoplain', and so you should.
Just think on that 'they' didn't get up this morning intending to run a wing tip through a tailplane, the taxiway is very narrow, the visibility was poor, 'they' were very busy in the cockpit with take-off clearances etc. how many more excuses do you want to cover the incompetence, but at least they will be flying these two machines again, and this particular airline has a very good safety record.

[racedo]

Yes, indeed, "people in glasshouses, etc". Remind me what airline fairly recently had a 747 totalled when its crew taxied into a building?

True and at least the Ryanair engines didn't fall apart either because someone forgot to check something.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Maximum speed on the apron is 15 kts, where did you get the 30 kts from?

Yes, and the maximum speed on UK motorways is 70.....

[22/04]

Agree with the comment about Dublin. Looked at the ICAO chart and the foxtrot/alpha taxiway area looks very tight. Would a single taxiway remodelled to give a single queue back from the 34 threshold work?

Can anyone superimpose on the chart the point of collision as I can't quite work it out from the photos.

[Blues&twos]

Not having a dig at anyone, I've never been comfortable with the term 'incompetence' when referring to frontline staff in highly regulated industries and rapidly changing environments. In the vast majority of incidents there are a large number of factors which come into play to create the conditions for an accident. Many highly trained, experienced people have been involved in incidents (the Dutch captain, Tenerife, for example) over the years. They are absolutely competent, but for a variety of reasons have slipped up, or been misled. We all do it all the time to a certain degree, but most of our mistakes are inconsequential because the task we are performing is not safety critical.
Stating incompetence as a cause isn't looking beyond the most superficial level of investigation, if it can even be called investigation at that level.

[BARKINGMAD]

One of the most difficult parts of any flight I did over 42 years, in seat 0A or 0B, was finding my way to/from the runway from/to the parking stand.

Despite all the ICAO waffle about standard airfield markings, this is still one of the most inadequately managed resources for aircrew to navigate around airfields.

My dream is to take one of those individuals responsible for such signage on a very early morning or late night trip, when they are fatigued in the thorough and scientific way beloved of airline scheduling/commercial departments.

Preferably in limited visibility, or wet or snowy conditions, so the ground markings are impossible to discern and with a time limit on THEIR perception of where the aircraft is and where it's going, maybe the designers and executors of this pathetic system may appreciate the many shortcomings of their cleverly designed signage.

Then task them with going back to the office and doing something useful for their salary by improving on a system which has attracted criticism, most of it constructive but ultimately insufficient to attract attention and effort until post-accident.

Yes there have been suggestions of cockpit based displays which would make the task easier, but a cheaper (are you listening, management?) and more readily available option to ALL aircraft, regardless of type and sophistication, must be a rapid and foolproof revision to the existing specs for signage.

Is there anyone out there in the ICAO road signs office who would like to defend or comment on their record to date on this topic?

Meantime I'll pop up to the loft and try find my tin hat...............:ugh:

[Bernoulli]

Were the pilots involved in this unfortunate incident employed by Ryanair or were they contractors? Will they work again for Ryanair or will they be treated like pilots are in the sandpit; one slip and you're out?

[Basil]

Recollect, during mutual SEP training, CC referring to 'the back wing' but we knew what she meant.
In any case weren't they once referred to as 'mainplane' and 'tailplane'?
Birds have wings and aeroplanes have planes (as it says on the tin) :E

[fireflybob]

Having previously operated to/from Dublin for 5 years I found it one of the more challenging airports to safely navigate around.

It's an airport that has just evolved over the years - nobody in his right mind would design an airport like this from scratch.

[vfenext]

Having previously operated to/from Dublin for 5 years I found it one of the most challenging airports to safely navigate around.
Hilarious! Perhaps you need to get out more.

[fireflybob]

Having previously operated to/from Dublin for 5 years I found it one of the most challenging airports to safely navigate around

Hilarious! Perhaps you need to get out more.

I had meant to say one of the "more" challenging airports etc so will amend my post.

I reiterate what I have stated though. There are a lot of potential traps when taxying around this airport.

I can assure you that I do not "need to get out more" - I've probably taxied around more airports than you have had hot dinners.

[JW411]

Let us first ignore the usual unpromising hysterics who shriek every time Ryanair has an incident. They are all, without doubt, sciolists (one who speaks with fancied wisdom and little knowledge).

I retired some years ago from 50 years of professional (accident free) flying and I was very familiar with Dublin Airport.

I am quite sure that dozens of us were aware that the south east corner of that airfield, after they built runway 28, was an accident waiting to happen. To say that this little corner, even on a CAVOK day, is busy, is an understatement.

In fact, I have just downloaded an IAA Aerodrome Chart (EIDW AD 2.24-1) which has, at the top left hand corner, an insert diagram entitled (in red) "Runway Incursion Hot Spots". This shows the problem beautifully.

In the morning nowadays, departures are made from runway 28 and 34 simultaniously so that part of the airfield can get quite congested. If you want my opinion (and you probably don't) my guess is that the aircraft holding short of 28 was being super-safe and holding back a bit further than normal. The aircraft heading for 34 tried to taxi past but mis-judged his wing tip clearance by about 10 feet.

Now, as an ex-DC-10 captain, I need to tell the great unwashed on this thread that it is quite impossible from the flight deck to judge where your wing tip is within 30 feet or so (see BA 744 at JNB).

What I really would like is for Pprune to go back to a forum for Professional Pilots and stop the idiots from doing anything else but observing.

Finally, my worst experience of the bottom corner of Dublin airport was one night when we taxied out in fog from what is now known as the South Apron.
I was the training captain to our CAA Inspector (who was a bloody good operator). Somehow or other, he missed F1 in the fog and so did I (I was on the radio) and I suddenly realised that he had taxied across Runway 34 and we were on E2 about to enter Runway 28!

[Alycidon]

shame we don't wear hats at my company, if we did, I'd doff mine for your excellent narrative on this

[JamesGV]

It was "foggy" that morning in Dublin.
Maybe why the "super safe" stop.

(I assume the "first" a/c was stopped and the "following" a/c was in motion ?)

[Lord Spandex Masher]

There doesn't appear to be anything super safe about stopping too far away from the holding point and in fact goes against convention, wisdom and standing instructions. Flybe Vs Pakistan in Manchester for instance.

[Mikehotel152]

Oh Lord, have you seen any evidence to show they stopped excessively far from the holding point?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

No. Have you?

[wiggy]

Given the previous comments I wonder if Dublin will now adopt that tedious ATIS warning so loved by those that operate out of LHR........"pilots should exercise....:ugh:

[A and C]

Do you think that if this incident had involved two small airlines from eastern Europe it would have run to three pages and 50 posts ?

I can't help thinking that there is more anti Ryanair rant than fact written above.

[Sober Lark]

I can't help thinking that there is more anti Ryanair rant than fact written above


Many such persons are actually suffering from a psychological condition - I think they call it something like cognitive dissonance.

[Skyjob]

It may be true that commands are swift in Ryanair for some.

But let us not forget that there are many experienced older pilots who have been in the industry in many years, some previously operating in carriers who have faced demise, who fly for them and have well in excess of tens of thousand hours per individual and are aged accordingly.

That experience is also around and thus to say that each Ryanair crew is young or inexperienced just does't stand.

There is a balance amongst operating crew in terms of age and knowledge like in many airlines. The one "Ryanair" (but equally read "easyJet") difference is that some crew are allowed an upgrade when they meet the criteria, while in may other airlines those criteria are only tested when seniority allows them to be tested.

[deptrai]

there is genuine concern amongst Pilots about the overall age [...] level of ryanair crew's (sic)
Good Sir, please speak for yourself. I don't share that concern. I have nothing but the utmost respect for RYR pilots. To the best of my knowledge none of them are toddlers (or geriatric, for that matter). I have yet to see an accident report where age was a concern. As much as I dislike MOL, RYR pilots are well trained and their safety record is excellent. You state you are 33 years old... hmm. Using “amongst” does make your post look a bit like fiction btw. You're no doubt a talented novelist.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Do you think that if this incident had involved two small airlines from eastern Europe it would have run to three pages and 50 posts ?

I can't help thinking that there is more anti Ryanair rant than fact written above.

Much like other specific airline threads, like Jet2, hey A and C?!

[racedo]

One of the most difficult parts of any flight I did over 42 years, in seat 0A or 0B, was finding my way to/from the runway from/to the parking stand.

Despite all the ICAO waffle about standard airfield markings, this is still one of the most inadequately managed resources for aircrew to navigate around airfields.

My dream is to take one of those individuals responsible for such signage on a very early morning or late night trip, when they are fatigued in the thorough and scientific way beloved of airline scheduling/commercial departments.

Technology is already there to do that elsewhere and available for £100 or less and used in cars every single day.

Bearing in mind the millions invested in Sat Nav for cars it isn't really that difficult to do same for airports. Hell GPS is used by train companies to ensure that the correct doors are open at each station.

It would then become a mandatory requirement on some of the busiest airports that this is carried and used.

[racedo]

Now, as an ex-DC-10 captain, I need to tell the great unwashed on this thread that it is quite impossible from the flight deck to judge where your wing tip is within 30 feet or so (see BA 744 at JNB).


Good post JW.

The retro fitting of cameras to wing tips with cockpit display and recorded as well and fitting where ever else required would be a saving v sending to the repair shop.

[Ian W]

The retro fitting of cameras to wing tips with cockpit display and recorded as well and fitting where ever else required would be a saving v sending to the repair shop.

I doubt that yet another video display would be useful - an alerting system much like those fitted to cars perhaps even with the add on of automatic application of brakes would be useful.

Far more useful would be sensible design of airports where a few extra square meters of concrete would solve many of these issues.

Signage will always be an issue especially in blowing snow or frost and/or into sun with wet surfaces. It is probable that the new enhanced vision systems could assist with that, but they will bring their own suite of unintended consequences and problems. GPS systems sound good but are not the universal cure, yes we all use them in cars, but I have yet to meet a driver who uses his GPS to keep on the correct side of the road, and its that level of accuracy or better that you would need.

Nothing beats extreme caution and local knowledge which unfortunately are often mutually exclusive.

[Sober Lark]

JW - as you mention chart EIDW AD 2.24-1 clearly shows 'Runway Incursion Hot Spots'. No doubt they will have to change this to read 'Runway and Taxiway Incursion Spots'. One shouldn't have to rely on 'local knowledge' to cover up bad design.

[Callsign Kilo]

There is genuine concern amongst Pilots about the overall age and experience level of the Ryanair crew's. Ryanair have never put this one to bed. They put to bed on-time arrival, loss of luggage etc. but not this

And there's some pilots who are in there 50s and 60s with tens of thousands of hours who are crap. Experience counts for nothing when you aren't using it properly or remain clueless in its use. Equally you can have a bad day, regardless of who's piece of metal you're flying. Additionally, there's plenty of reports out there where guys who have flown next to everything doing something considerably more eyebrow raising than hitting a winglet against a horizontal stabiliser at an airport with a notoriously bad layout.

I'm willing to bet this wasn't a new Captain / line released cadet combo at DUB; however I feel that's completely irrelevant in this matter. I know nothing of who it was but what I do know is that FR has both inexperience and a high level of experience, like many airlines. It also has a pretty decent safety record that is upheld by well trained, diligent crew. Keep the hatred of all things O'Leary elsewhere.

[RAT 5]

Originally Posted by racedo View Post
The retro fitting of cameras to wing tips with cockpit display and recorded as well and fitting where ever else required would be a saving v sending to the repair shop.

Mk.1 eyeball out the side window helps as well. If in doubt there is not doubt; so you stop!! You can see the wingtip of a B738 if you look. What is difficult is to see the unlit tail plane of an a/c. I've been following many an a/c at night in a heavily lit airport and apron area. There might be a tiny white pimple on the tail cone, or perhaps not. There are rear shining white lights on the wing tips, but might be nowt on the tail. You have to be aware they are there and then search carefully for the preceding a/c. Modern cars have more lights on their rear ends than a/c. Why? It is easy to get close to a long a/c's tail in the dark. You just have to be careful and vigilant. JFK was a nightmare. It was a convoy of B747/767/757. The wing tip lights are a LONG way in front of the tail and against the lights of the terminal etc. the a/c can be invisible. Take care out there.

[muck-savage]

Taxi =link 4/5 fox outer/inner hold short 28

Landing= taxi bravo, mike or hotel cross 34 and link to stand

Challenging alright!!!!

[space pig]

statement 1)there's some pilots who are in there 50s and 60s with tens of thousands of hours who are crap


statement 2)what I do know is that FR has both inexperience and a high level of experience, like many Airlines


Really, Kallsign Kilo ? You seem to have the scientific evidence in hand with such bold statements...Or are you trying to defend your own background?


These old skippers, and I am one of them, are still alive after those tens of thousands of hours, and we did not have the magenta line 30 years ago, nor the magic box called fmc you guys can't fly without, nor the terrain warning systems, TCAS, fancy colour wx radar with WS prediction etc etc so we can't be that crap, can we?


Ryanair knows very well,Unlike the typerating you payed for, that experience cannot be bought, that is why they have implemented such strict sop's in the hope that the inevitable, will never happen...


and as a piece of advice from my side :a little respect for the old boys would suit you as well as they paved the way for your warm comfortable seat


*all in my humble opinion ofcourse*

[Jwscud]

The TCX 757 report elsewhere on here does rather show the value of some of those SOPs beaten into you though.

[polax52]

The fact that we don't yet know the experience levels of these crews suggests that experience may well be a factor.

Nobody suggests that SOP's are not very important but experience is just as important.

Whenever an incident like this occurs and the crew experience is low then it must be considered to be a contributing factor.

[Callsign Kilo]

Sorry space pig, we should bow down and kiss your feet because you flew something with a steam driven gauge. And as you have done so then we all must naturally assume that your are an operator of the highest class?

My 'statements' were in response to experience levels and time to command. The old generalisation that when something goes wrong in an airline such as or similar to FR then it's the fault of experience levels, or the lack of it at the pointy end. Set it squarely on the sop monkeys, the children of the magenta or the button pushers.

I'm old enough to know that early commands are nothing new and I've also been about long enough to conclude that an old skipper doesn't guarantee a safe pair of hands. However to save me from tarring a generation with the same brush, I used the word some rather than all in my previous post. And yes, many airlines have experience and inexperience. Nothing new there and probably nothing new when you cut your teeth on an Argosy or whatever it was?

Guys with tens of thousands of hours make cock ups too. Just look at the poor fella who botched a go around in NCL last year and ended up in MAN below final reserve. It could happen to anyone on the wrong day with the wrong mindset. To his misfortune, the occurrence is now reading material in this month's AAIB publication. However you'd probably rather discard this as a 'one off,' wishing that it was a low time upgrade partnered with some wet behind the ears SSTR. Could this really be about people paying for type ratings and your overall distain towards that sort of behaviour? Oh, and what was that about the old boys paving the way for my warm comfortable seat? I'm forever grateful for your endeavours :D

[fireflybob]

Guys with tens of thousands of hours make cock ups too. Just look at the poor fella who botched a go around in NCL last year and ended up in MAN below final reserve. It could happen to anyone on the wrong day with the wrong mindset. To his misfortune, the occurrence is now reading material in this month's AAIB publication. However you'd probably rather discard this as a 'one off,' wishing that it was a low time upgrade partnered with some wet behind the ears SSTR.

Experience is one factor - a cursory glance of the incident at NCL does not show the experience of the FO.

Nothing wrong (in principle) with new (aka inexperienced) Captains given a rigorous training system etc. But I would suggest it's stacking the odds a bit if you roster a new Captain with a relatively inexperienced FO.

In short I would suggest total experience on the flight deck may be one of the holes in the swiss cheese in certain cases.

When I was a trainer with a leading charter airline I used to say that Captains were paid not to make mistakes; FOs were paid to make sure that Captains don't make mistakes.

[space pig]

Statement: "The old generalisation that when something goes wrong in an airline such as or similar to FR then it's the fault of experience levels, or the lack of it at the pointy end. Set it squarely on the sop monkeys, the children of the magenta or the button pushers"

Callsign Kilo, you keep on defending your background and career path like you are following the vnav path assuming you will be safe but several incidents have shown that experience has been a factor.


Nowadays there have been crews observed flying together with a total experience of around 3000 hrs, and around 3 years experience in total (with 200 folks in the back mind you) and you keep on repeating the mantra that that is as safe or even safer;-) than the old guys who have done 30 years plus?
Rigid SOP's will help a lot to avoid mishaps, but surely any airline would prefer to have it's crews have the most experience possible.However if you cannot retain the high hour guys and girls you end up having no choice to use whatever you have available.


I am waiting for your new statement however that experience is completely irrelevant and would personally suggest that you immidiately ask the authorities to implement a new aviation law that 6 stripes in the cockpit is enough, either a captain with a cadet(the exception) or 3 cadet's in the cockpit with No 3 cadet on the jumpseat.(the norm)


This is the quickest way to get rid of the old skippers, which are "a waste of money" and I can finally take my retirement.


But I will also take the train next time I travel .


*all in my humble opinion ofcourse*

[Callsign Kilo]

spacepig, I conclude that you probably have difficulty in accepting inquiry or advocacy from your FOs because you don't listen (or read).

I NEVER EVER suggested that experience isn't important or completely irrelevant. Re-read my posts. I merely commented that experience isn't relevant when it isn't utilised properly and you can't assume that every incident is down to lack of experience. I pointed out that there are guys with thousands of hours who are bad operators. I've witnessed it. I've trained airline pilots, from zero hour cadets up to those ending their aviation chapter. Equally there are guys of low experience that are poor too. Happy now?

You make a lot of assumptions for a Captain. Maybe retirement and train travel isn't a bad idea? Time to leave it to the guys who just swallowed the book of SOPs and follow VNAV like trained monkeys.

fireflybob the AAIB reported that the FO had over 5 years experience on the 757. Overall, on paper, an experienced crew.

[deptrai]

How about trying to learn from this arguably minor incident... and wait for the official report before pointing fingers and making any premature conclusions about age/and or experience. There but for the grace of god etc. Good luck to all who think this will never happen to them because of their superior experience.

[IcePack]

Good luck to all who think this will never happen to them because of their superior experience.

Yep if I have learn't one thing in the last 40+ years & umpteen thousand hours is that as soon as you think that you have got it nailed the aircraft turns around and bites your a*se. Never Never be complacent.

[deptrai]

The NTSB already issued a safety recommendation in 2012, based on numerous accident reports, to install taxi collision avoidance aids, like wingtip cameras ( Unfortunately the FAA and EASA didnt follow up so far. The FAA claims wingtip cameras are "too expensive", that they dont pass a cost/benefit analysis, but they are "studying" other systems. AFAIK the NTSB keeps a file labelled “Open – Unacceptable Response”. The NTSB has also had improvments to ground ops on it's "most wanted" list since around 2000).

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2012/A-12-048-049.pdf

As for age/experience, let's stick to evidence, and I am not aware of any that would suggest age plays a significant role for transport aircraft accidents in general. There's been some research about age and pilot error, eg Pilot error in air carrier accidents... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856360) and it seems The lack of association between pilot age and error may be due to the "safe worker effect" resulting from the rigorous selection processes and certification standards for professional pilots. Professional pilots of all age groups make mistakes at about the same rate. Neither are experienced captains infallible, nor are young FO's particularly accident prone. However, lo and behold, regarding accident circumstances, and taxiing incidents specifically, the authors found

Accidents involving older pilots were more likely to be caused by turbulence, whereas accidents involving younger pilots were more likely to be taxiing events.So granted, experience/age may play a role for taxiing. Yet, the difference in % was small (3 or 6% if I remember correctly), in other words, older pilots may help a little, but wont solve the problem completely. The RYR hiring debate is interesting, but imho it contributes little to threads about wingtip clearance incidents. If MOL could cut overall cost by paying less insurance fees and/or lower his ground accident rate I'm sure he would be the first to get rid of young pilots and hire older, a little more expensive ones. Age is a bit of a red herring here imho.

Honeywell developed a wingtip collision avoidance “radar” prototype, that can be retrofitted in nav light pods, and wirelessly transmits a warning to the flight deck. Based on existing and mass produced car technology, minimal wiring, minimal weight, no new holes, no added drag. To me, that's a constructive idea. Some aid like that, to increase pilot awareness, would be more helpful for everyone, than blaming the pilots.

If in doubt there is not doubt; so you stop is excellent advice. However I suspect that a lot of crews who rammed their wingtip into an obstacle already knew this piece of advice, but unfortunately were not in doubt when the accident happened. They simply lacked awareness at that moment. Despite excellent training, good SOPs, and experienced crews, these incidents continue to happen. I think the NTSB has a point.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Pig, you are not aloe in your belief that experience equals safety and inexperience equals risk. It is a misguided principle, though. Firstly, in this instance, there has been no evidence of the levels of experience of the pilots involved in the DUB bump, so accusations are premature. Secondly, to use the example others are using of the 757 missed app, that Captain as experience, though perhaps not massively on type, so even if the FO had been very green, as has bizarrely been suggested as some sort of mitigation of gross mishandling by the commander, then he should have coped. I suspect other factors will be shown to be significant in that case.

Experience measure in hours is next to meaningless - what counts is experience of things going awry, be it bad weather, tech problems, dodgy ATC and so on. Further, experience can improve an individual pilot's capability as his/her career progresses, but we all start with varying aptitude and so an experienced mediocre pilot may still be weaker than a cadet with very high aptitude - I have seen that often enough. Further, with modern airlines' work levels, with experience comes age and fatigue, so while I consider myself reasonably experienced and well quipped with good airmanship, operating in a flexible style somewhere between the old and new schools, I am finding I am making more little slips of late due to error or omission which the younger, sharper FOs are picking up. Nothing major, but a disturbing trend I put down entirely to fatigue, and not complacency or a lack of knowledge or training. Stating that an experienced pilot is safer than a newish one is fallacy.

Now, we know DUB was dark and foggy at the time of this bump, and we also know that it can be very hard to see an aircraft from astern at night even in clear conditions with all its lights on. Factor in ATC telling you to move forward and turn onto a side link, the barely visible aircraft ahead having its lights mixed up with apron and terminal lights (look at a map to see the relative angles and the leading aircraft's background) and partially blocking the way because it may be holding further back than anticipated and it becomes easy to imagine how this could happen. This happens to very experienced crews and newbs just as easily. DUB taxiways are a disastrous design and ATC can be quite stretched and rushed, giving excessively complex instructions and clearances that are inappropriate or too tight. It's a recipe for this sort of incident.

[deptrai]

Very well put, Alum Shuffler. I had some similar thoughts on my mind but I lack your eloquence.

Regarding improvents to systems, Honeywell is also testing a pure software upgrade to EGPWS, using existing obstacle databases, which would give a warning like "obstacle! obstace!". It wouldn't have helped the RYR crew here, but some of the roughly 25% of ground incidents which involve fixed objects could possible be avoided. I do believe there are realistic possibilities to add additional safety layers, without flogging pilots.

[fireflybob]

One factor which has not been stated is that in the case of this a/c fit in the incident in question the a/c can only be taxied from the LH seat.

If you are arguing that "younger and sharper" pilots are more acute at picking things up then perhaps it would be safer if they were able to taxy the a/c from the RH seat and then put the Captain in a monitoring role, rather like a monitored approach.

Of course experience does not mean you never make mistakes and in a well crewed flight deck errors should be picked up by PM but it does enable you to see the wood for the trees in many situations as you've probably been there before and even, dare I say it, had the odd near miss but lived to tell the tale.

In my experience a lot depends on the individual. I have flown with experienced pilots in their 60s who are easily on top of their game and the odd one who isn't. I have also flown with newbies who are likewise.

[Ian W]

One thing not raised on this thread is that the stationary aircraft was actually holding short of the position that it was cleared to. This was also a factor in the 380 vs CRJ incident at JFK. This raises two points (at least)

1. If you have turned off an active taxiway and then have to hold at a specified holding point then make sure you are clear of the taxiway and at the holding point. If for whatever reason you do not want to pull all the way forward tell Ground that you are still blocking the taxiway. Even with a modern surface management display system that projection into the taxiway may not be apparent.
2. Airports could put in sensors very easily at known choke points that would provide ground with the information that aircraft are still 'in' the taxiway even though turned off toward a ramp or runway. Ground based sensors without any weight or power constraints are probably easier to install.

And as I said before a few extra square meters of concrete would solve most problems.

[deptrai]

And as I said before a few extra square meters of concrete would solve most problems.

Agreed. However most airport authorities face budget and zoning constraints. Decades old airports grew "organically", and the original planners never envisioned the capacity the airports serve now. "A few" more square meters would help a lot, but it's not something I hold my breath for.

One thing not raised on this thread is that the stationary aircraft was actually holding short of the position that it was cleared to

from the 1st page:

I guess they shouldnt have held short so short...

yes, looking at the picture, the other a/c was holding well short, another hole in the swiss cheese...but unfortunately that doesn't fully absolve others from their responsibility to watch their wingtip clearance.

Ground based sensors without any weight or power constraints are probably easier to install

Ground based sensors would would most likely get hooked up to atc ground control, right? That's good, I'd like that too, yet pilots will still face the blame in many cases. So I'd prefer enhanced information directly to the flight deck, without another hop in between.

with a lot of time on my hands today, having a beer in the sauna, re-reading alum shufflers post:

we know DUB was dark and foggy at the time of this bump, and we also know that it can be very hard to see an aircraft [...]. Factor in ATC telling you to move forward and turn onto a side link [...] This happens to very experienced crews and newbs just as easily. DUB taxiways are a disastrous design and ATC can be quite stretched and rushed, giving excessively complex instructions and clearances that are inappropriate [..]

...I couldn't help thinking of the Tenerife Airport crash. Not quite the same, but ground ops, particularly runway incursions, can be just as risky as flying. Time to give the matter some attention...

[RAT 5]

This accident was between 2 B738's and not the biggest a/c that operate out of DUB. Many replies are arguing about the proximity of the holding points etc. etc. If this had been a B767 & A330 operating from separate runways the result might have been very different, and much worse. It is incumbent on the commander and taxiing pilot to be aware of a/c around them and be vigilant. If in doubt STOP. You can see the wing tips of nearly every airliner from the pilot's seat. Look out the side window. That's what they are there for.
Experience has little to do with this. The yellow/white line is not always a guarantee.
What could be an improvement is white lights on the tips of the stabilisers. The wing tips are far too far in advance of the crash into the tail structure. This was a prang waiting to happen and design should have mitigated against it.

[Aluminium shuffler]

With reference to Ian W's post, I agree that the fidelity of ATC ground movements displays can be questionable. Ground movement radar is excellent where it can see - you can tell the difference between an A320 and B737, such is their resolution, and I have seen clear returns from hares running along the taxiways and fences. However, they have a lot of blind spots. The "new thing" is to have a Mode S based system with lots of receivers that triangulate positions, but that also has blind spots and unreliabilities, but it is also a calculated rather than measured position that appears on screen. That is what DUB uses and I have been victim to their system's shortcomings a few years ago. I do not believe it to be a very accurate system.

[DaveReidUK]

Ground movement radar is excellent where it can see - you can tell the difference between an A320 and B737, such is their resolutionThe "new thing" is to have a Mode S based system with lots of receivers that triangulate positions, but that also has blind spots and unreliabilities, but it is also a calculated rather than measured position that appears on screen. That is what DUB uses and I have been victim to their system's shortcomings a few years ago. I do not believe it to be a very accurate system.Not so "new" now, and in widespread and successful use at many airports much busier than DUB.

But you are correct in that multilateration (which uses TDOA, not triangulation) has limitations compared to SMR - it doesn't tell you anything about the size or orientation of the target and in fact it will only accurately fix one point on the aircraft (the transponder antenna) and so normally only forms part of a hybrid A-SMGCS system.

[Skyjob]

Dublin has always been an airport where proximity of parallel taxiways, the sharp taxi route corners, bad inappropriate flood lighting, the number of failed markings (unable to see them in wet at night) and the length and amount of (verbal diarrhoea) ATC instructions have made it an airport where, taxiing from the moment you leave stand towards holding point or after vacating the runway towards your stand, has posed a significant risk.

Flying into DUB first time for a new FO awaiting to hear ATC taxi instructions can be daunting, not just the amount and complexity. It is many times the unprepared who have to ask ATC to reread their clearance as they simply failed to either write it down or comprehend.

Having a mental model of the airport in mind helps in this instance, but not all pilots are capable of doing so.

When ATC gives you an unexpected route, this exaggerates these problems.

IN this post I am not saying anything about who is or not at fault in the incident in DUB between these two aircraft.

What I would like to say is as a result of this incident, I'd like to see improvements to ATC clearances, a reduction of clearances given to pilots, a better taxi/airport layout with less points which need mentioning by ATC in a read back.

For example in DUB it is quite often the case to hear things like:

"Taxi Ramp 6, Foxtrot Outer, Right on Papa 1, Cross Runway 34, Onto Papa 2, Left to Follow the A330 onto Mike 2, Join Bravo to hold short Runway 10"
"Taxi Link 5, Fox Outer, Link 4, Foxtrot 3, Foxtrot 2, Hold Short Link 2, Give Way to the Shamrock A321 coming from the right at Bravo, Then via Alpha Continue Foxtrot 1, Echo 1 to Hold Short Runways 28 & 34"


These instructions are not unique nor uncommon.
It is such interactions with ATC that could quite easily be improved, by airport layout DESIGN and ATC being aware they do not need to always use every taxi segment and intersection block in each statement they make to pilots. Not all pilots are excellent English speakers and quite often can and will not read back clearances as per above.
That is a major threat in DUB!

[172_driver]

The best solution to that is usually to play stupid: "…erhm, was it Link 5 first then Foxtrot?"

That will get them to slow down.. :p

[fireflybob]

The best solution to that is usually to play stupid: "…erhm, was it Link 5 first then Foxtrot?"

or if you want to be really popular ask for progressive taxy instructions.

[172_driver]

Growing up in America there would be no shame in it for me !!

[Uplinker]

Whatever happened to 'no more than three instructions per transmission?'

I used to fly in and out of Dublin in 2000-2005, and did not find it a problem, but I guess it is much busier now?

Agree that perhaps the layout and taxy way designation need to be revised. And maybe aircraft should be given instructions to intermediate holding points, rather than all the way.

Were ASR's put in for the rain invisible markings etc.?

[Uplinker]

Actually, coincidentally, I have been pondering whether we might have to resort to motor vehicle style traffic lights and maybe even roundabouts or give way junctions on airfields one day?

There are an awful lot of radio transmissions involved with taxying at large or busy airfields these days, so perhaps a system of traffic lights might be part of the answer?

We already have red stop bars of course, but would there be any reason not to have traffic lights at each junction with say green arrows which illuminate at the appropriate time to tell us that we were cleared onwards, and which way to turn? This might be easier and cheaper to implement than the long rows of green lights on the taxiways seen at Heathrow and Gatwick etc.

I would envisage that important clearances such as lining up, taking off, or crossing active runways should still require voice clearance and readbacks.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Quite right, Skyjob. I have very frequently had instructions just like that given to my while still decelerating through 100kts on landing. It's not just the complexity of the instructions but also their timing in giving them. Of course, anyone that has been there will also be familiar with the exact opposite style of taxy instruction of "follow the company ahead", no route, no limit, no clue! If the one ahead goes the wrong way, so will you! To be fair, the controllers don't show any sign of irritation or exasperation when I ask them for something more specific.

[Ian W]

Quote:Ian W

And as I said before a few extra square meters of concrete would solve most problems.


Agreed. However most airport authorities face budget and zoning constraints. Decades old airports grew "organically", and the original planners never envisioned the capacity the airports serve now. "A few" more square meters would help a lot, but it's not something I hold my breath for.



The one thing that the airport beancounters want is runway movements. Increasing the runway hit rate is a direct input to their coffers. If the airport surface design makes taxiing awkward and inefficient then the hit rate will be reduced and airport income will reduce with it.

A few square meters of concrete may cost an immediate capital amount but the cost benefit could be huge. Many airports now are rebuilding ORPs in the form of penalty boxes just short of the runway so aircraft can be reordered for departure or be held out of the way of taxiing aircraft if given a ground hold. This is a very simple option; it is non-technical has no advanced electronics and works. The concrete is also probably cheaper than an electronic system.

[Aluminium shuffler]

I don't think DUB are reluctant to spend money on concrete - they must be digging for gold, the amount of times the dig up the space between Link 4 and 5! I genuinely wonder if it's a job creation scheme.

[Skyjob]

I think many an airport can learn from Amsterdam, with multiple ground controllers, several runways with individual tower controllers and plenty of gates and intersections...

Standard comms unless advised is to be followed.


Initial contact with APP/ARR: State only C/S
Initial contact with TWR: State C/S and RWY
Contact GND immediately after RWY is vacated
All ACFT give way to ACFT vacating RWYs
All ACFT give way to ACFT on TWY A and TWY B, except if ACFT is vacating RWY
TWY A clockwise
TWY B anti-clockwise
R/T instruction inbound:

Via N: Taxi via TWY A and northside of AD
Via S: Taxi via TWY Q
A & B preferential and Low visibility one way taxi routes; all others routes may be used two-way depending on RWY combination

R/T instruction outbound:

Via N: Taxi via TWY B and northside of AD
Via S: Taxi via TWY A and TWY Q

Standard or Alternative push‐pull/push‐back procedures for each stand published

Simple, effective, non-clutter in all respects, e.g. when vacating 18R: "KLM664 D4 via South"

[Sailvi767]

Referencing the post about seeing the wing tips of most airliners I have not found that to be true. In fact my experience is the opposite. On the 757/767 you certainly can't see the wingtips and I don't recall being able to see them on the 737-800.

[Uplinker]

A-SMGCS 4 ? I will look that up.

EHAM sounds sensible, and is sort of what I am thinking, but it requires good knowledge of the airfield and procedures. Paris LFPG has a similar system, but again you have to know and understand it. Such local taxi knowledge requires reading of the preamble on the plates, then trying to remember it all as you turn off the runway. Rome LIRF is a good(bad?) example of this.

I was just wondering if the taxy flow could be made a lot more automatic and thus require far less intervention from ATC. For example if the taxiways were laid out more like conventional roads, e.g. with "Give Way" signs etc., then the ATC instruction "At Bravo 2 give way to the 737 from your right" would not have to be given or read back, it would just happen automatically.

The idea would be that aircraft were cleared to push and start by ATC, and when ready, would be cleared, again by ATC to taxy to the runway holding point via a certain route which could be designated Alpha, Bravo etc. Such routes could for example take one from certain points near the apron all the way to the runway holding points, and be drawn on the plates as such. Several taxi routes could follow the same taxiways, for example Alpha might go from terminal one to 23R and Bravo might both go from terminal two to 23R, but they would both share the latter portions of the same taxiways, just like the tube map shows different lines which actually use the same tracks. Once on a taxi route though, the traffic flow would be largely self regulating, leaving the ATC ground frequency much clearer for issuing non-normal instructions, and reducing the 'machine gun' type of taxi clearances.

Complications might include crossing other runways, slot management and LVP conditions. Having clearances to intermediate holding points would solve the first, and having the 'penalty box' system to reorder aircraft would solve the second. And anyway, ATC would still be overseeing the taxying, so they could overide a give way junction if need be, by giving a voice command, but this would be relatively rare in a well thought out system. During LVP's, I guess ATC could become more involved.

[Skyjob]

Uplinker, this (your suggestion) is generally how most airports are already laid out.
It becomes an issue when the taxiways are named differently along the same route and where ATC insists of naming each bit of taxiway between two intersections uniquely for reference and starts using them in the taxi clearance.

The Amsterdam standard taxi routes could be rewritten to resemble DUB style from:

Delta 4 via the South; into
Via Victor, at Victor Mike Right on Zulu, Cross Zulu 2 and Zulu 1, Turn Right onto Quebec, Left on Bravo, Continue Passing Alpha 2, Alpha 3 and Alpha 4, Left at Alpha 5, Cross Taxiway B, Onto Ramp (to be named) and Parking at Delta 4.


Similarly the Dublin layout could be revised to convert a clearance from:

Link 5, Fox Outer, Link 4, Foxtrot 3, Foxtrot 2, Hold Short Link 2, Give Way to the Shamrock A321 coming from the right at Bravo, Then via Alpha Continue Foxtrot 1, Echo 1 to Hold Short Runways 28 & 34; into
Echo 1 via Foxtrot, Giving Way to Shamrock A321 at Bravo.


Reading the above examples, which would be the better one to challenge and change?

[Aluminium shuffler]

Sailvi, you can see the wing tips of the 737, but if the no.3 window is fogged up, as is usually the case early in the morning in very damp conditions, you can only see them if you lean all the way forward and put your head within 2" of the upright between the no.1 and no.2 windows and look over your shoulder. It is no way to taxy an aeroplane! If the no.3 window is clear of fog and rain, then you can see the wing tip without leaning forwards much.

It seems perverse that the automotive industry is producing cheap kits for ultrasonic parking sensors, reversing cameras and so on for vehicles which are easy to manoeuver and see out of, but the aviation industry has no interest in making aircraft easy to taxi (or even fly - handling characteristics are getting worse on every new model). I know that part of it is volumes - there are many more cars than aircraft, so it is a bigger market, but with the mark ups in aviation, you'd think someone would be taking it seriously. How hard can it be to have a few strategically placed small cameras, like those used almost as throw away items by the media, connected to a relatively small display? Useful for seeing airborne non-normals as well as for taxi clearance. Why are there no improvements for information to pilots unless the authorities mandate it?

[Skyjob]

Aluminium Shuffler, I wholeheartedly agree
How hard can it be to have a few strategically placed small cameras, like those used almost as throw away items by the media, connected to a relatively small display? Useful for seeing airborne non-normals as well as for taxi clearance. Why are there no improvements for information to pilots unless the authorities mandate it?
The problem is certification.
No industry is as regulated as aviation.
Few industry have as little margins.

[Uplinker]

I generally agree with most of the last two posts.

SKY: imagine if road transport was directed by an agency using radios. Instead of giving way, at a T junction or roundabout, vehicles would have to wait and get clearance, one by one to proceed, and the other traffic would have to be told (and read back) instructions to give way. It would be chaos and unworkable. I just wonder now that the airfield traffic density is so high whether ATC still needs to direct every single part of every single traffic movement, or whether some junctions could be made 'automatic', by the use of 'Give Way' signs or traffic sensing traffic lights etc.

Simpler is better in my book, and being given a machine gun taxi clearance as we are still exiting the runway and I as PNF am going through after landing flows and checklists, and doing single engine stuff as well as writing the clearance down, looking on the taxi chart and keeping PF right - is not conducive to safe operations ! Whereas, "Join Zulu and hold at X-Ray 3" where 'Zulu' takes you all the way to the apron entrance via two 'Give Way' junctions and is drawn as such on the chart, is easy to remember, read back and follow.

AS: Cameras on wing tips. Absolutely, why not? I always have a heart-in-the-mouth feeling as I watch the wingtip of the A330 and hope I am right when I tell the Captain that it is going to clear - Not easy to tell with the perspective and it being so far back :eek:

Night time ops might be tricky though, because you might need lighting for the camera, and of course ANYTHING to do with aeroplanes has not one but two zeros added to the price !

[Aluminium shuffler]

Certification should be little problem. One has to marvel at the irony that many legacy airlines now have forward and downward looking cameras of pretty good resolution to give the passengers something to look at on the IFE, yet we can't get something identical in operation for safety critical purposes.

[White Knight]

1. If you have turned off an active taxiway and then have to hold at a specified holding point then make sure you are clear of the taxiway and at the holding point. If for whatever reason you do not want to pull all the way forward tell Ground that you are still blocking the taxiway.

Probably the best point raised so far! How many times have I pointed out to one of my colleagues that the 'tool' taxiing the aircraft ahead has stopped FAR short of the holding point... Get up to the line people!!!

As an aside, back in about 2000 I heard DUB ATC telling a Ryanair flight to slow down... Clocked at 68kts on the parallel taxiway after landing on 28:= (clocked with a radar gun!)

[RHINO]

100 per cent agree hold at the holding point you are cleared to.....not 10, 20, 30 metres short..

[coley chaos]

For information: Aer Lingus 757 and a Ryanair 737 have had a taxi crunch this morning near the active threshold.

[juice]

It's happened to RYR at DUB again, according to this:

@irishexaminer: #LATEST: Two planes clip each other on tarmac; Dublin Airport investigating | http://t.co/t5L0MveACR (SN) http://t.co/WMUxuzLBCH

Ryanair has released a statement reading: “Two of our aircraft were taxiing slowly to the runway at Dublin Airport this morning. The winglet of one aircraft appears to have scraped the tail fin of the other," said Ryanair.

"Both aircraft were under the instruction of Dublin Airport Air Traffic Control at the time. Customers have been bussed back to the terminal and will board replacement aircraft to continue their journeys to Edinburgh and Zadar. Ryanair apologises sincerely to customers for any inconvenience caused.”

[JRM2010]

Impressively, word for word an identical statement (save for the destinations) to the one in October.

[Alsacienne]

Impressively, word for word an identical statement (save for the destinations) to the one in October.

And are we sure that this is not an April Fool? Sadly I fear not.

[Una Due Tfc]

Negative. Both aircraft involved were RYR. EIN were in no way involved.

[davidjpowell]

Or maybe it was two Ryan Air 737-8's again...

[Una Due Tfc]

Guy taxiing for RWY 28 could not have been closer to hold point in this photo

Ryanair planes clip each other at Dublin Airport - RTÉ News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0401/691273-ryanair-dublin-airport/)

[lasernigel]

“Two of our aircraft were taxiing slowly to the runway at Dublin Airport this morning.

Really never seen them taxi slowly.

[chillindan]

If this is going to be a regular event for RYR perhaps the mods should make this thread into a sticky? :-)

[Direct Bondi]

A swift reintroduction of the Ryanair Calendar with suitable thong clad, cabin bunnies, will ensure this latest mishap is soon forgotten :8

[TOWTEAMBASE]

Not again !!!!

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Or maybe if you looked only marginally further down the page you would find that this is already being covered............:{

[phiggsbroadband]

http://media.central.ie/media/images/d/DublinAirportIncidentRyanairMar15_large.jpg

[de facto]

No wonder,the last few times in dublin and Madrid,they were just taxiing like mad.One asked in spanish to overtake me which they got the clearance for,and he whizzed by like his ass was on fire.
Seems like some blokes are getting too deep into the "low cost" on time performance and should take a step back and reflect on this before it happens to them.

[Capn Bloggs]

If this is going to be a regular event for RYR perhaps
they should remove the winglets... :}

[Cows getting bigger]

It would appear that they're trying. :p

Joking aside, p'raps Dublin should take a really close look at that part of the airfield? The various 'guvmint health warnings' in the AIP imply that things are all a bit tight round there.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Whatever happened to good old fashioned airmanship? Also, is it not the captains responsibility to maintain adequate clearance from other obstacles whilst taxying? Sounds simple enough to me!!

[FullWings]

Looking at the charts and photos, it appears the stationary aircraft was at or near the E1 hold and the moving one approaching B2. Not a lot of room, probably an accident waiting to happen.

I think I’d be asking for marshalling assistance. If enough people did that the airport authority might do something about it...

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Or just wait until there is room. Stupid accident, stupid driver.

[Epsomdog]

A way of making it easier for pilots to judge clearances, especially at night time, would be to incorporate a coloured laser marker in the Nav light assembly. This could be a shielded coloured strobe, projecting the wingtip or tail relative position onto the taxiway. Pilots will then have an accurate indication as to where they are with reference to the taxiway markings.

Including these marker lights in the Nav light Assy will simplify retro fit, new build a/c could incorporate air/ground sensing, so they can be turned off in flight.

[sunbird123]

The best thing for Dub is to concrete it over and build houses on the site.
Then build a new modern airport.

[Epsomdog]

The best thing for Dub is to concrete it over and build houses on the site.
Then build a new modern airport.

The same could be said about LHR and a lot of other airports.

That would require forward thinking and sensible decision making!

Unfortunately those kind of decisions are made by politicians that only care about keeping their jobs at the next election!

How did the Japanese manage to build Narita? Did they lock the politicians up for twenty years?;)

[Consol]

Sunbird has a point. New restrictions on taxiway use coming into force in DUB. No use of 'A' and 'B2' when 28/34 in use. Morning rush will be fun.

Every incident seems to bring a new restriction despite being mainly due to a c*ck up in most cases. Taxiways Z and Y effectively permanently closed. No conditional clearances. Required to read back 'hold short of 28 and 34' despite it being single runway most of the day. Required to say first point in FMS which non locals never understand and no other airport requires because AF took a Cat B SID once.

Seems the logical end point is to only have one aircraft moving on the airfield at a time if they keep going the way they are.

[phiggsbroadband]

ATC maintain a separation in the sky, surely it would be possible to arrange the same on the ground... Lets say at least 100 metres from any other airplane.... You could still pack 10 onto a 1km taxiway.


Airport Charts....
http://www.iaa.ie/safe_reg/iaip/aip_eidw_charts.htm

[RAT 5]

"ATC maintain a separation in the sky, (surely it would be possible to arrange the same on the ground)."

That's because normally you can't see the other guy, and you are travelling a high closing speeds. It's also in 4 dimensions. On the ground you are slow, and should normally only be concerned about threats in front of you that you can see and are using Mk.1 eyeball x 2. ATC has enough on their plate to play wet nurse on the ground. I don't know about all types, but you can see the wing tip of B738 from the pilot seat. OK, the threat might be behind you in a turn, but you have seen it and assessed it before the turn. When in doubt there is not doubt.
For ATC they do a wet nurse thingy at LGW & LHR and a fantastic job they do too: follow the greens at night. Fantastic, but then they are shuffling big lumps of aluminium in a maze of taxi-ways with many pilots who are very unfamiliar with the puzzle. Dublin is hardly in the Krypton Factor realm of challenges.
I do not wish to hand over more control than necessary to an outside agency. The captain has to maintain control and responsibility as a much as is sensibly possible. I see too many youngsters just follow an ATC instruction without assessing if that is what they really want to do. Head teacher gave an order and there'll be no dinner less you comply attitude. It's sad to see guys aim at a single Cu on a clear day just because ATC gives a radar vector. It's sad to see guys allowing ATC to suck them in hot & high without saying No. That's a whole new topic, so sorry for thread diversion.

[Epsomdog]

Not related to this thread but interesting points raised re clearances.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_032603.pdf

[phiggsbroadband]

Maybe ATC cannot 'wet nurse' each aircraft 100% of the time, but an instruction such as 'Maintain your own 100m clearance from other aircraft' could get the spacing correct.
Whilst flying my Cessna, I avoid Hovering Helicopters like the plague, and keep at least 100m away, much the same as behind the CAT aircraft jet-blasts.

[Epsomdog]

Maintaining 100M clearance at LHR is just not going to be practical, especially when you have 15 aircraft queuing for the holding point! Also radar is just not accurate enough!

[Una Due Tfc]

Exactly. Tower can literally be a mile away at times, even using the binoculars they haven't got a hope of seeing if 2 aircraft passing at awkward angles have sufficient clearance. Only those on the aircraft are close enough. Sensors in the stop bars detecting if someone's A**e is hanging out might help some of the problem, but with all the mixture of aircraft types and wingspans etc, it wouldn't make an enormous difference

[RAT 5]

IMHO it is not up to ATC to instruct you to keep 10m/20m/100m from another a/c on the ground. It's your responsibility not to crunch another one. Coming onto stand, even self manoeuvring ones, the wing tip clearances are <10m. You follow the yellow line and use Mk.1 eyeball to ensure safe clearance: not just blindly follow yellow line. You assess what's in front of you and within the area you are going to place your a/c and act accordingly. Consider how close the wing tip gets to 'turn out stands' and the neighbouring a/c. Hopefully there is a wing marshaller, but not always. You manoeuvre starts with faith, then correct technique, then care. No ATC.

[NigelOnDraft]

April AAIB Bulletin RYR v RYR @ STN (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing%20737-8AS%20EI-ENL%20and%20EI-DLJ%2004-15.pdf)
The sole underlying cause appeared to be ATC unfortunately - the turn / stand geometry / angles and low 737 fuselage all meant that neither Flt Crew on taxiing aircraft or push crew on other could have reliably prevented it?

[DirtyProp]

Exactly. Tower can literally be a mile away at times, even using the binoculars they haven't got a hope of seeing if 2 aircraft passing at awkward angles have sufficient clearance. Only those on the aircraft are close enough. Sensors in the stop bars detecting if someone's A**e is hanging out might help some of the problem, but with all the mixture of aircraft types and wingspans etc, it wouldn't make an enormous difference
Just thinking out loud here.
I was considering the good, 'ole xpdr and thinking that maybe it could help ground control to better monitor the situation on tways and rways.
Instead of using it only up in the air, we could use it on the ground as well.
Get a dedicated code for ground ops so the ground controller knows exactly where you are at all times.
Once you're on the rway, switch to the "air" code.
Pretty much everything is already in place, we just need to use it a bit differently.

[Una Due Tfc]

Aircraft are already squawking on the ground in DUB while taxiing. Area controllers can see the callsign, A/C type and SID on a screen linked to the ground radar, it's used to help them plan how to fit the next departure/departures in with whatever is already airborne. It is nowhere near accurate enough to ensure wing tip clearance.