Istanbul taxi accident

[tubby linton]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=B2fGi6XtUa8
An Asiana Airlines Airbus A330-323 (HL7792) and a THY Turkish Airlines Airbus A321-231 suffered substantial damage in a ground contact accident at Istanbul-Atatürk International Airport, Turkey.
The A321 had arrived from Ercan as flight TK969 and arrived at the gate at 14:47 UTC. At the same time the A330 had commenced taxiing to the runway. Flight OZ552 was returning to Seoul, South Korea. While taxiing past the A321, the right hand wing tip impacted the the vertical stabilizer of TK969.
The A321's vertical stabilizer was knocked over entirely and the A330's wing tip sustained serious damage.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20180513-0

[atakacs]

In plain daylight and perfect visibility this really defies understanding...

[syamaner]

I don't think that visibility and daylight are important factors in such cases. You must follow the yellow taxi lines and as far as I know there is no rule which necessitates the cockpit crew to check the wingtips during taxiing. Is there?

[syamaner]

After closely inspecting the video I can say that this accident occured due to controller error.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.

[Una Due Tfc]

After closely inspecting the video I can say that this accident occured due to controller error.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.

In many airports, the gates are not ATC responsibility. The aircraft gets handed over to ground handlers and anything that happens thereafter (delay in getting on stand etc.) is between the flight crew and ground crew, none of ATC’s business. ATC cannot see if an aircraft tail or wingtip is hanging out a bit far from potentially a few km away up in a tower. This is the responsibility of the commanders of taxiing aircraft.

[Chris Scott]

I don't think that visibility and daylight are important factors in such cases. You must follow the yellow taxi lines and as far as I know there is no rule which necessitates the cockpit crew to check the wingtips during taxiing. Is there?

The A321 has certainly stopped short, perhaps in the absence of ground staff to switch the stand guidance system on? I would also guess that the A330-300 wingtips are not visible from the cockpit. However, and assuming the crew had received taxi clearance, there are other clues when judging if clearance is assured.

The A330 isn't hanging about and, looking at the impact, I wonder if the A321 could be a write-off.

[KAISERSOZE]

Istanbul airport is working at 120% capacity.
i hate to fly there. Taxi is a nightmare.

[oldchina]

syamaner:
After closely inspecting the video I can say that this accident occured due to controller error

Luckily you're not (I hope) an accident investigator

[bringbackthe80s]

Please explain to me one single reason to taxi that fast on a 330 in close proximity to other aircraft

[readywhenreaching]

Can somebody explain the spectacular, F1 lookalike, "jump-start" of the A330 ? Could it be he selected a much too high power setting until somebody figured out that brakes need the be released to achieve significant forward motion.

[TBSC]

Is there a rule where to stop if you get the 'stop short' signal (or the gate is not set/marshal not present)? There seem to be no markings on the apron for that.
The anti-collision lights could have gave it away for the 330 crew (most probably it was on but not seen on the video for the low frame rate).

[SMT Member]

Can somebody explain the spectacular, F1 lookalike, "jump-start" of the A330 ? Could it be he selected a much too high power setting until somebody figured out that brakes need the be released to achieve significant forward motion.

I think you're watching someone recording a tv screen with a mobile phone. The video is paused for the first couple of seconds, then started which gives the impression of the A330 'jumping' forwards.

Aircraft often taxi 'half-way' on to a stand where the docking guidance system hasn't been turned off yet. My guess is, that's the reason the TK A321 was in the position it was at the time of collision. I suppose the idea is to clear the taxiway, but in places where space is scarce you may not have fully cleared the TWY until you're almost at final parking position. Perhaps it's time to evaluate the commonly seen practice of turning into a parking position, without active DGS or the presence of a marshaller.

[simfly]

I've seen a post incident video from ground crew by the rear of the 321, quite an amount of the rear of the ac is out into the taxiway, so i'm surprised the 330 crew didn't see it. That said, if a crew can not taxi fully onto stand for whatever reason, they need to advise ATC soonest as they have now blocked the taxiway, simple. Syamaner, I see no ATC fault here, it is no issue for them to give taxi clearance to the Asiana if the Turkish has passed / is infront. If the whole length of the taxiway had to be fully clear, things would happen very very slow on any airport...

[Herod]

OK, I've been out of the business for a few years, but it used to be that the RESPONSIBILITY for the SAFETY of the aircraft rested with the CREW. If in doubt, STOP.

[Sailvi767]

After closely inspecting the video I can say that this accident occured due to controller error.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.

That is not how things function at any airport I am aware of. If ground control at major airports only allowed taxi with assured clearances airport capacity would be cut in half or more.

[Piltdown Man]

I think it unfair to blame anyone from this video. But we should consider how the airport was laid out and whether or not the Turkish Airbus was inside or outside the stand markings (that normally should exist). It would also be interesting to hear what taxi clearances were issued to aircraft in this vicinity and whether or not the ground controller responsible for this part of the airfield knew that the Turkish Airbus was not yet parked. I'd also like to know what speed the Asiana was taxying. With this information I might then start to form some opinion.

PM

[krismiler]

In the US, separation on the ground is a joint responsibility between pilot and controller.

[Highway1]

The A330 isn't hanging about and, looking at the impact, I wonder if the A321 could be a write-off.

I would suggest that the A321 will be easier to repair than the A330. Changing the Vertical stab is a fairly easy task (only held on by 6 bolts) - so as long at the fuselage fittings were not over stressed the only thing that will hold up repairs is finding a spare Stab.

The A330 damage to the front spar on the other hand.......

[West Coast]

In the US, separation on the ground is a joint responsibility between pilot and controller.

can you provide appropriate documentation of this? There are many places with wide open spaces that are not ATC, nor ramp/apron controlled.


Think BNA to start.

[ExSp33db1rd]

New Zealand Press report !!

An Asiana A330 plane was taxiing into the terminal when its wing crashed into the Turkish Airlines A321 causing the A330 tail to sever in half.

Whose tail ? Think about it !!

[Capn Bloggs]

I would suggest that the A321 will be easier to repair than the A330. Changing the Vertical stab is a fairly easy task (only held on by 6 bolts) - so as long at the fuselage fittings were not over stressed the only thing that will hold up repairs is finding a spare Stab.
Do A321s have vert stab tanks, because there's a lot of white fluid being sprayed up...

[Dan Winterland]

Do A321s have vert stab tanks, because there's a lot of white fluid being sprayed up...

No they don't. That's hydraulics fluid you see. Feed to the rudder flying control actuators.

[poldek77]

Do you still remember that one?

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/448494-air-france-jet-clips-smaller-plane-new-york-s-jfk-airport.html

[mrdeux]

Asiana almost got me in Singapore. Taxied in to their bay whilst I was stopped on the lead in right in front of it. Went between me and the aircraft on the next bay. How they missed both of us I have no idea. Ended up at about 30º off the bay alignment, and didn't hit the bridge. Lucky. And total idiots.

[LEM]

The practice of half entering the gate when it is still switched off is a mistake and a violation.
In some places its written in the airport plates.
With that im not blaming turkish at all, i havent any clue of the situation.
But I can blame Asiana for sure.
Unless the turkish moved backwards, which I doubt, the Asiana had to WATCH where they are going.
Period.

[krismiler]

Looks like another one.
https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/608833-png-ground-collission-betweenb737-l-382-a.html

[andrasz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXu0YlgADU
This video includes a few still TV screen shots showing Asiana head on, giving a better context than the surveilance camera video. Obviously many layers of swiss cheese here. 321 stopped before being clear of taxiway (did they report... ?), Asiana received taxi clearance, someone in the right seat failed to look out the window, etc. etc. etc. With the complete chaos on the IST ramp the only surprise is that it does not happen more often.

[Dida]

Obviously there is also no necessitates for airman ship

[bringbackthe80s]

No swiss cheese at all. When you taxi you make sure you are clear of ANYTHING at all times.
If I' m taxing into a gate and I want to stop for ANY reason, I do so. And I only advise ATC when I feel it is safe to do so, certainly not my priority with both engines and people/carts/FOD around me. Again, anyone must make sure he' s clear.

[Icelanta]

The TK A321 was completely in his right to stop before his parking position, if he/she deems it necessary for whatever reason. NOTHING illegal about this. Yes, obviously you inform ATC of this, but in a congested airport like IST, this can take some minutes, and is NOT a priority. That being said, in the Airline I fly for ( major B747 operator), we will not turn onto the gate if no marchaller or lead-in guidance. We do stop short if for example containers are blocking ( not always correctly visible perpendicular of the stand) or groundcrew/ debris in the area obviously.

HOWEVER... The PIC of the Asiana A330, or ANY Taxying aircraft has the legal obligation to stay free of all obstacles at all times, and “ But I was following the yellow taxiline” has absolutely nothing to do with that obligation. Have some Airmanship people! Taxi is a critical phase of flight that requires full attention of all flight crew members on the flightdeck. If necessary, deviate from the taxiline to keep clear of obstacles or better yet, stop.

[WHBM]

Anyone else surprised by the complete severing of the A321 fin, while the A330 hasn't (apparently) even lost its winglet. It does make you think about how rudder forces are transmitted to the airframe in flight (and then think about AA587).

[andrasz]

Anyone else surprised by the complete severing of the A321 fin, while the A330 hasn't (apparently) even lost its winglet. It does make you think about how rudder forces are transmitted to the airframe in flight (and then think about AA587).

The required rudder forces are minuscule compared to the lift forces of the wing. Think of the force needed to shift the attitude of a boat floating in water versus the force needed to lift it out of the water. This directly translates into the different structural strength of the two components.

[White Knight]

The practice of half entering the gate when it is still switched off is a mistake and a violation.

Entering without guidance being switched on is one thing but I have had guidance fail many times as I’m on the turn into the gate or even in the last few meters!

[RAT 5]

You must follow the yellow taxi lines and as far as I know there is no rule which necessitates the cockpit crew to check the wingtips during taxiing. Is there?

There is a rule that you do not taxi into stationary a/c. If in doubt there is no doubt. Wing tips knocking off fins is not a slight graze by a few cm's; it is a thumping whack by a meter or 2.

[LEM]

Entering without guidance being switched on is one thing but I have had guidance fail many times as I’m on the turn into the gate or even in the last few meters!

so whats your point?

[Chris Scott]

I would suggest that the A321 will be easier to repair than the A330. Changing the Vertical stab is a fairly easy task (only held on by 6 bolts) - so as long at the fuselage fittings were not over stressed the only thing that will hold up repairs is finding a spare Stab.
The A330 damage to the front spar on the other hand.......

You may well be right - I'm no structures engineer, and the inevitable damage to the wingtip of the A330 is not visible in the video.
I simply wonder if the A321's fin-attachment bolts are designed to fail before the rear fuselage is over-stressed - bearing in mind the proximity of the pressure bulkhead. (For example, I think that philosophy does apply in the case of wing-mounted engine pylons.) But the A321 in this accident suffers a lot of sideways movement as the fin is struck.

[Lord Farringdon]

Who cares what the A321 was doing or not doing. It was the A330 that ran into it not the other way around. And, it was the A330 that had both the capacity and capability to avoid the accident if they were applying airmanship rather than complacency. Having said that, a poster above did detect a strangeness in the video. The A330 seems stationary (yet the camera is moving) then suddenly the A330 is charging along the taxiway like it had released brakes with throttles advanced. A possible configuration issue with this aircraft type?

[Ben_S]

The camera isn't moving, it is clearly being filmed with a phone off the CCTV screen hence the phone is moving before the CCTV is played.

[Greeezeditonmate]

We need to bring back the old standard operating procedure when taxiing called LOTFW, Look out the Fu#*king Window!
”Clear Right Side” obviously doesn’t mean anything if you don’t look.
Asiana crew should have been able to see that the Turkish was not fully parked and was not fully clear of the yellow taxiway edge line.

[Mr A Tis]

Situational awareness !!
taxi clearance or not, you can’t replace mark 1 eyeball. I can’t see how anyone looking out the window could not see the A321 isn’t clear of the taxiway.
After all, even if you have line up clearance you don’t enter an active runway without glancing at the final approach - do you ? Same applies on taxiways

[Deepinsider]

Absolutely, if unable to park and need to stop short, MUST tell ATC.

When taxiing around a busy airport in a large wide body, you just can not really know where the wingtip is.
Can not see it remember.
When every thing is right there is an incredibly small separation, only a few meters to spare. That's why various
sized planes are assigned a category. e.g. a 777 would not be parked on a gate near taxiway unless that part
of the airport is available to that category of plane.
One has to trust the system i.e. the markings and the others doing the right thing. If in doubt, stop, of course,
but if everyone stopped pedantically, busy airports would grind to a halt.
Until we know more, see my first line above.

But please note I did use the words...'if in doubt, stop'

[Highway1]

You may well be right - I'm no structures engineer, and the inevitable damage to the wingtip of the A330 is not visible in the video.
I simply wonder if the A321's fin-attachment bolts are designed to fail before the rear fuselage is over-stressed - bearing in mind the proximity of the pressure bulkhead. (For example, I think that philosophy does apply in the case of wing-mounted engine pylons.) But the A321 in this accident suffers a lot of sideways movement as the fin is struck.

here is a link to a video taken from the ground where you can better see the damage to the A330 leading edge.

https://streamable.com/beif7

[ATC Watcher]

On the video shown by Highway1 you can see that the A321 is stopped half way on the red line so it is not clear of the taxi lane . Normally the A330 crew should have spotted that the path was not clear.
Someone knows if IST apron is controlled or is operated by ramp agents ( like in FRA for instance)?
If this is the case the 2 aircraft were probably on different frequencies from different locations.

[ASRAAMTOO]

Without commenting too much on this particular accident I cant say I am very surprised that it happened in Istanbul. The taxiways and aprons there are in theory controlled by ATC but the number of ground movements seems to have expanded way beyond their ability to manage with the apparent resources. Add in the blue and orange lines on the taxiways and the additional parking slots that have been constructed and it gets quite chaotic. Its also a place where vehicles seem to run amok and at speed around the aprons.

[Romasik]

The practice of half entering the gate when it is still switched off is a mistake and a violation.
In some places its written in the airport plates.
With that im not blaming turkish at all, i havent any clue of the situation.
But I can blame Asiana for sure.
Unless the turkish moved backwards, which I doubt, the Asiana had to WATCH where they are going.
Period.

Could you expand your statement. Violation of what? I don’t remember anything written about this in Istanbul terminal charts.

[Maisk Rotum]

Having flown for both major carriers in Korea for a substantial time I can say that the " clear left/right " should just be a recording every time the aircraft senses a lateral acceleration and not a human callout.

They are too busy heads down looking at the ND giving verbalized readouts of your groundspeed as you taxi.

No-one looks out the window when you taxi.

This ridiculous scenario was borne out of the 'leaders' desire to fix a spate of docking/parking/rolling incidents. The solution? Invent yet another policy and "standard callout" .

Don't believe me? Here is what it sounds like;
PM; "Appoaching gater ...31, righter turn, grounder speeder ..9. A330, speeder 7... 6.. 5.. 4...4...3...2...2
..2.1. Approaching stoper. Steer lefter. Speeder..1. Turn righter. STOPer"

[LEM]

Could you expand your statement. Violation of what? I don’t remember anything written about this in Istanbul terminal charts.


As I said, its written in SOME airport plates.... not in Istanbul, but I'm pretty sure I've read it somewhere....
that we cant leave the taxiway centerline unless visual contact with docking system or maeshall.

Also, as I said, I've mentioned that just because it's interesting and related to this event.
I'm not blaming at all Turkish 'cause Ive got no clues on whar happened there.
But I definitely blame Asiana for keeping taxying with the taxyway not clear! (See the red lines in the video....)

[TPE Flyer]

After closely inspecting the video I can say that this accident occured due to controller error.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.


I haved watched the video 5 times. Can you please explain to me how you come to you emphatic conclusion?
I would say the controller did nothing wrong except give a simple instruction in English that 2 pilots did not comply with.
“....Once clear of the Turkish A321, continue taxiing for.....”
The same instructions pilots get EVERYDAY from controllers.
The common factor in this crash, is one of the Airline’s involved. And I am not talking about the one missing a tail.

[Enos]

In one of the videos, after the fin comes off the 321 it appears there is a fuel leak from the rear of the aircraft, I would assume the APU would be running at this time, unless it’s US.

A friend of mine years ago got hit in a freighter by the high loader not stopping, this knocked him out the seat, hitting his head on the side window.

Any reports of cabin crew injuries, they’d be up and walking around at this stage, interesting if there had been a fire and an evacuation.

[spleener]

After closely inspecting the video I can say that this accident occured due to controller error.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.

Interesting.

I see it this way: AN ATC Clearance to taxi doesn't always ensure that it is clear to taxi. The Captain remains responsible for the safe conduct of flight. That includes taxying.....
Turkish stopped short of the parking bay for some undefined reason, tail still extending beyond the clearance marking [Yes, Istanbul has them]. Not an unusual occurrence. Asiana failed, again for some undefined reason, to see the Turkish aircraft and appreciate its tail infringing the safety marking.
In broad daylight, the Pilot[s] of the Asiana A330 collided with the stationary Turkish A321.

[andrasz]

Asiana failed, again for some undefined reason, to see the Turkish aircraft and appreciate its tail infringing the safety marking.

I would presume that the Asiana crew did not fail to see the 321 (they were probably following it as it turned into the parking bay), but thy certainly failed to appreciate that its tail was still sticking out. No trying to defend anyone but it is rather dificult to sense from the rear when passing a parked aircraft whether its tail is inside or outside the marking painted on the apron several metres below, and with the wingtip not readily visible from the cockpit on a 773 they must have assumed (grave error!) that the 321 continued to the gate, especially if they had a taxi clearance. A rather likely contributing factor was the new apron layout (all taxiways now uni-directional since last summer) which can result in rather rengthy delays to/from some parking positions, having to wait for 5-6 departing aircraft ahead to be pushed back and start up, a very frustrating experience (once we stopped/started with engines running for 45 minutes after landing before we could reach our designated gate...). I can well relate to the sensation of the taxiway finally freeing up ahead...

[AndoniP]

and with the wingtip not readily visible from the cockpit on a 773

A330 you mean. Could any A330-300 drivers confirm you can't see the wingtips from the cockpit?

[andrasz]

A330 you mean?

Erm... yes.
330 should be a bit easier with the winglets, but still some awkward neck twisting.

[EI_DVM]

Wing tips are definitely visible on the A333 and A332 from the cockpit, though you do have to move your head slightly forward when looking but they're very easily seen.

[Ex Douglas Driver]

A330 you mean. Could any A330-300 drivers confirm you can't see the wingtips from the cockpit?

you can see them, just.

[Sailvi767]

You may well be right - I'm no structures engineer, and the inevitable damage to the wingtip of the A330 is not visible in the video.
I simply wonder if the A321's fin-attachment bolts are designed to fail before the rear fuselage is over-stressed - bearing in mind the proximity of the pressure bulkhead. (For example, I think that philosophy does apply in the case of wing-mounted engine pylons.) But the A321 in this accident suffers a lot of sideways movement as the fin is struck.

I doubt any engineer designed the rudder attachment to fail to protect the fuselage. It would be a really bizarre design feature given what happens when the vertical stab fails in flight.

[Sailvi767]

Wing tips are definitely visible on the A333 and A332 from the cockpit, though you do have to move your head slightly forward when looking but they're very easily seen.

As he states, no issue seeing the wingtips. In this case however no need to see the wingtips since the A321 was well over the safety line. Just look outside!

[Sailvi767]

I would presume that the Asiana crew did not fail to see the 321 (they were probably following it as it turned into the parking bay), but thy certainly failed to appreciate that its tail was still sticking out. No trying to defend anyone but it is rather dificult to sense from the rear when passing a parked aircraft whether its tail is inside or outside the marking painted on the apron several metres below, and with the wingtip not readily visible from the cockpit on a 773 they must have assumed (grave error!) that the 321 continued to the gate, especially if they had a taxi clearance. A rather likely contributing factor was the new apron layout (all taxiways now uni-directional since last summer) which can result in rather rengthy delays to/from some parking positions, having to wait for 5-6 departing aircraft ahead to be pushed back and start up, a very frustrating experience (once we stopped/started with engines running for 45 minutes after landing before we could reach our designated gate...). I can well relate to the sensation of the taxiway finally freeing up ahead...

we are not talking a meter or two. It appears the A321 tail was at least 15 maybe 20 meters over the safe line.

[DaveReidUK]

we are not talking a meter or two. It appears the A321 tail was at least 15 maybe 20 meters over the safe line.


That may well be true, but the fracture line on the A321's fin/rudder indicates that it was the A330's winglet that sliced through it (as is also obvious from the video).

It follows that if the A321 had stopped only 5-6 meters farther on then at worse we would have been looking at a damaged rudder, maybe not even that.

All a bit academic now, of course.

[Avenger]

It was my understanding that ATC give taxi clearance and Instructions, and the PIC is responsible for following the instructions without colliding with anything! It matters not where the THY A321 was, the Asiana crew were negligent. If the crew is staring at taxi charts with heads in the cockpit they cannot be observing the outside conditions, if in doubt "Stop" . Whatever you may think of the THY aircraft position, the responsibility for the collision remains firmly with the Asiana Crew.. It is quite normal for aircraft on taxiway G to stop short of the terminal parking waiting for the docking systems etc, doesn't give the right to following aircraft to slice them up! There is a very good reason these Far East carriers have " follow me" cars...

[Lord Farringdon]

The camera isn't moving, it is clearly being filmed with a phone off the CCTV screen hence the phone is moving before the CCTV is played.
Thanks Ben, that clears that up.

[Maxfli]

What ever happened to........clear left, clear on the right skip, guv, Capt, sir?
I’m getting too old for this.

[RAT 5]

When I transitioned from B737 to B757 & B767 I went for a walk round. I assessed where the main wheels were fore/aft and how wide they were from the centreline. I looked how far out the wingtips were. On a normal apron taxiway, how far outside the tarmac were the wingtips. I watched other wide bodies taxying and noted where the nose wheel was relative to the yellow line and where the main wheels were, especially on the corners. It gave me a feel for the size on my new a/c. I was terrified of thwacking a wing tip for off roading the mains. Then a further reassessment from the flight deck as to where the wingtips were over the ground.
In this instance the tail of A321 was well inside a visible danger zone assessed from LHS, whether you could see the wingtip or not. Had the complacency of 'follow the magenta line' been transferred to the Yellow line?

[Capn Bloggs]

Good job, Rat 5. Tomorrow, I'm going to get my effo to stand out the front, in line with each wingtip, to make sure my eyes are still calibrated.

[KikuAsus]

No they don't. That's hydraulics fluid you see. Feed to the rudder flying control actuators.

Is not hydraulic fluid RED in color??

[Highway1]

Is not hydraulic fluid RED in color??

Not on an Airbus is isn't. Red Hyd fluid is mineral based (OM15) - the Hyd fluid used on all large commercial aircraft nowdays is synthetic, usually Skydroll LD-4 which is purple in color.

[PAXboy]

Looking at a liquid under very high pressure
being 'fanned' out into a thin spray
coupled with daylight behind the spray
a low res cctv camera working at a (relatively) low frame rate
that camera at least 75m (guess) from the spray

Means that the spray is going to look clear, unless it was of the darkest possible colour.

[Highway1]

Any hyd fluid spraying out at 3000psi is going to aerosol and therefore look like white smoke so the color of the fuid is pretty irrelevant.

[Callsign Kilo]

Airmanship
What ever happened to........clear left, clear on the right skip, guv, Capt, sir?
I’m getting too old for this

It still happens, however it’s appears to be no longer universal. We don’t have to search too hard for occurrences relating to the likes of Asiana or Korean in order to form an opinion. I’m also aware that it is unfair to tar everyone with the same brush, but there you go. Maybe an honest mistake however the 330 appears to be travelling at some rate for a widebody!

[Chris Scott]

I doubt any engineer designed the rudder attachment to fail to protect the fuselage. It would be a really bizarre design feature given what happens when the vertical stab fails in flight.



Guess you meant the fin attachment? I agree that losing an engine pod in flight is one thing; losing the whole vertical-stabiliser a show-stopper. In which case the damage to the rear fuselage of the A321 is likely to be substantial, and I wonder if the whole fuselage may be compromised.

On the pilots' marginal view of its wingtips from the A333 cockpit: from my experience on large aeroplanes it's very difficult to judge if a wingtip is going to clear an obstruction by looking at it from the cockpit as you taxi towards it. The judgement has to be made from a distance and, if in any doubt, a wing-man consulted. In this case, as I understand it, the probability of collision should have been obvious before taxiing commenced.

[DaveReidUK]

Guess you meant the fin attachment? I agree that losing an engine pod in flight is one thing; losing the whole vertical-stabiliser a show-stopper. In which case the damage to the rear fuselage of the A321 is likely to be substantial, and I wonder if the whole fuselage may be compromised.

I would expect the opposite to be the case. The stump of the fin remained attached to the fuselage when it fractured, in other words the attachment brackets and bolts did what they are designed to do.

I think we'll see that A321 back in service eventually. Time wil tell.

[Highway1]

Guess you meant the fin attachment? I agree that losing an engine pod in flight is one thing; losing the whole vertical-stabiliser a show-stopper. In which case the damage to the rear fuselage of the A321 is likely to be substantial, and I wonder if the whole fuselage may be compromised.



Not sure about that. The fin structure is designed to take aerodynamic loads across the entire surface, not side on impact loads concentrated in a very small area. I would suspect that the attachment fittings on the fuselage will be NDT very closely and measured for distortion and if all OK a new fin fitted, flight test carried out and repeat NDT on the support castings on a schedule agreed with Airbus.

[Ascend Charlie]

You can see the whole aircraft being shoved sideways before the tail comes off. There will be some fuselage damage, ripples in the skin. Side-load problems with the nose wheel strut?

[DaveReidUK]

You can see the whole aircraft being shoved sideways before the tail comes off. There will be some fuselage damage, ripples in the skin.

That depends entirely on how the loads were transmitted through the structure. I don't think it's possible to be definitive about that based on the video alone.

Side-load problems with the nose wheel strut?

Well certainly a couple of new nosewheel tyres ...

[rock-the-boat]

Human fallibility is always one step ahead of the attempts to engineer it out, no pilot wakes up and says "today I am going to knock someone's tail off", a terrible mistake and an unenviable situation that the poor guys find themselves in. While there are many developments that provide real improvements in safety, the rate at which stupidity advances seem higher than what technology and procedure can keep up with and so we paste over the cracks with directives, when in fact the basic tenets of the industry often suffice.
An aircraft that has the right of way shall maintain its speed and heading, but nothing in these rules shall relieve the pilot from the responsibility of taking such action as will best avert a collision
We are so caught up in the concept of chains of events that single acts of incompetence seem impossible and we imagine into existence contributing factors where there are none, other than humans make mistakes. Double the size of aprons, double the number of rules, double onboard anti-collision systems, double ATC surveillance systems, of course, there will be improvements, but also you lull more people into a false sense of security. And of course, you never lose the infinitely beautiful quality of what it is to be human, perhaps very rarely but occasionally to be at the point of an act of terrible stupidity and to not see it coming!

[andrasz]

Human fallibility is always one step ahead of the attempts to engineer it out

R-T-B, a very sensible post, a refreshing outlier amongst the average comments :)
Welcome to the forum!

[Lord Farringdon]

Here's another very similar one. Interesting they seem to be blaming the aircraft at the gate for not properly clearing the taxiway.It seems the taxing crew were aware of the possibility of an overlap and departed the centreline to increase clearance. They still got it wrong!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waqT1m4SWQw

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting they seem to be blaming the aircraft at the gate for not properly clearing the taxiway.

Who are "they" ?