Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice first post, Pit Cock.
The RJ captain was certainly not planning to sit there long - he was blocking the road, and that road is busy. Maybe he was concerned about HIS wingtip proximity to something on the ramp and was waiting for the marshaller we see approaching in the foreground.
The RJ captain was certainly not planning to sit there long - he was blocking the road, and that road is busy. Maybe he was concerned about HIS wingtip proximity to something on the ramp and was waiting for the marshaller we see approaching in the foreground.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all those assisning "blame already: who is to blame if ATC sends 2 aircraft too wide for each other down opposite taxiways?
1) PIC of aircraft one for not keeping track of his wingtips.
2) PIC of aircraft two for not keeping track of his wingtips.
3) ATC for not assigning appropriate taxiways.
The point is that you can find multiple causes of each accident, it's not solely the AF crews fault, it's not solely the Comair crews faul, it's not solely ATC etc. etc. It's a combination.
This isn't the first time a plane taxiing out hit the tail of another plane. Just the first time it got caught on tape really, really well. Speed was not an issue, and usually never is, unlike some people would like you to think. What was an issue was the failure of the Comair crew to clear a taxiway when entering the ramp holding area and the AF captain to keep track of where his wingtips were. I've read some incredible nonsense here the last few days of people talking about hiring special personell to taxi aircraft in, collision monitoring and so on. The reality is that given enough opportunity Murphy will prevail and make the best laid plans (complete with every so called safety system in place) fall apart. I've had to park myself plenty of times without ramp crews available and/or missing. The fact that Comair appears to have a policy of restraining flight crews and handcuffing them to nonsense like this hold on arrival while waiting for ramp personell is absolutley crazy to me.
1) PIC of aircraft one for not keeping track of his wingtips.
2) PIC of aircraft two for not keeping track of his wingtips.
3) ATC for not assigning appropriate taxiways.
The point is that you can find multiple causes of each accident, it's not solely the AF crews fault, it's not solely the Comair crews faul, it's not solely ATC etc. etc. It's a combination.
This isn't the first time a plane taxiing out hit the tail of another plane. Just the first time it got caught on tape really, really well. Speed was not an issue, and usually never is, unlike some people would like you to think. What was an issue was the failure of the Comair crew to clear a taxiway when entering the ramp holding area and the AF captain to keep track of where his wingtips were. I've read some incredible nonsense here the last few days of people talking about hiring special personell to taxi aircraft in, collision monitoring and so on. The reality is that given enough opportunity Murphy will prevail and make the best laid plans (complete with every so called safety system in place) fall apart. I've had to park myself plenty of times without ramp crews available and/or missing. The fact that Comair appears to have a policy of restraining flight crews and handcuffing them to nonsense like this hold on arrival while waiting for ramp personell is absolutley crazy to me.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for goodness sakes, what a lot of drivel!!
If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions. Before the A380 was cleared to fly into JFK, the Port Authority would have done its research into wingtip clearance and what was required for the safe operation of the aircraft.
The AF crew got clearance to taxy and they did...the CRJ was NOT at its stand and was holding short of it, at a spot that obviously was not clear to the controller and not visible enough for the AF pilot (who would have been safely assuming the CRJ would be holding with enough clearance).
This is a lesson for the JFK airport operator as well as ATC and new regulations will come out regarding ramp operations.
A couple of years back, a 747 clipped the tail of a 767 at YMML..since then, there has finally been proper documentation of aircraft type to hold at the particular taxiway.
If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions. Before the A380 was cleared to fly into JFK, the Port Authority would have done its research into wingtip clearance and what was required for the safe operation of the aircraft.
The AF crew got clearance to taxy and they did...the CRJ was NOT at its stand and was holding short of it, at a spot that obviously was not clear to the controller and not visible enough for the AF pilot (who would have been safely assuming the CRJ would be holding with enough clearance).
This is a lesson for the JFK airport operator as well as ATC and new regulations will come out regarding ramp operations.
A couple of years back, a 747 clipped the tail of a 767 at YMML..since then, there has finally been proper documentation of aircraft type to hold at the particular taxiway.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aviatorhi
I am with you on your post. Plus, add the fact the airport authority asked for a variance (let's not make it wider) on taxiway width and received the same.
I am with you on your post. Plus, add the fact the airport authority asked for a variance (let's not make it wider) on taxiway width and received the same.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed was not an issue, and usually never is, unlike some people would like you to think.
In fact, if that video really is anywhere near true speed, then:
a) there's almost certainly hidden inertial damage to the CRJ airframe
b) there's almost certainly a few on board with pulled muscles in neck or back, at the least
That was a good few degrees/second... oldies onboard could have suffered, and a strike elsewhere could have produced a fire.
Not something to minimise, quite enough danger when airborne
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willoz269:
You must not be either a pilot or a controller.
If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must not be either a pilot or a controller.
Note that the Comair did not completely pull in due to ground crew issues...
(if I was driving a 380...I would be going like 5km, just because I know that nothing is set up for me)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France will be holding a criminal trial in French court about this matter. They are charging JFK ground controllers, the CRJ crew, JFK ground crew and the designers of JFK airport with criminal negligence.
Psychophysiological entity
I'm starting to have second thoughts about this. Just wondering what a civil court might think about the case.
Someone might suggest that any airport that accepts an aircraft as different as the 380, should raise their standards, much to the same extent they raise the fees. Their expertise perhaps should encompass some awareness of the captain's difficulties in getting the aircraft safely to the end of the runway.
I don't know, but I wonder if the airport authority can absolve themselves of all responsibility.
Someone might suggest that any airport that accepts an aircraft as different as the 380, should raise their standards, much to the same extent they raise the fees. Their expertise perhaps should encompass some awareness of the captain's difficulties in getting the aircraft safely to the end of the runway.
I don't know, but I wonder if the airport authority can absolve themselves of all responsibility.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willoz269:
Quote: If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions
I disagree. You can give a taxi clearance from the apron to the runway which can be a very, very long way at some airports (kilometres). It is not an assertion to the Captain that the taxiway to the runway is clear of obstructions and it does not imply that the situation will not change throughout his taxi to the runway either. It does not remove the Captains responsibility to exercise the appropriate judgement or care. This is why he's getting 350K a year (well, that's what some are getting to operate these beasts).
If a controller tells him to taxi into a ditch or into a hangar, will he do it unreservedly? No. Regardless of what the conditions etc were, he's responsible for not running it into anything - it's his jet.
Quote: If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions
I disagree. You can give a taxi clearance from the apron to the runway which can be a very, very long way at some airports (kilometres). It is not an assertion to the Captain that the taxiway to the runway is clear of obstructions and it does not imply that the situation will not change throughout his taxi to the runway either. It does not remove the Captains responsibility to exercise the appropriate judgement or care. This is why he's getting 350K a year (well, that's what some are getting to operate these beasts).
If a controller tells him to taxi into a ditch or into a hangar, will he do it unreservedly? No. Regardless of what the conditions etc were, he's responsible for not running it into anything - it's his jet.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: AUH
Age: 54
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't KJFK require aircrafts which are not or could not fully docked in to report to ground control of their status? For e.g at KLAX at gate 101 at TBIT, pilots are required to report that they are fully gated in on the ground frquency.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snail Dave...
I agree partially...obstructions is a broad term...I should have specified fixed obstructions....which in this case, the lack of clearance to the beginning of the ramp would be.
I just cannot believe all the garbage about the taxy speed of the A380 being a factor...if an aircraft is certified for operations on a particular runway or taxiway, it is the airport operator's duty to ensure the operators are aware of the necessary margins....if the Comair operator had been advised that stopping where they did would encrouch on the wing clearance for the Super weight class, I am sure they would have done something else...as it is, and with every accident, you cannot put 100% blame anywhere.
I see the NY Airport operator with the biggest responsibility here, ATC procedures second , Comair third and Air France last.
As for my experience...ATC and Pilot for many years...now retired.
I agree partially...obstructions is a broad term...I should have specified fixed obstructions....which in this case, the lack of clearance to the beginning of the ramp would be.
I just cannot believe all the garbage about the taxy speed of the A380 being a factor...if an aircraft is certified for operations on a particular runway or taxiway, it is the airport operator's duty to ensure the operators are aware of the necessary margins....if the Comair operator had been advised that stopping where they did would encrouch on the wing clearance for the Super weight class, I am sure they would have done something else...as it is, and with every accident, you cannot put 100% blame anywhere.
I see the NY Airport operator with the biggest responsibility here, ATC procedures second , Comair third and Air France last.
As for my experience...ATC and Pilot for many years...now retired.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aviatorhi wrote:
Willoz269 wrote:
The Comair CL-600 had apparently stopped to avoid hitting a ground vehicle in front of it. I'm not sure how that can be described as a "failure to clear a taxiway." If you were exiting a taxiway and something stopped in front of you, wouldn't you stop as well to avoid hitting their tail? I don't think maneuvering left or right was an option in this case. If you are hit while stopped, it is pretty difficult to blame you, IMHO.
What was an issue was the failure of the Comair crew to clear a taxiway when entering the ramp holding area and the AF captain to keep track of where his wingtips were.
I see the NY Airport operator with the biggest responsibility here, ATC procedures second , Comair third and Air France last.
Last edited by Feathered; 14th Apr 2011 at 02:53.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEMORIZE THAT SPOT mark it with a grease pencil or use an identifiable part of a window frame whatever. Look ahead and to the left at the cone placed ahead of the aircraft. Where does that cone appear on your glareshield??? You now KNOW where your left wingtip is going to be in the future when the aircraft moves straight ahead.
It seems to me that this may identify a position in the ground where the wing tip would pass over, but it would also require the pilot to estimate the relative position of the tail of the other jet compared to an imaginary line extending from that point upward.
Perhaps it's a lot simpler than I imagine (I'm imagining that you're still seeing this from an angle, and that night/wet isn't going to improve things).
I'll shut up now.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions.
Last edited by KKoran; 14th Apr 2011 at 03:55.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
post 193 -
Excuse the SLF question, but could someone explain how that would apply in this case.
It seems to me that this may identify a position in the ground where the wing tip would pass over, but it would also require the pilot to estimate the relative position of the tail of the other jet compared to an imaginary line extending from that point upward.
Perhaps it's a lot simpler than I imagine (I'm imagining that you're still seeing this from an angle, and that night/wet isn't going to improve things).
I'll shut up now.
*******************
Steve,
Passing your wingtip over an object is not a good idea unless you know for a fact that it will clear the object. Obviously that is not the case in this incident.
When you use this technique you'll know, while sitting in the Captain's seat, where your wingtip will be. Imagine putting a grease pencil line parallel to the ground where your wingtip will extend. As you approach an object it will be above, or below, the grease mark as you view it. If it's above the line it's outside of your wingspan. If it's below the line it's inside of your wingspan.
Approaching the CRJ tail it would have appeared below, or at least near, any 'mark' the pilot would use as a guideline. When an object is abeam the pilot it will not be in contact with the wingtip.
Another factor that helps using this technique is the side window is not that close to you as compared to an automobile. So any head movement doesn't not move your imaginary wingtip in or out as much as it would if the side window was very close.
You can demonstrate this by sitting upright, or slouching, with your hand near your face or with your arm fully extended, and comparing it against a fixed object in the distance. The closer your hand is to you the more vertical movement it appears to have when you shift your eye height.
Excuse the SLF question, but could someone explain how that would apply in this case.
It seems to me that this may identify a position in the ground where the wing tip would pass over, but it would also require the pilot to estimate the relative position of the tail of the other jet compared to an imaginary line extending from that point upward.
Perhaps it's a lot simpler than I imagine (I'm imagining that you're still seeing this from an angle, and that night/wet isn't going to improve things).
I'll shut up now.
*******************
Steve,
Passing your wingtip over an object is not a good idea unless you know for a fact that it will clear the object. Obviously that is not the case in this incident.
When you use this technique you'll know, while sitting in the Captain's seat, where your wingtip will be. Imagine putting a grease pencil line parallel to the ground where your wingtip will extend. As you approach an object it will be above, or below, the grease mark as you view it. If it's above the line it's outside of your wingspan. If it's below the line it's inside of your wingspan.
Approaching the CRJ tail it would have appeared below, or at least near, any 'mark' the pilot would use as a guideline. When an object is abeam the pilot it will not be in contact with the wingtip.
Another factor that helps using this technique is the side window is not that close to you as compared to an automobile. So any head movement doesn't not move your imaginary wingtip in or out as much as it would if the side window was very close.
You can demonstrate this by sitting upright, or slouching, with your hand near your face or with your arm fully extended, and comparing it against a fixed object in the distance. The closer your hand is to you the more vertical movement it appears to have when you shift your eye height.
Last edited by misd-agin; 14th Apr 2011 at 04:11. Reason: added text
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEA
Age: 45
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4.) Who performed the A380 repairs? Would AF have a local carrier do it (e.g. Delta) who has no experience with A380 or would they fly in their own maintenance on one of their four other daily flights?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Comair CL-600 had apparently stopped to avoid hitting a ground vehicle in front of it. I'm not sure how that can be described as a "failure to clear a taxiway." If you were exiting a taxiway and something stopped in front of you, wouldn't you stop as well to avoid hitting their tail? I don't think maneuvering left or right was an option in this case. If you are hit while stopped, it is pretty difficult to blame you, IMHO.
"Kennedy Ground, Comair 123, we're unable to enter the ramp at this time, ground vehicle blocking our way" (or some variation thereof).
If it was due to lack of ground personell I'd probably just park myself. Not sure of Kennedy's policy but around here it's no big deal (
happens). If Kennedy doesn't allow an aircraft to park itself I'd get as far in as I can to be sure that I'm clear of the ground controller's area of responsibility.Furthermore, I didn't assign blame to anybody but made the point that anytime something like this happens it is a combination of things going on. For all we know the driver of the ground vehicle wasn't paying attention to the roadway because he was busy talking with his girlfriend on the phone (I AM NOT SAYING HE WAS, JUST PROVIDING AN EXMAPLE). Little would he think that answering a call from her would start a chain reaction that leads to several million dollars of damage. Situational awareness is key and the absolute most important thing in aviation. Flying and operating by the book will get you nowhere if you don't know where you are and what you're doing. We can argue semantics about procedures all day and all night, but the reality of the situation is AF did not keep appropriate track of his footprint (where his wingtips were), COMAIR encountered something out of the ordinary and it doesn't appear that flight did everything it could have to alert those in its immediate vicinity.
I most often see a similar thing happen with 747 drivers, who happily move the forward part of the aircraft off the runway and stop to wait for directions with their tail sticking out onto the runway as I'm on final, hasn't actually caused any incursions or occurences since they move forward in time. But it does show a clear lack of knowing what the position of their aircraft is.