Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to Google the subject, but without any success, sorry....
Anybody else ?
Anybody else ?
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...0_13_chg10.doc
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK taxyways compared to LHR
Mary raised the question :
To clarify, some of this work was the reconstructing of the taxiways to provide Code F (A380) clearances - some areas are still to be done.
A lot of planning is carried out to clearly define work areas and, if necessary, taxiway block closures based on aircraft wingtip clearances/jet blast areas. This ensures that both aircraft and construction workers are safe from each other and I'm unaware of any incidents where the two have met.
Not so long ago, Heathrow was constantly under construction. Builders encroaching on taxiways, big jets edging round tight corners.
How many times did this result in a wingbender, I wonder? and if not a lot, how was it prevented?
How many times did this result in a wingbender, I wonder? and if not a lot, how was it prevented?
A lot of planning is carried out to clearly define work areas and, if necessary, taxiway block closures based on aircraft wingtip clearances/jet blast areas. This ensures that both aircraft and construction workers are safe from each other and I'm unaware of any incidents where the two have met.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Originally Posted by old,not bold
Or, indeed, penetrating the obstruction surface while landings and/or takeoffs are in progress, to be technical. But it's really ATC's job to look after that.
My local airport has operated for decades with buildings which penetrate the 1:7 OCS. Only now is that being addressed, thanks to a new Airport Director [not the SATCO].
Advance
Post #145 correctly states the A380 is an ICAO Cat F aircraft. It is also only 3/4" less than the maximum permitted wingspan for that category.
Does JFK airport meet the ICAO standards for operations of Cat F aircraft?
If not, why does the FAA and the Port Authority permit Cat F operations?
Post #145 correctly states the A380 is an ICAO Cat F aircraft. It is also only 3/4" less than the maximum permitted wingspan for that category.
Does JFK airport meet the ICAO standards for operations of Cat F aircraft?
If not, why does the FAA and the Port Authority permit Cat F operations?
When new aircraft such as the A380 come into service US airports have to look at the airport design standards, within these they cover the relationship between airplane physical characteristics and the design of airport elements. Any variations from the 'standard' requires FAA safety assessments with operational mitigations or restrictions put in place. Just like many other national authorities procedures worldwide. Simples.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And whilst we all remember the travesty of justice that the CDG Concorde blame game was, perhaps this is an opportunity to (a) Teach the french a hard lesson, or (b) Show them how justice is best served?
I like your clarity of thoughts and recommendations 
as it points the way to prevention rather than joining in the "blame game" , well almost, except for the last paragraph
as it points the way to prevention rather than joining in the "blame game" , well almost, except for the last paragraph
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Further up this thread, Huck posted a diagram of the relevant part of the airport.
Looking at this end of the terminal on Google Maps, it looks like all the lettered stands have been more recently grafted on to an existing terminal. Is that correct? Does their proximity to the taxiway and the shape of the area inside the "bowl" increase the likelihood that if something isn't right on the apron, an arriving aircraft will have to hold short at a position where it might not have completely cleared the taxiway?
I can't help wondering whether - if one is looking for holes in the cheese rather than trying to assign fault or cast blame - adding all these gates exactly where they are might not have been such a good idea, if their position increases the risk that an incident like this might occur.
Looking at this end of the terminal on Google Maps, it looks like all the lettered stands have been more recently grafted on to an existing terminal. Is that correct? Does their proximity to the taxiway and the shape of the area inside the "bowl" increase the likelihood that if something isn't right on the apron, an arriving aircraft will have to hold short at a position where it might not have completely cleared the taxiway?
I can't help wondering whether - if one is looking for holes in the cheese rather than trying to assign fault or cast blame - adding all these gates exactly where they are might not have been such a good idea, if their position increases the risk that an incident like this might occur.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it looks like all the lettered stands have been more recently grafted on to an existing terminal. Is that correct?
JFK has seen every era in modern aviation, from piston airliners to the 380. At some point maybe they should have lined up bulldozers side-by-side, scraped the whole thing off into the bay and started over. But they did something else - just made it work as they could.
I remember the TWA terminal with its stunning jetways that could reach over the wings of a 747. Now it is surrounded by A320s....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not knowing how far your wings extend upgrading to a bigger airplane is no excuse for hitting another object. It is like knowing when to flare for landing when going to a bigger airplane. You have to learn your new equipment and fly it properly, and taxi.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow has a quite good chart in the AIP regarding A380 ground ops: AD 2 EGLL 2-1
As far as the lynch mob in here goes.....hang the AF crew and all that....
Sure, captain has the ultimate responisibility for his a/c but:
In the bowls of DOC444 we find:
7.1.1.1 Aerodrome control towers shall issue information and clearances to aircraft under their control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome with the object of preventing
collision(s) between:
........
e) aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area.
I´m sorry, but GND at JFK did not quite achieve that last point there. I know the US is not quite ICAO compliant when it comes to ATC, but there is blame to go around for more than just the AF guys. The fact that JFK might be thight for the A380, and that aircraft not clearing the TWY without telling GND is not a reason to hang the pilot, it´s a reason to ask why JFK allow A380 ops in the first place in that narrow pier area.
As far as the lynch mob in here goes.....hang the AF crew and all that....
Sure, captain has the ultimate responisibility for his a/c but:
In the bowls of DOC444 we find:
7.1.1.1 Aerodrome control towers shall issue information and clearances to aircraft under their control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome with the object of preventing
collision(s) between:
........
e) aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area.
I´m sorry, but GND at JFK did not quite achieve that last point there. I know the US is not quite ICAO compliant when it comes to ATC, but there is blame to go around for more than just the AF guys. The fact that JFK might be thight for the A380, and that aircraft not clearing the TWY without telling GND is not a reason to hang the pilot, it´s a reason to ask why JFK allow A380 ops in the first place in that narrow pier area.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Now at Home
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@m609
...I agree see #239
it's just much too easy always to blame the skipper. the
guys on the ground/tarmac are to blame for this me$$
and it's all about money. money making the American way: take the fees from the big birds, but do not invest one single $ to accommodate them properly
it´s a reason to ask why JFK allow A380 ops in the first place in that narrow pier area.
it's just much too easy always to blame the skipper. the
guys on the ground/tarmac are to blame for this me$$and it's all about money. money making the American way: take the fees from the big birds, but do not invest one single $ to accommodate them properly
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airbus321:
Oh please, give it a rest. I operated the L1011 into all three New York area airports for a few years. Before that the 767 into JFK. Before that the 727 for many, many years. With all three of those aircraft I had to stop plenty of times because wingtip clearance wasn't assured. I had enough common sense to stop when there was any doubt.
ATC is not all seeing, nor all attentive; not in the U.S., not even in Europe.
Part of seasoned, prudent pilot experience is to know that JFK has always been a chaotic place.
and it's all about money. money making the American way: take the fees from the big birds, but do not invest one single $ to accommodate them properly
ATC is not all seeing, nor all attentive; not in the U.S., not even in Europe.
Part of seasoned, prudent pilot experience is to know that JFK has always been a chaotic place.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 at EGCC
Somebody asked about A380 Operations at other airports and whether they meet ICAO requirements. Below is some stuff extracted from the UK AIP for
Manchester / EGCC which has a daily EK A380 service, scheduled to operate around lunchtime so normally in daylight and a not very busy time of day. The AN-124 is an irregular visitor - maybe half a dozen times a year.
You will see that some of the taxiways do not meet the standards (49m - should be 55m) but the mitigation is to provide escorts. The UK CAA will not have authorised these procedures and A380 ops in general at EGCC without a robust safety case being presented by the Airport Authority.
EGCC AD 2.20 — LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
g. Ground Movement Restrictions
iv A380 and AN-124 aircraft will be provided with wing-tip escort vehicles on taxiways northside of Runway 05L/23R.
vi. A380 aircraft - Taxiway routes available are shown on page AD 2-EGCC-2-3, marked in yellow. Reduced taxiway centre-line to object clearance of 49 m applies along Taxiways Alpha and Juliet
Chart here
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2011-01-13.pdf
Also from the UKAIP for Manchester
h. Ground Manoeuvring Restrictions
i. ATC instructions will normally specify the taxi route to be followed. This does not necessarily guarantee clearance from other aircraft,
vehicles and obstructions on the manoeuvring area.
ii. Pilots are reminded of the need to exercise caution on wingtip clearances from other aircraft when manoeuvring in close proximity on the
ground. Particular care should be taken in the runway holding areas and at runway crossing points.
Hope this helps
Manchester / EGCC which has a daily EK A380 service, scheduled to operate around lunchtime so normally in daylight and a not very busy time of day. The AN-124 is an irregular visitor - maybe half a dozen times a year.
You will see that some of the taxiways do not meet the standards (49m - should be 55m) but the mitigation is to provide escorts. The UK CAA will not have authorised these procedures and A380 ops in general at EGCC without a robust safety case being presented by the Airport Authority.
EGCC AD 2.20 — LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
g. Ground Movement Restrictions
iv A380 and AN-124 aircraft will be provided with wing-tip escort vehicles on taxiways northside of Runway 05L/23R.
vi. A380 aircraft - Taxiway routes available are shown on page AD 2-EGCC-2-3, marked in yellow. Reduced taxiway centre-line to object clearance of 49 m applies along Taxiways Alpha and Juliet
Chart here
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2011-01-13.pdf
Also from the UKAIP for Manchester
h. Ground Manoeuvring Restrictions
i. ATC instructions will normally specify the taxi route to be followed. This does not necessarily guarantee clearance from other aircraft,
vehicles and obstructions on the manoeuvring area.
ii. Pilots are reminded of the need to exercise caution on wingtip clearances from other aircraft when manoeuvring in close proximity on the
ground. Particular care should be taken in the runway holding areas and at runway crossing points.
Hope this helps
Psychophysiological entity
Interesting. So Manchester provides the escort - presumably because it wants the revenues and perhaps even the kudos. Just how do they do this without assuming some responsibility?
Perhaps a tablet of stone delivered to the captain. "You taxi at your own risk."
To absolve themselves during high court action, I would imagine the wording would have to be more . . . involved.
I think everything hangs on what the AF skipper was thinking/saying at the moments leading up to the collision. If he was giving the taxiing 100% of his attention, then I think the local system/procedures/staff are failing him to some degree.
Having said this, I have a gut feeling it will be found he was distracted into the office at this crucial time. The view from that seat at my suggested 150M must be, erm, spectacular.
Perhaps a tablet of stone delivered to the captain. "You taxi at your own risk."
To absolve themselves during high court action, I would imagine the wording would have to be more . . . involved.
I think everything hangs on what the AF skipper was thinking/saying at the moments leading up to the collision. If he was giving the taxiing 100% of his attention, then I think the local system/procedures/staff are failing him to some degree.
Having said this, I have a gut feeling it will be found he was distracted into the office at this crucial time. The view from that seat at my suggested 150M must be, erm, spectacular.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responsibility
The argument you guys have going is a cultural one.
Do you want to have freedom which brings with it responsibility? (Screw up and you're in trouble). Or do you want the government to hold your hand and tell you what to do at any given time?
(Take it like a man or run hide behind your mothers skirt when things go wrong?).
The AF Captain screwed up, end of story. I have been in tight spots and stopped to ensure that I have had enough room. I would rather get yelled at for tying up traffic than bending the airplane.
Do you want to have freedom which brings with it responsibility? (Screw up and you're in trouble). Or do you want the government to hold your hand and tell you what to do at any given time?
(Take it like a man or run hide behind your mothers skirt when things go wrong?).
The AF Captain screwed up, end of story. I have been in tight spots and stopped to ensure that I have had enough room. I would rather get yelled at for tying up traffic than bending the airplane.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LR, there is wording in every OPS manual that I've ever read to the effect that:
"Even under marshallers direction, follow me cars, stand guidance etc.. it is still the Captain that is responsible for avoiding collision when moving under own power"
It is, therefore, the captain who is responsible for any collisions which may happen.
Full stop, end of story.
I always taxi at my own risk.
"Even under marshallers direction, follow me cars, stand guidance etc.. it is still the Captain that is responsible for avoiding collision when moving under own power"
It is, therefore, the captain who is responsible for any collisions which may happen.
Full stop, end of story.
I always taxi at my own risk.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Devon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the A380 engine failure thread, it was mentioned that the crew were rushing about looking out of the cabin windows trying to see what had happened, but were unable to, and I asked the question why it would not be possible to mount a camera or two at points where they could see the engines, since CCTV cameras about the size and weight of a fag packet can be obtained for only few pounds.
Would it not also be a good idea to install one looking forward from each wingtip to see any obstructions that might be looming in their path?
Would it not also be a good idea to install one looking forward from each wingtip to see any obstructions that might be looming in their path?
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: OS
Age: 65
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACAS / TCAS for GRD movements is the answer
Unfortunately an Aircraft Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) for ground aircraft (A/C) movements, like TCAS airbourne, could have avioded this accident. It is not possible to see wing tips from many wide bodied A/C.
Also improved taxi cameras could also help avoid this type of accident. These technogies have all been available in modern vechicles for some years.
The system works like this; it's not until a certain amount of accidents occur that authorities mandate the inclusion of technology to avoid future accidents. For example, EGPWS, TCAS and RAAS. It's a reactive world.
It will be the pilots and possibly ATC who will be the fall guys. However one could also argue that A/C Manufactures and Civil Aviation Authorities are severly lacking in proactice practices.
Also improved taxi cameras could also help avoid this type of accident. These technogies have all been available in modern vechicles for some years.
The system works like this; it's not until a certain amount of accidents occur that authorities mandate the inclusion of technology to avoid future accidents. For example, EGPWS, TCAS and RAAS. It's a reactive world.
It will be the pilots and possibly ATC who will be the fall guys. However one could also argue that A/C Manufactures and Civil Aviation Authorities are severly lacking in proactice practices.
Last edited by Capt Groper; 16th Apr 2011 at 18:11.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Way up north
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411 said "Congo line" here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post6365996
I believe you mean the "CONGA line": Conga line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Besides, I've heard that taxying at such airports is worse than complicated approaches...
I believe you mean the "CONGA line": Conga line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Besides, I've heard that taxying at such airports is worse than complicated approaches...
Last edited by Nardi Riviera; 16th Apr 2011 at 18:21.