Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport

Reply

Old 12th Apr 2011, 10:17
  #21 (permalink)  
The Bumblebee
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Inside the shiny tube.
Posts: 327
Forget,

It was a 380 and ComAir CRJ. A friend of mine was sitting two planes down waiting for his push back.

Here are two pics that he took, looks like CRJ's tail is bent and it wont be flying for long time.




DesiPilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 10:28
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
Oh, pictures and videos and all outside BEA Jurisdiction.

Not good for AF.
hetfield is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 10:35
  #23 (permalink)  
The Bumblebee
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Inside the shiny tube.
Posts: 327
?rel=0" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen>
DesiPilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 11:05
  #24 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 62
Posts: 941
I thought that there was a camera on the tail. Guess you can't see the wing tips with it. If not why not?
Exascot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 11:06
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: new york, new york
Age: 73
Posts: 3
Running down the center line not your only job.

My 8 year old mini van has sensors in the rear bumper that audio alert to things getting too close. Perhaps A380 needs such or vid cams in wingtips or maybe Airbus just needs to develop taxi by wire. Running down the center line doesn't give you the right to whack into things standing about. There's flying and then there's driving.
orbit22 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 11:20
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Looking at the vid, the first sequence is definately real-time, the second is slow-mo, so in my humble opinion, the AF is motoring way above a safe night time confined space taxi-speed.

So, the AF PIC is at fault for taxing at a higher than normal speed in a confined ramp area, but, the Comair PIC must hold some responsibility for not calling "not on stand" or "not yet parked" to ATC. Surely in a confined area such as JFK ramps, when you know someone is going behind you (possibly knowing the AF was holding down the taxiway) you have a duty of care to other traffic and ATC, to inform them your butt is sticking out on the taxiway.

Scary event for the CM pax and crew.
udachi moya is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 11:31
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Enroute to sand.
Posts: 202
Clipped the A380 crashed into that thing!!Smashed into it! To all those discussing speed in video, use your brains please. Look at the distance the CRJ was spun around! If your Cpt of the worlds biggest airliner you should know better, you should expect aircraft may not be parked correct and know you are its only threat!
That CRJ a write-off?? pretty severage damage to tail-plane and its rootings.
irishpilot1990 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 11:51
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,067
Regarding the CRJs tail strength - compare what happened here - the tail stayed on and the aircraft span - with what happened during the ground collision a few years ago between a Thai 747 and AF EMB-145 (IIRC) the 747 took similar damage to the AB here, but the entire EMB empannage was taken off! Either the CRJ tail is over designed or the EMB under designed? (Or the impacts were different, but that's a boring conclusion)
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 12:08
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 25
To all putnuckers: The video has been clearly sped up, also seen by the A380 stopping in less than a quarter of it's length.

Blame the Air France! Nice to play the blame game already after a few amateurs have seen a an unclear video in a different format on You Tube.

What about the CRJ infringing taxiway A? That's a blame.
what about JFK's infamous ground and ramp control with bored and fast speaking ground controllers. blame.
What about ground support or the lack of it, 'don't know, don't care attitude'.

An accident is never caused by one person alone.
tatin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 13:01
  #30 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,315
Ouch.........

I think the video may be sped up but only very slightly - look at the speed the truck is driving away at the very start. When you look at the SloMo - that's the speed I would expect the A380 to be taxi-ing at in realtime, so IMHO he was going a bit too fast - the FDR will reveal all.

I suspect the CRJ was waiting for either the stand to clear (truck?) or guidance/marshaller and hence held short. In my company we are FORBIDDEN to enter stand without guidance or a marshaller - and we tell ATC we are holding short. The apron looks pretty well lit ......

The earlier comment about reporting on stand is only really applicable in LVP's or if requested by ATC (i.e. if you've told them you're holding short) it is not a routine requirement for everyday operations.

Thankfully, no-one seriously hurt (amazingly) but not looking good for the AF PIC

A4
A4 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 13:13
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: downunda
Age: 71
Posts: 104
@ tatin

what about JFK's infamous ground and ramp control with bored and fast speaking ground controllers. blame.
Err, no, Listening to the ATC the controller sounds very _Polish_ to me.

He cleared AF for taxiway A but did alert him to look out for other traffic, and to hold short at ....

Applying blame here I would say 50% AF PIC, 50% ATC.

All in all, this should NOT have happened.

FN.
flynerd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 13:16
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 395
The AF A380 could not have been taxying at the speed shown in the incident video.

Take a look at the video in Post #34 at about 7 seconds, and you can see both aircraft are in fairly close proximity to each other. Had the A380 been taxying as fast as the video suggests it would have travelled another 100 metres before coming to a complete stop.
Ovation is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 13:26
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium
Age: 38
Posts: 60
I think the video may be sped up but only very slightly - look at the speed the truck is driving away at the very start
Just look at the guy in the high-vis vest. A human's walking is much more accurate to judge than the speed a car might be going.
Looking at him the video is around double realtime speed.
JCviggen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 13:26
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Anyone with time on their hands? An A380 is 238 feet long. Take a look at the video clock. Now time how long it takes from radome to tail cone passing any reference point. Chinagraph on your screen will do. I'd guess you'll come up with something well over 20 Knots/23 MPH if you prefer. No one in their right mind, JFK at night, would taxi an A380 at that speed - and nor did they.
forget is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 13:26
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,676
Daysleeper,

And that folks is why you should keep your seatbelt on until the aircraft is parked at the gate!
Whilst it's obviously imperative to agree with your statement, it should be noted that the simple lap belts given to self loading freight are also equally capable of doing more harm than good.

A quote from a Swedish researcher in 1961 :
"does not comply with minimum performance requirements because it does not maintain the occupant in an upright position, does not protect the head and thorax, and does not hold the vital parts of the body together within the car during an accident - so it has not been considered a safety belt in Sweden."
So not disagreeing with your statement (as obviously the chances of PAX being given anything other than a lap belt is distinctly remote) ..... just saying it's worth remembering their limitations, that's all.
mixture is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 13:40
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 503
Edit: Removed question about exterior ights of he RJ, now clearly visible in the video.

Last edited by golfyankeesierra; 12th Apr 2011 at 19:12.
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 13:48
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 512
Regarding the speed of the video... I think the majority here are wrong.

The anti-collision lights on the CRJ (upper and lower fuselage) are Goodrich 2LA 002 760-70 with 8ES 002 769-03 power supply. This has a flash rate of 45 fpm (alternating top bottom, so each lamp is effectively 22.5 fpm).

The first flash I clearly see on the top occurs at 0.05 secs, the second top flash at 0.08, or roughly 20 fpm... given the inaccuracy of the timing (lack of precision), that puts it very close to the stated 22.5 fpm for each beacon.

I think you will find this is real time.
GarageYears is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 14:03
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hongkong
Posts: 178
Your fault

From my first day as a student pilot I remember my instructor telling me that 'there's no excuse for a taxying accident'.

Either you weren't looking where you were going, were going too fast, should've stopped and got a wingwalker etc, etc.

You can't blame ATC, he wasn't driving. You can't blame CJ he wasn't moving. Man in the driving seat (literally) was AF PIC, and he ran into someone else. Too dark, too rainy, taxyway too narrow, can't see the signage, too much other traffic. Then stop and complain-at least it keeps your pension and no claims bonus intact.

40 years on and those harsh rules still apply

I rest my case.
Sygyzy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 14:04
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 899
Speed Sensing

This talk of taxi speed reminds me of the new Capt getting qualified on the DC-10. It was after landing, approaching a 150 degree turn onto a taxiway. The IP said, "You better slow down. The nav shows our groundspeed at 30 knots."

"Ooh, it seems like 5 knots from so high up."

Makes you wonder.
Graybeard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2011, 14:25
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 41
Posts: 11
Seems to me that the CRJ was waiting for a marshaller, in fact the person walking out may be him. So why then was the CRJ presumed to be clear of the TWY? Can the controller in charge of that patch see? Did the CRJ report he was waiting? Was any kind of local traffic passed? So many questions!

In my patch there are a few unsighted areas of the terminal area. And pilots often do fail to mention they're just sitting off the gate waiting. Hopefully a positive, in the form of tightened procedures, will come out of this.
Jimmah is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Show Printable Version
Email this Page
Add a Poll to this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service