Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more observations; Not until post #67 does anyone talk any sense at all, then to post #97 and 98 for a bit more sense.
If the RJ was stationary, as in parked, then the speed of AF is totally irrelevant. Speed would only be relevant if AF had been cleared to taxi subject to the RJ being clear.
AF and the RJ would have been on different frequencies, AF on ground and the RJ on the frequency of the company controlling that part of that terminal area, that is the American way. The controller talking to AF would not have known the actual position of the RJ, as far as he was concerned it was on stand.
It is common practice to park two aircraft on one stand, side by side, if they are small enough, which may be why the RJ shows to be to one side of the centre line for the stand. If the RJ had stopped short of the stand stop point it is his duty to advise this to GMC as he may be an obstruction to taxing traffic.
If the AF has been cleared to taxi along taxi way A then it is not an unreasonable assumption that the taxiway is clear of parked aircraft.
Posters such as Sevenstrokeroll and Nitpicker330 may not get the blood they are baying for.
If the RJ was stationary, as in parked, then the speed of AF is totally irrelevant. Speed would only be relevant if AF had been cleared to taxi subject to the RJ being clear.
AF and the RJ would have been on different frequencies, AF on ground and the RJ on the frequency of the company controlling that part of that terminal area, that is the American way. The controller talking to AF would not have known the actual position of the RJ, as far as he was concerned it was on stand.
It is common practice to park two aircraft on one stand, side by side, if they are small enough, which may be why the RJ shows to be to one side of the centre line for the stand. If the RJ had stopped short of the stand stop point it is his duty to advise this to GMC as he may be an obstruction to taxing traffic.
If the AF has been cleared to taxi along taxi way A then it is not an unreasonable assumption that the taxiway is clear of parked aircraft.
Posters such as Sevenstrokeroll and Nitpicker330 may not get the blood they are baying for.
French Cheese
However the blame is finally apportioned for this incident, AF does seem to have had a lot of 'holes in their Cheese' over the last few years. There must be some level of cultural problem in Training / Management.
Seem to remember that when the B767 clipped the B735 at MAN some years ago, there was inferred criticism (by the AAIB) of the B767 Captain on the grounds that, as posted above, the ANO confers responsibility for an aircraft on the commander.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bristol
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoppy906....... Yeah all good but read the top right paragraph of page 7 again please.
"when taxiing responsibility for avoiding other aircraft lies with the flight crew of an Aircraft"
"when taxiing responsibility for avoiding other aircraft lies with the flight crew of an Aircraft"
Instead, there will be a body of people who are more interested in discovering and learning from all the mistakes in this incident and trying to prevent future accidents. They are the same people, who over the years have developed the safety of air transport to it's current level.
Not one of these people will say: "The pilot is to blame. End of story". Not one of them will compare taxying an A380 to driving a car!
Thank goodness.
It seems to me, that if you want to prevent ground collisions, then you cannot rely on a single person, sitting up front, with limited visibility to do it on his own. He's human, he's under pressure, and he's fallible. He always will be fallible. And so will you. And so will I.
If you read the report I linked to, which relates to an incident at Heathrow, you'll see that they operate a "block" system similar to the way railways protect sections of line. However, unlike, railways, there is no guaranteed protection at the rear.
Why not?
There is so much scope here for a solution. Aircraft know their position in space, and indeed they have the ability to transmit it - Mode S for example. Given that Mode S is used in ACAS, it shouldn't really be that much more of a step forward to implement something that would work on the ground too.
It'll happen eventually. I'm sure.
Then we won't be able to shout "It's your fault" at the PIC so often.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Agde
Age: 75
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, Parabellum, Comair563 does call pretty quickly on the ground frequency and says "send the trucks, they have just hit us". Good job they weren't in a non-American speaking country, nobody would have known what the trucks are!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Unsure
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few points:
1. I don't think comparisons to road accidents have any relevance here, the people, procedures, equipment and environment are all totally different.
2. A lot of posts mention holes in the Swiss cheese, but there seem to be relatively few holes needed to line up to cause this accident: the AF crew didn't realise the proximity of the CRJ; the controller wasn't aware of the CRJ's position - anything else?
I guess the granularity of these can be broken down but I think that in the most part it would point to a lack of equipment on the A380 and on the ground. Oh, and the lack of a healthy paranoia of unseen 'threats' when taxiing at a busy airport at night.
3. Should the A-SMGCS / ASDE-X have helped to avoid this? I understand the resolution may not be high enough to show a possible conflict, but it should show that the CRJ was not parked on the stand?
ITI
1. I don't think comparisons to road accidents have any relevance here, the people, procedures, equipment and environment are all totally different.
2. A lot of posts mention holes in the Swiss cheese, but there seem to be relatively few holes needed to line up to cause this accident: the AF crew didn't realise the proximity of the CRJ; the controller wasn't aware of the CRJ's position - anything else?
I guess the granularity of these can be broken down but I think that in the most part it would point to a lack of equipment on the A380 and on the ground. Oh, and the lack of a healthy paranoia of unseen 'threats' when taxiing at a busy airport at night.
3. Should the A-SMGCS / ASDE-X have helped to avoid this? I understand the resolution may not be high enough to show a possible conflict, but it should show that the CRJ was not parked on the stand?
ITI
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CFE
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK airport was not designed for the A380 
and they had to make quite a few adjustments to make it fit.
There are a bunch of restrictions for circulating the A380 around. Apparently, the plane was using the proper taxiway.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering ... 080723.pdf
and they had to make quite a few adjustments to make it fit.There are a bunch of restrictions for circulating the A380 around. Apparently, the plane was using the proper taxiway.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering ... 080723.pdf
Last edited by valvanuz; 13th Apr 2011 at 13:12.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA/Gulf
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CODE F aircraft
Folks,
Not putting the blame on either party. Let the investigation board do that.
The A-380 is an ICAO Annex Code F aircraft. There are only few aircraft that fit that classification.... The A-380, B-747-8, C-5 and the Antonov AN-124- and AN-225 and the Spruce Goose.
When we Taxi on Non code F Taxiways we have restrictions and limitation to what other aircraft or vehichles can be on adjacent/parallel surfaces (Runways, Taxiways Gates and Ramp Areas)
In the case of JFK, Taxiways Alpha and Bravo certainly have limitations due to their close nature.
To be more precise, documentation says when a Code F aircraft is on Alpha, then Bravo is restricted to Code E or smaller. Code E= wing span of 170' to 213'. That will cover everything from a 787 and an A-330 to a B-747-400. and visa versa when a code F is on Bravo, then A is restricted to E.
These conditions and limitations are documented in the Jepp taxi charts or what ever other publication is used onboard.
In general there is no documentation stating any limitation between any taxiway and any ramp area in JFK. Certainly NO limitation between A and the Delta regional aircraft ramp.
With those 2 bits of info, it may not been thought as any reason of concern by the AF crew, since there was nothing bigger than a Code E on Bravo to worry about and there was no documented limitation as Far as Taxiway A and the ramp are concerned.
On another note, it is impossible to see the wing tips from either pilot seats on the 380's flight deck. I always wondered why Airbus did not use a wide lens to enable the Tail Cam to show the wing tips.
There is no replacement to vigilance.
The good thing is that no one got seriously hurt. Metal can always be fixed or replaced... but not people.
Not putting the blame on either party. Let the investigation board do that.
The A-380 is an ICAO Annex Code F aircraft. There are only few aircraft that fit that classification.... The A-380, B-747-8, C-5 and the Antonov AN-124- and AN-225 and the Spruce Goose.
When we Taxi on Non code F Taxiways we have restrictions and limitation to what other aircraft or vehichles can be on adjacent/parallel surfaces (Runways, Taxiways Gates and Ramp Areas)
In the case of JFK, Taxiways Alpha and Bravo certainly have limitations due to their close nature.
To be more precise, documentation says when a Code F aircraft is on Alpha, then Bravo is restricted to Code E or smaller. Code E= wing span of 170' to 213'. That will cover everything from a 787 and an A-330 to a B-747-400. and visa versa when a code F is on Bravo, then A is restricted to E.
These conditions and limitations are documented in the Jepp taxi charts or what ever other publication is used onboard.
In general there is no documentation stating any limitation between any taxiway and any ramp area in JFK. Certainly NO limitation between A and the Delta regional aircraft ramp.
With those 2 bits of info, it may not been thought as any reason of concern by the AF crew, since there was nothing bigger than a Code E on Bravo to worry about and there was no documented limitation as Far as Taxiway A and the ramp are concerned.
On another note, it is impossible to see the wing tips from either pilot seats on the 380's flight deck. I always wondered why Airbus did not use a wide lens to enable the Tail Cam to show the wing tips.
There is no replacement to vigilance.
The good thing is that no one got seriously hurt. Metal can always be fixed or replaced... but not people.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points--
1.) The CRJ was very lucky in one respect, that the collision occurred while taxiing inbound and not out. The flight attendants were all likely seated with their belts on which likely prevented some serious injuries. During taxi out, flight attendants are typically standing and moving about around the cabin until just prior to entering the active runway. A collision then would have been much more serious to anyone standing.
2.) I'm going to guess that nobody on the CRJ was holding an infant on their lap.
3.) The accident A380 was released for flight and flew home to CDG/LFPG last night, 24 hrs after the incident. That seems awfully quick for an NTSB investigation involving substantial damage by an air carrier. Was there a rush to get the paint marks and investigation complete, as well as the airframe repairs? I'm sure another day's delay for the plane would lead to even more passenger disruptions and economic loss for AF.
1.) The CRJ was very lucky in one respect, that the collision occurred while taxiing inbound and not out. The flight attendants were all likely seated with their belts on which likely prevented some serious injuries. During taxi out, flight attendants are typically standing and moving about around the cabin until just prior to entering the active runway. A collision then would have been much more serious to anyone standing.
2.) I'm going to guess that nobody on the CRJ was holding an infant on their lap.
3.) The accident A380 was released for flight and flew home to CDG/LFPG last night, 24 hrs after the incident. That seems awfully quick for an NTSB investigation involving substantial damage by an air carrier. Was there a rush to get the paint marks and investigation complete, as well as the airframe repairs? I'm sure another day's delay for the plane would lead to even more passenger disruptions and economic loss for AF.
Last edited by Feathered; 15th Apr 2011 at 02:11.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Agde
Age: 75
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valvanuz - what a great document, really shows the thought that went into the planning for the A380 ops at JFK.
Interesting to see that taxi speeds are limited to 15mph (approx 13 knots).
Interesting to see that taxi speeds are limited to 15mph (approx 13 knots).
@parabellum
With respect, those who have posted criticism of the AF crew and laid responsibility for the incident at their flight deck door, have an unassailable legal point. There may be contributory factors - or holes in the proverbial swiss cheese - that can be filled following an investigation. That much is not in dispute.
It is completely unreasonable to make any assumptions in the aviation business. The primary reason why have humans on the flight deck, rather than automated taxying, is because sometimes RJs, vehicles, deer, FOD or confused pax don't quite clear the taxyway. No crew can blindly follow instructions from ATC, a marshaller or their own SOPs without looking out the window.
A few more observations; Not until post #67 does anyone talk any sense at all, then to post #97 and 98 for a bit more sense.
If the AF has been cleared to taxi along taxi way A then it is not an unreasonable assumption that the taxiway is clear of parked aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: pa
Age: 66
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody was where they were not supposed to be or the JFK Port Authority just saw their last A380 operation. Bottom line though, the Management of US airlines have become transfixed with outsourcing of jobs and routes to the Replacement Jets (RJ's) and it must stop. JFK is an International airport meant for International airplanes not RJ'S. They will likely find fault with the RJ for not proceeding to his gate or for not completely clearing the taxiway. This will be done because of politics and not facts. Just like Air France blamed a part off a CAL DC-10 caused their ill fated Concorde to crash. They didn't follow their own procedures but in cases like this facts don't matter when deep pockets are involved. Just sayin
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is something that will come out in the NTSB investigation. Until evidence is presented to the contrary, assume the CRJ was not anywhere it was not authorised to be.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Agde
Age: 75
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been reading Valvanuz' document again. Either it is not the latest version or the A380 was going the wrong way around the Central Terminal Area (although he did follow the ATC instructions). According to the document, even departing from Terminal 4 for R/W 22R, they should turn right onto A and completely cirumnavigate (clockwise) the CTA and turn left at E - seems a hellavu a long way round! (OK there is an alternative in this case, the second option is to turn left on A and right on E, but this option is not available for departing from Terminal 1)
Last edited by lambert; 13th Apr 2011 at 14:31. Reason: Second option from terminal 4
Just wondering about the T2 map posted by Huck in post #111 which states "A=Inner perimeter taxi clockwise" (AF was going the opposite way)
Is that something they've changed around at JFK, and would it have required any extra signage?
Is that something they've changed around at JFK, and would it have required any extra signage?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North America
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxi Speed
Lambert, Valvanuz: Also interesting to read the reasoning for the taxiing speed maximum of 15 mph in the A380 JFK Ops Document. "Research from the sites evaluating Boeing 747 taxiway centerline wander rates demonstrated comparable taxiing speeds."
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post #22, 2nd photo. Is that le winglet from the Aircrush embedded in the port side tailplane of the CRJ? 
On another note, at least they are not clipping trees anymore. (Apologies, couldn't resist)
On another note, at least they are not clipping trees anymore. (Apologies, couldn't resist)
In terms of how fast the A380 was taxiing... I'm sure people who filmed the video know exactly how fast it was speeded up, or whether it was in real time speed, or slow-motion.
The other thing is that the A380 seems to come to a complete stop very soon after hitting the other plane, so did notice the incident and were going slow enough to stop in a reasonable distance (given the weight and momentum of such a large plane.)
Neck injuries and whiplash are a concern for passengers in the smaller plane whether or not they hire lawyers. You can't get whipped around like that without some risk of injury, as the seat belts securely fastened wont stop your head and neck from getting rapidly tossed sideways.
This will be my only comment, as I am by no means an expert.
The other thing is that the A380 seems to come to a complete stop very soon after hitting the other plane, so did notice the incident and were going slow enough to stop in a reasonable distance (given the weight and momentum of such a large plane.)
Neck injuries and whiplash are a concern for passengers in the smaller plane whether or not they hire lawyers. You can't get whipped around like that without some risk of injury, as the seat belts securely fastened wont stop your head and neck from getting rapidly tossed sideways.
This will be my only comment, as I am by no means an expert.