Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
robertbartsch wrote:
Apparently less than 24 hours.... Actually less than that because I doubt maintenance was allowed to touch the airplane before the investigators gave the ok.
"It will buff right out..."
....anyone care to speculate on how long it would take to repair the AF wing? I assume this situation is much different from the wing that was damaged from the RR engine failure last year; right?
"It will buff right out..."
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just two points from my observations.
From the overhead pics provided, this '+' intersection has clearance bar lights (3 yellow in pavement hold lights). Accepting that these are normally used for low vis operations, it might be a good idea to use these for A380 movements, ie hold the A380 at intersections until the preceding aircraft has reported, in this case 'on stand' or in another case 'at it's next cleared postion'.
The apron area boundary is marked in this case by a road, on other airports there is often a dark pink or red line which I assume marks the boundary between the declared taxiway width and apron area. The 'see and avoid' principle surely still applies on the ground, if it's hanging out past the line or boundary, stop and get it investigated.
Just my opinion.
From the overhead pics provided, this '+' intersection has clearance bar lights (3 yellow in pavement hold lights). Accepting that these are normally used for low vis operations, it might be a good idea to use these for A380 movements, ie hold the A380 at intersections until the preceding aircraft has reported, in this case 'on stand' or in another case 'at it's next cleared postion'.
The apron area boundary is marked in this case by a road, on other airports there is often a dark pink or red line which I assume marks the boundary between the declared taxiway width and apron area. The 'see and avoid' principle surely still applies on the ground, if it's hanging out past the line or boundary, stop and get it investigated.
Just my opinion.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the A380 captain had seen the potential collision and had come to a stop to avoid it but then somebody had rammed him from behind who would have been at fault then?!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Now at Home
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree with rananim and mountainbear in almost all aspects, but the AF skipper is not to blame - it's all ATC fault - maybe a little too relaxed. Or was the skipper given Taxi clearance on "own discretion" ? - for shure not.
On a good airport with good controllers all my career long we were always advised to stop, or to hold short or.... until the ground traffic was clear. sometimes the controllers were overcautious and also we reported clear from ground traffic they were waiting for info from additional sources. so JFK obviously a "special airport" with "special"
ground controllers...
On a good airport with good controllers all my career long we were always advised to stop, or to hold short or.... until the ground traffic was clear. sometimes the controllers were overcautious and also we reported clear from ground traffic they were waiting for info from additional sources. so JFK obviously a "special airport" with "special"
ground controllers...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Simjock,
Not a bad idea, but don't single out the A380, I think the 747-8 and the An-225 fit into the same category as far as width is concerned.
@A321,
While I'm not part of the lynch mob saying the AF A380 driver is exlusivley at fault, he contributed the most of anybody. It's his responsibility to know where his wingtips are and he failed at that. Failed by as little as 6 inches but failed all the same.
Not a bad idea, but don't single out the A380, I think the 747-8 and the An-225 fit into the same category as far as width is concerned.
@A321,
While I'm not part of the lynch mob saying the AF A380 driver is exlusivley at fault, he contributed the most of anybody. It's his responsibility to know where his wingtips are and he failed at that. Failed by as little as 6 inches but failed all the same.
Ready, Fire, AIM.... FACTS first??
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?
Published procedures are a work-around to mitigate risk from a known safety problem; they do not eliminate risk nor do they reduce risk to that contemplated by the standards internationally agreed.
If JFK does not meet ICAO standards for the type why are operators of Cat F aircraft permitted by their State of Registry to use JFK?
Whilst we are at it, does any runway at JFK meet the ICAO standards for the aircraft? (Or at LHR or CDG or SYD or anyplace else?). If the runways do not meet the standards why would anyone believe the taxiways do? But do they?
Questions about who was moving and who was stopped - and where - and why should all be covered in the investigation and the objective evidence published in the report. We do not need to demean ourselves by guessing.
First action should be to prevent recurrence. How will that be done until international standards are complied with? (and if they need amending do that too.)
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?
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?
Published procedures are a work-around to mitigate risk from a known safety problem; they do not eliminate risk nor do they reduce risk to that contemplated by the standards internationally agreed.
If JFK does not meet ICAO standards for the type why are operators of Cat F aircraft permitted by their State of Registry to use JFK?
Whilst we are at it, does any runway at JFK meet the ICAO standards for the aircraft? (Or at LHR or CDG or SYD or anyplace else?). If the runways do not meet the standards why would anyone believe the taxiways do? But do they?
Questions about who was moving and who was stopped - and where - and why should all be covered in the investigation and the objective evidence published in the report. We do not need to demean ourselves by guessing.
First action should be to prevent recurrence. How will that be done until international standards are complied with? (and if they need amending do that too.)
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?
Last edited by Advance; 15th Apr 2011 at 12:15. Reason: correct ambiguity
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainDan80:
27 years for me. I am in complete agreement with you except my experience was not "almost aways" but certainly it happened on a quite reqular basis. Your last sentence is absolutely correct.
I'll add, if in doubt about an ambiguous taxiway or ramp conflict, coming to a complete stop until it is resolved makes you, at worst, the "hittee." The exception is not leaving your tail hanging out over the runway unless you simply cannot move forward, in which case you need to be forceful about it to ATC.
I have 25 years taxiing narrow body and wide body aircraft and we almost always have to stop and wait for ground equipment to be moved or a guideman and most of the time we are hanging out on a taxiway. If some moron hits you he is 100% at fault!!!!!!!! End of story.
I'll add, if in doubt about an ambiguous taxiway or ramp conflict, coming to a complete stop until it is resolved makes you, at worst, the "hittee." The exception is not leaving your tail hanging out over the runway unless you simply cannot move forward, in which case you need to be forceful about it to ATC.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advance
Is that 3/4" true in Riyadh as well as Edmonton? 
Post #145 correctly states the A380 is an ICAO Cat F aircraft. It is also only 3/4" short of the maximum wingspan for that category.
The exception is not leaving your tail hanging out over the runway
Advance
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
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?
Published procedures are a work-around to mitigate risk from a known safety problem; they do not eliminate risk nor do they reduce risk to that contemplated by the standards internationally agreed.
If JFK does not meet ICAO standards for the type why are operators of Cat F aircraft permitted by their State of Registry to use JFK?
Whilst we are at it, does any runway at JFK meet the ICAO standards for the aircraft? (Or at LHR or CDG or SYD or anyplace else?). If the runways do not meet the standards why would anyone believe the taxiways do? But do they?
Questions about who was moving and who was stopped - and where - and why should all be covered in the investigation and the objective evidence published in the report. We do not need to demean ourselves by guessing.
First action should be to prevent recurrence. How will that be done until international standards are complied with? (and if they need amending do that too.)
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?
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?
Published procedures are a work-around to mitigate risk from a known safety problem; they do not eliminate risk nor do they reduce risk to that contemplated by the standards internationally agreed.
If JFK does not meet ICAO standards for the type why are operators of Cat F aircraft permitted by their State of Registry to use JFK?
Whilst we are at it, does any runway at JFK meet the ICAO standards for the aircraft? (Or at LHR or CDG or SYD or anyplace else?). If the runways do not meet the standards why would anyone believe the taxiways do? But do they?
Questions about who was moving and who was stopped - and where - and why should all be covered in the investigation and the objective evidence published in the report. We do not need to demean ourselves by guessing.
First action should be to prevent recurrence. How will that be done until international standards are complied with? (and if they need amending do that too.)
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?
as it points the way to prevention rather than joining in the "blame game" , well almost, except for the last paragraph
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK taxyways compared to LHR
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?
The tight squeeze between the RJ terminal and A was an accident waiting to happen once A380s began taxiing on A.
Perhaps signs at the appropriate distance declaring
would help.
If I was Airbus Industrie, I'd make up the signs and have the local tech crews plant them.
If you want to get fancy, have flashing lights illuminate the obstruction when it interrupts the beams so the A380 crews would know the way was blocked.
Perhaps signs at the appropriate distance declaring
Get your tail past here before contacting apron
If I was Airbus Industrie, I'd make up the signs and have the local tech crews plant them.
If you want to get fancy, have flashing lights illuminate the obstruction when it interrupts the beams so the A380 crews would know the way was blocked.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Age: 40
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I think the aircraft category is defined by wingspan...
a cat G aircraft must have a wingspan above 80 m (An 225)
cat F between 65m and 80m (A380 / An 124 / C5 B Galaxy...)
cat E between 52m and 65m (777-300 / A340-300)
cat D 36m and 52m (A310-300 / B707-300)
cat C 24m and 36m... (B737-800 / A321)
A 747-600X or 500X or 400X QLR has a wingspan above 65 m, so cat F.
a 747-400 ER or 300 or 200 has a wingspan less than 65m, consequently it's a cat E aircraft.
I think the aircraft category is defined by wingspan...
a cat G aircraft must have a wingspan above 80 m (An 225)
cat F between 65m and 80m (A380 / An 124 / C5 B Galaxy...)
cat E between 52m and 65m (777-300 / A340-300)
cat D 36m and 52m (A310-300 / B707-300)
cat C 24m and 36m... (B737-800 / A321)
A 747-600X or 500X or 400X QLR has a wingspan above 65 m, so cat F.
a 747-400 ER or 300 or 200 has a wingspan less than 65m, consequently it's a cat E aircraft.
Perhaps signs at the appropriate distance declaring
would help.
Get your tail past here before contacting apron
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a bad idea, but don't single out the A380, I think the 747-8 and the An-225 fit into the same category as far as width is concerned.
You are not correct about the B747-8. While it may be a category F aircraft, It's wing span is 11.3m shorter than the A-380 [68.5m v 79.8m]. In the identical conditions it is not only possible but highly probable that a 747-800 would NOT have hit the CRJ.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly from articles in the early days of the A380 'arrival on the scene', the ICAO aircraft size category is based on a "box", with cat. F being 80m long, 80m wide and ?? m high. The A380 was sized to just fit inside the "box".
Airports are supposed to be designed and operated using the same criteria.
I tried to Google the subject, but without any success, sorry....
Anybody else ?
Airports are supposed to be designed and operated using the same criteria.
I tried to Google the subject, but without any success, sorry....
Anybody else ?