Istanbul taxi accident
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Small aprtment
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely, if unable to park and need to stop short, MUST tell ATC.
When taxiing around a busy airport in a large wide body, you just can not really know where the wingtip is.
Can not see it remember.
When every thing is right there is an incredibly small separation, only a few meters to spare. That's why various
sized planes are assigned a category. e.g. a 777 would not be parked on a gate near taxiway unless that part
of the airport is available to that category of plane.
One has to trust the system i.e. the markings and the others doing the right thing. If in doubt, stop, of course,
but if everyone stopped pedantically, busy airports would grind to a halt.
Until we know more, see my first line above.
But please note I did use the words...'if in doubt, stop'
When taxiing around a busy airport in a large wide body, you just can not really know where the wingtip is.
Can not see it remember.
When every thing is right there is an incredibly small separation, only a few meters to spare. That's why various
sized planes are assigned a category. e.g. a 777 would not be parked on a gate near taxiway unless that part
of the airport is available to that category of plane.
One has to trust the system i.e. the markings and the others doing the right thing. If in doubt, stop, of course,
but if everyone stopped pedantically, busy airports would grind to a halt.
Until we know more, see my first line above.
But please note I did use the words...'if in doubt, stop'
Last edited by Deepinsider; 14th May 2018 at 13:37.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may well be right - I'm no structures engineer, and the inevitable damage to the wingtip of the A330 is not visible in the video.
I simply wonder if the A321's fin-attachment bolts are designed to fail before the rear fuselage is over-stressed - bearing in mind the proximity of the pressure bulkhead. (For example, I think that philosophy does apply in the case of wing-mounted engine pylons.) But the A321 in this accident suffers a lot of sideways movement as the fin is struck.
I simply wonder if the A321's fin-attachment bolts are designed to fail before the rear fuselage is over-stressed - bearing in mind the proximity of the pressure bulkhead. (For example, I think that philosophy does apply in the case of wing-mounted engine pylons.) But the A321 in this accident suffers a lot of sideways movement as the fin is struck.
https://streamable.com/beif7
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the video shown by Highway1 you can see that the A321 is stopped half way on the red line so it is not clear of the taxi lane . Normally the A330 crew should have spotted that the path was not clear.
Someone knows if IST apron is controlled or is operated by ramp agents ( like in FRA for instance)?
If this is the case the 2 aircraft were probably on different frequencies from different locations.
Someone knows if IST apron is controlled or is operated by ramp agents ( like in FRA for instance)?
If this is the case the 2 aircraft were probably on different frequencies from different locations.
Without commenting too much on this particular accident I cant say I am very surprised that it happened in Istanbul. The taxiways and aprons there are in theory controlled by ATC but the number of ground movements seems to have expanded way beyond their ability to manage with the apparent resources. Add in the blue and orange lines on the taxiways and the additional parking slots that have been constructed and it gets quite chaotic. Its also a place where vehicles seem to run amok and at speed around the aprons.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ME
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The practice of half entering the gate when it is still switched off is a mistake and a violation.
In some places its written in the airport plates.
With that im not blaming turkish at all, i havent any clue of the situation.
But I can blame Asiana for sure.
Unless the turkish moved backwards, which I doubt, the Asiana had to WATCH where they are going.
Period.
In some places its written in the airport plates.
With that im not blaming turkish at all, i havent any clue of the situation.
But I can blame Asiana for sure.
Unless the turkish moved backwards, which I doubt, the Asiana had to WATCH where they are going.
Period.
This was bound to happen
Having flown for both major carriers in Korea for a substantial time I can say that the " clear left/right " should just be a recording every time the aircraft senses a lateral acceleration and not a human callout.
They are too busy heads down looking at the ND giving verbalized readouts of your groundspeed as you taxi.
No-one looks out the window when you taxi.
This ridiculous scenario was borne out of the 'leaders' desire to fix a spate of docking/parking/rolling incidents. The solution? Invent yet another policy and "standard callout" .
Don't believe me? Here is what it sounds like;
PM; "Appoaching gater ...31, righter turn, grounder speeder ..9. A330, speeder 7... 6.. 5.. 4...4...3...2...2
..2.1. Approaching stoper. Steer lefter. Speeder..1. Turn righter. STOPer"
They are too busy heads down looking at the ND giving verbalized readouts of your groundspeed as you taxi.
No-one looks out the window when you taxi.
This ridiculous scenario was borne out of the 'leaders' desire to fix a spate of docking/parking/rolling incidents. The solution? Invent yet another policy and "standard callout" .
Don't believe me? Here is what it sounds like;
PM; "Appoaching gater ...31, righter turn, grounder speeder ..9. A330, speeder 7... 6.. 5.. 4...4...3...2...2
..2.1. Approaching stoper. Steer lefter. Speeder..1. Turn righter. STOPer"
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that we cant leave the taxiway centerline unless visual contact with docking system or maeshall.
Also, as I said, I've mentioned that just because it's interesting and related to this event.
I'm not blaming at all Turkish 'cause Ive got no clues on whar happened there.
But I definitely blame Asiana for keeping taxying with the taxyway not clear! (See the red lines in the video....)
Last edited by LEM; 15th May 2018 at 04:22.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After closely inspecting the video I can say that this accident occured due to controller error.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.
I haved watched the video 5 times. Can you please explain to me how you come to you emphatic conclusion?
I would say the controller did nothing wrong except give a simple instruction in English that 2 pilots did not comply with.
“....Once clear of the Turkish A321, continue taxiing for.....”
The same instructions pilots get EVERYDAY from controllers.
The common factor in this crash, is one of the Airline’s involved. And I am not talking about the one missing a tail.
Last edited by TPE Flyer; 15th Dec 2018 at 16:47.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: europe
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In one of the videos, after the fin comes off the 321 it appears there is a fuel leak from the rear of the aircraft, I would assume the APU would be running at this time, unless it’s US.
A friend of mine years ago got hit in a freighter by the high loader not stopping, this knocked him out the seat, hitting his head on the side window.
Any reports of cabin crew injuries, they’d be up and walking around at this stage, interesting if there had been a fire and an evacuation.
A friend of mine years ago got hit in a freighter by the high loader not stopping, this knocked him out the seat, hitting his head on the side window.
Any reports of cabin crew injuries, they’d be up and walking around at this stage, interesting if there had been a fire and an evacuation.
After closely inspecting the video I can say that this accident occured due to controller error.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.
Turkish Airlines aircraft is not moving but it is definitely not at the final parking position. There must be something with the jetway or something else. Ground control should not give the Asiana taxi clearance before its way is fully clear.
I see it this way: AN ATC Clearance to taxi doesn't always ensure that it is clear to taxi. The Captain remains responsible for the safe conduct of flight. That includes taxying.....
Turkish stopped short of the parking bay for some undefined reason, tail still extending beyond the clearance marking [Yes, Istanbul has them]. Not an unusual occurrence. Asiana failed, again for some undefined reason, to see the Turkish aircraft and appreciate its tail infringing the safety marking.
In broad daylight, the Pilot[s] of the Asiana A330 collided with the stationary Turkish A321.
I would presume that the Asiana crew did not fail to see the 321 (they were probably following it as it turned into the parking bay), but thy certainly failed to appreciate that its tail was still sticking out. No trying to defend anyone but it is rather dificult to sense from the rear when passing a parked aircraft whether its tail is inside or outside the marking painted on the apron several metres below, and with the wingtip not readily visible from the cockpit on a 773 they must have assumed (grave error!) that the 321 continued to the gate, especially if they had a taxi clearance. A rather likely contributing factor was the new apron layout (all taxiways now uni-directional since last summer) which can result in rather rengthy delays to/from some parking positions, having to wait for 5-6 departing aircraft ahead to be pushed back and start up, a very frustrating experience (once we stopped/started with engines running for 45 minutes after landing before we could reach our designated gate...). I can well relate to the sensation of the taxiway finally freeing up ahead...
You may well be right - I'm no structures engineer, and the inevitable damage to the wingtip of the A330 is not visible in the video.
I simply wonder if the A321's fin-attachment bolts are designed to fail before the rear fuselage is over-stressed - bearing in mind the proximity of the pressure bulkhead. (For example, I think that philosophy does apply in the case of wing-mounted engine pylons.) But the A321 in this accident suffers a lot of sideways movement as the fin is struck.
I simply wonder if the A321's fin-attachment bolts are designed to fail before the rear fuselage is over-stressed - bearing in mind the proximity of the pressure bulkhead. (For example, I think that philosophy does apply in the case of wing-mounted engine pylons.) But the A321 in this accident suffers a lot of sideways movement as the fin is struck.
As he states, no issue seeing the wingtips. In this case however no need to see the wingtips since the A321 was well over the safety line. Just look outside!
I would presume that the Asiana crew did not fail to see the 321 (they were probably following it as it turned into the parking bay), but thy certainly failed to appreciate that its tail was still sticking out. No trying to defend anyone but it is rather dificult to sense from the rear when passing a parked aircraft whether its tail is inside or outside the marking painted on the apron several metres below, and with the wingtip not readily visible from the cockpit on a 773 they must have assumed (grave error!) that the 321 continued to the gate, especially if they had a taxi clearance. A rather likely contributing factor was the new apron layout (all taxiways now uni-directional since last summer) which can result in rather rengthy delays to/from some parking positions, having to wait for 5-6 departing aircraft ahead to be pushed back and start up, a very frustrating experience (once we stopped/started with engines running for 45 minutes after landing before we could reach our designated gate...). I can well relate to the sensation of the taxiway finally freeing up ahead...
It follows that if the A321 had stopped only 5-6 meters farther on then at worse we would have been looking at a damaged rudder, maybe not even that.
All a bit academic now, of course.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was my understanding that ATC give taxi clearance and Instructions, and the PIC is responsible for following the instructions without colliding with anything! It matters not where the THY A321 was, the Asiana crew were negligent. If the crew is staring at taxi charts with heads in the cockpit they cannot be observing the outside conditions, if in doubt "Stop" . Whatever you may think of the THY aircraft position, the responsibility for the collision remains firmly with the Asiana Crew.. It is quite normal for aircraft on taxiway G to stop short of the terminal parking waiting for the docking systems etc, doesn't give the right to following aircraft to slice them up! There is a very good reason these Far East carriers have " follow me" cars...