Anyone got some T-cut?
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: #N/A
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently it was being towed to the gate. Given the significant number of wingtip collisions over recent years (towing or taxiing), is it time to consider tech that can detect wingtip obstacles and alert pilots/handlers?
Tip of Aer Lingus Plane Wing Hits Concrete Wall at SFO; No Injuries Reported
"A commercial jet that landed at San Francisco International Airport on Wednesday afternoon hit a concrete wall while being towed to a gate, according to an airport spokesman".
Towed to a gate? Passengers reportedly stuck on board for an hour.
"A commercial jet that landed at San Francisco International Airport on Wednesday afternoon hit a concrete wall while being towed to a gate, according to an airport spokesman".
Towed to a gate? Passengers reportedly stuck on board for an hour.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: LISBO/DUFFY-ish
Age: 72
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ford has efficient proximity sensors! Ok, it will be more complex on an aircraft to tug situation - but surely not impossible. Commercial opportunity for someone!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For some reason I looked at the picture and thought 'SFO'.
The tech exists for collision avoidance, it probably wouldn't weigh too much either, but the logistics of getting it installed on everything that needs it would be a massive job (although every successful project has to start somewhere). You've got to retrofit the aircraft, having first determined that it's going to work satisfactorily, then find a way of communicating with the tug, possibly via radio as it's short range, then you have to retrofit the tugs. I guess if it's radio based then retrofitting tugs is easy, a new box on the dash with a big red light on it and a power cord. As it's only intended for low-speed ground operation the certification process may not be too bad.
You still wouldn't catch all of the incidents though, only the wingtip ones. Way harder to stop a wing leading edge from hitting something if the Mk 1 eyeball has failed. Thinking here of the recent incident slicing off a tail fin - that was inboard of the wingtip.
The tech exists for collision avoidance, it probably wouldn't weigh too much either, but the logistics of getting it installed on everything that needs it would be a massive job (although every successful project has to start somewhere). You've got to retrofit the aircraft, having first determined that it's going to work satisfactorily, then find a way of communicating with the tug, possibly via radio as it's short range, then you have to retrofit the tugs. I guess if it's radio based then retrofitting tugs is easy, a new box on the dash with a big red light on it and a power cord. As it's only intended for low-speed ground operation the certification process may not be too bad.
You still wouldn't catch all of the incidents though, only the wingtip ones. Way harder to stop a wing leading edge from hitting something if the Mk 1 eyeball has failed. Thinking here of the recent incident slicing off a tail fin - that was inboard of the wingtip.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One passenger in the terminal got some really close-up pictures of the wingtip, followed by dozens of media requests to use them:
Last edited by bnt; 25th May 2018 at 10:35.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that Aer Lingus operate both the A330-200 and -300 series. Both types share the same wingspan of 60.3m. However, the 300 is 4.60m longer. I have no idea if it makes any difference to how the tug initiates the turn into the gate but would be interested to know from someone in the know.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LFBZ (for a while)
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a VERY tight space there. The photo is actually taken from the short-term car park, which is what the wing tip has hit.
Several years ago I was picking up my wife and just as we were about to get in the car, a tug managed to create an entanglement between a plane it was pushing back, and the Qantas 747 that spends all afternoon and evening parked in a corner - in this same place. As far as we could tell nothing had actually hit anything, but they couldn't figure out how to undo the situation without making it worse. I kept an eye on things when I got home and the plane did eventually depart several hours later, presumably after an inspection.
Several years ago I was picking up my wife and just as we were about to get in the car, a tug managed to create an entanglement between a plane it was pushing back, and the Qantas 747 that spends all afternoon and evening parked in a corner - in this same place. As far as we could tell nothing had actually hit anything, but they couldn't figure out how to undo the situation without making it worse. I kept an eye on things when I got home and the plane did eventually depart several hours later, presumably after an inspection.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Aer Lingus park round the back of International Terminal A where BA parked when I flew the B744 for them, I can confirm it's pretty tight round there when taxying with a good look out on both sides required (not as tight as taxying onto JFK Terminal 7 stand 3 or 9, but still).
Under tow though? Complacency? Poor training? Who knows...
Under tow though? Complacency? Poor training? Who knows...
I note that Aer Lingus operate both the A330-200 and -300 series. Both types share the same wingspan of 60.3m. However, the 300 is 4.60m longer. I have no idea if it makes any difference to how the tug initiates the turn into the gate but would be interested to know from someone in the know.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Prime Meridian
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You dont need technology, the only requirement is a set of eyes and the common sense to stop if you dont like what you see.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: #N/A
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately something is going wrong with either the MK 1 eyeballs or 'common sense' if there are ongoing taxiing and towing incidents. Agree with llondell that it would likely have some complexities with retrofitting and interfaces, but if a lightweight solution is available then surely worth it rather than paying out insurance + reputational damage?
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about a temporary attachment? You (somehow!?) attach proximity transmitters to the wingtips / tail - simple strapon or clamp - and have the prox receiver in the tug. No need to retrofit at $xx,000,000, just a local kit to get used repeatedly on multiple aircraft.
You’re welcome........
A4
You’re welcome........
A4
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The amount of times I've seen those 'wingmen' in the US waving their batons (basically to say 'keep 'er comin'') as we pull onto stand, whilst looking everywhere BUT the wingtip... I expect that's what happened in this scenario.
Towing onto a tight stand is common in the US. EWR is another place where they do this.
Towing onto a tight stand is common in the US. EWR is another place where they do this.
If Aer Lingus park round the back of International Terminal A where BA parked when I flew the B744 for them, I can confirm it's pretty tight round there when taxying with a good look out on both sides required (not as tight as taxying onto JFK Terminal 7 stand 3 or 9, but still).
GE suggests there is approximately 120 feet between the curved yellow stand lead-in and the station piers at the closest point - half an A333's wingspan is 99 feet ...
