Cirrus pilot not observing social distancing guidelines
It’s just how she said she was observing it as well but hadn’t taken any action to alert either crew. I would rather get a false “alert” from ATC that caused me to abort a start than the opposite.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
709
Trust me; thats a 709 ride. The FAA will reexamine the pilot to confirm they meet the requirements of license issuance. I have some insight into the process. The FAA will also investigate recent Flight Reviews etc. Not going to be a good day for the Cirrus driver.
Pulling the 'chute sounds like a good idea; but CAPS is only certified above 5-600' depending on the model..:-)
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA will reexamine the pilot to confirm they meet the requirements of license issuance. I have some insight into the process. The FAA will also investigate recent Flight Reviews etc. Not going to be a good day for the Cirrus driver.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A little South of North
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, blame the little guy, case closed! One presumes the Cirrus received taxi clearance. Perhaps it was a long taxi. Perhaps due to the elapsed time the controller forgot about the Cirrus when issuing the pushback clearance. Lots of other possibilities as said by ATC Watcher. Don't jump to conclusions purely by what you see and hear in a short clip.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are quick at pulling out the rope here.
The Cirrus did not hit another aircraft, he was not even close. He didn't taxi as close as the presentation shows (otherwise he woul've bumped into the engine of the airliner) I'm almost thinking the fuselage of the cirrus couuld be on the outside og the wingtip of the airliner.
I have no clue about the sort of service being provided on that apron. If it's outside the manouvering area, it would normally be aircraft maintaining their own separation.... and well, he didn't bumb into the airliner....
If it's controlled, and the controller didn't know he was there.... different story.
If it's controlled, and the controller had given him a taxi clearance, but forgot about him.... different story.
If it's controlled, and the controller had given him a taxi clearance, but expected him to remain behind the airliner.... but not directly instructed it.... well, all controllers get a surprise from time to time.... those surprises go into your "bag of experience", and hopefullly become a part of the anecdotes used in training in the future.
The Cirrus did not hit another aircraft, he was not even close. He didn't taxi as close as the presentation shows (otherwise he woul've bumped into the engine of the airliner) I'm almost thinking the fuselage of the cirrus couuld be on the outside og the wingtip of the airliner.
I have no clue about the sort of service being provided on that apron. If it's outside the manouvering area, it would normally be aircraft maintaining their own separation.... and well, he didn't bumb into the airliner....
If it's controlled, and the controller didn't know he was there.... different story.
If it's controlled, and the controller had given him a taxi clearance, but forgot about him.... different story.
If it's controlled, and the controller had given him a taxi clearance, but expected him to remain behind the airliner.... but not directly instructed it.... well, all controllers get a surprise from time to time.... those surprises go into your "bag of experience", and hopefullly become a part of the anecdotes used in training in the future.
Edit: It looks like the 320 is not in the movement area,
The Cirrus did not hit another aircraft, he was not even close. He didn't taxi as close as the presentation shows (otherwise he woul've bumped into the engine of the airliner) I'm almost thinking the fuselage of the cirrus could be on the outside og the wingtip of the airliner.
What we're told happened:
What actually happened (from the same VASAviation YouTube post
):
Conclusion:
How to get 333,000 subscribers for your YouTube channel: post sensationalist cr*p like this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who’s at fault when the Cirrus goes under the wing of an A320? The tug driver? ATC? I try to avoid speculation, but in this case, I can’t imagine a plausible scenario where the Cirrus wasn’t at fault. If you can, I’m willing to change my mind.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I'm a low time pilot, I have extensive experience driving vehicles on the ramp and movement areas of a large international airport. Unless working an aircraft parked at its gate (belt loaders, baggage trains, fuel trucks/bowsers, catering trucks etc.), driving a vehicle beneath any part of the aircraft was a big "no-no". Once an aircraft had left its gate, only the tug was authorized to be below a part of the aircraft (the nose). I can't imagine how any non-emergency ramp vehicle, much less another aircraft, would be allowed to pass beneath an aircraft. But then, I've been away from the game almost eight years now ... maybe things have changed.
Cheers,
Grog
Cheers,
Grog
Last edited by capngrog; 6th Apr 2020 at 23:35. Reason: Removed questions answered in the video
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said earlier there are many ways possible. Having been on both sides of the mike I can give you one that could fit this scenario : " taxi to gate keep clear of the A320 pushing back ... " Keeping clear for the controller is stay behind and wait, but can for the pilot be taxi clear and overtake .. . Or the taxi instructions given were confusing , etc..
If it was visual separation , and after all it worked, Not nice , yes I grant you that, but a risk of collision no . Investigation yes, but it not necessarily the Cirrus pilot that will receive the biscuits,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You and I do not know what clearance /instructions the Cirrus were given , passing judgement on an out of nowhere self made video clip and 2 transmissions is not my cup of tea.
As I said earlier there are many ways possible. Having been on both sides of the mike I can give you one that could fit this scenario : " taxi to gate keep clear of the A320 pushing back ... " Keeping clear for the controller is stay behind and wait, but can for the pilot be taxi clear and overtake .. . Or the taxi instructions given were confusing , etc..
If it was visual separation , and after all it worked, Not nice , yes I grant you that, but a risk of collision no . Investigation yes, but it not necessarily the Cirrus pilot that will receive the biscuits,
As I said earlier there are many ways possible. Having been on both sides of the mike I can give you one that could fit this scenario : " taxi to gate keep clear of the A320 pushing back ... " Keeping clear for the controller is stay behind and wait, but can for the pilot be taxi clear and overtake .. . Or the taxi instructions given were confusing , etc..
If it was visual separation , and after all it worked, Not nice , yes I grant you that, but a risk of collision no . Investigation yes, but it not necessarily the Cirrus pilot that will receive the biscuits,
To my knowledge, the FAA doesn’t explicitly prohibit this, but “careless or reckless operation” comes to mind. Part 91.13
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 wingspan = 34m (half = 17m) | A320 main gear span = 7.6m (half = 3.8m) | 17m - 3.8m = 13.2m = Right wings prortusion from the centre of the right gear.
Sirus SR22 wingspan = 11.7m (half = 5.85m)
Width required for the SR22 NOT to go under the A320 wing = 19.05m
Measured on GoogleMaps the width of the taxiway from the centreline to the edge of the surface is worse case 13m, best case 17m, although based on the video and signage I would highly suspect its closer to the 13m point. So with some facts, we can be fairly certain that the SR22 did go under the A320s wing one way or the other, by how much, that depends on the exact position.
More importantly why does the clearance of anything matter in the slightest? Just because ATC clear you to do something, doesn't absolve you from all responsibility. Has everyone on this forum ALWAYS landed when you are cleared to land? No...you've gone around as well. If ATC has cleared you to taxi somewhere and there's an A320 with the ground crew where you were not expecting them to be, you stop behind and ask. You don't try and squeeze UNDER the aircraft. The cause may have been a miscommunication or poor clearance, however, there is very little excuse for poor airmanship.
Sirus SR22 wingspan = 11.7m (half = 5.85m)
Width required for the SR22 NOT to go under the A320 wing = 19.05m
Measured on GoogleMaps the width of the taxiway from the centreline to the edge of the surface is worse case 13m, best case 17m, although based on the video and signage I would highly suspect its closer to the 13m point. So with some facts, we can be fairly certain that the SR22 did go under the A320s wing one way or the other, by how much, that depends on the exact position.
More importantly why does the clearance of anything matter in the slightest? Just because ATC clear you to do something, doesn't absolve you from all responsibility. Has everyone on this forum ALWAYS landed when you are cleared to land? No...you've gone around as well. If ATC has cleared you to taxi somewhere and there's an A320 with the ground crew where you were not expecting them to be, you stop behind and ask. You don't try and squeeze UNDER the aircraft. The cause may have been a miscommunication or poor clearance, however, there is very little excuse for poor airmanship.
I went to the YouTube video and looked at all the comments. The most believable ones are:
1. At KSFB the taxiways are wide enough that the flight school planes are often cleared to taxi in opposite directions on the same taxiway, using the centerline as a divider.
2. This particular Cirrus contained a Flight Instructor who is no longer employed by the school.
3. It is unknown whether the Cirrus actually had taxi clearance, but suspect he was just operating from rote. Time was 11pm local.
1. At KSFB the taxiways are wide enough that the flight school planes are often cleared to taxi in opposite directions on the same taxiway, using the centerline as a divider.
2. This particular Cirrus contained a Flight Instructor who is no longer employed by the school.
3. It is unknown whether the Cirrus actually had taxi clearance, but suspect he was just operating from rote. Time was 11pm local.