PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/448494-air-france-jet-clips-smaller-plane-new-yorks-jfk-airport.html)

SimJock 15th Apr 2011 17:17


I tried to Google the subject, but without any success, sorry....
Anybody else ?
US Airport Design uses documents like this, they seem to prefer 'Aircraft Design Group'

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...0_13_chg10.doc

lgwpave 15th Apr 2011 19:10

JFK taxyways compared to LHR
 
Mary raised the question :


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?
To clarify, some of this work was the reconstructing of the taxiways to provide Code F (A380) clearances - some areas are still to be done.

A lot of planning is carried out to clearly define work areas and, if necessary, taxiway block closures based on aircraft wingtip clearances/jet blast areas. This ensures that both aircraft and construction workers are safe from each other and I'm unaware of any incidents where the two have met.

MPN11 15th Apr 2011 19:27


Originally Posted by old,not bold
Or, indeed, penetrating the obstruction surface while landings and/or takeoffs are in progress, to be technical. But it's really ATC's job to look after that.

Hmm ... I think the Airport/Aerodrome Operating Authority actually has that responsibility. ATC are humble servants, albeit providers of professional advice which may/may not be heeded.

My local airport has operated for decades with buildings which penetrate the 1:7 OCS. Only now is that being addressed, thanks to a new Airport Director [not the SATCO].

jumpseater 15th Apr 2011 19:29


Advance
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?

Yes it does, thats why A380's and other types operate there .... What ICAO 'runway standard' are you on about? be specific there are so many to chose from.
When new aircraft such as the A380 come into service US airports have to look at the airport design standards, within these they cover the relationship between airplane physical characteristics and the design of airport elements. Any variations from the 'standard' requires FAA safety assessments with operational mitigations or restrictions put in place. Just like many other national authorities procedures worldwide. Simples.

Shell Management 15th Apr 2011 19:43


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?
Sort of correct as the Continental maintenance error would have been subject to a massive fine if FAA had found it so no suprise that a foreign juristiction took action after it was involved in multiple fatalities.


I like your clarity of thoughts and recommendations :ok:

as it points the way to prevention rather than joining in the "blame game" , well almost, except for the last paragraph :)
Justice is not about blame its about accountability:ok:

ChristiaanJ 15th Apr 2011 20:45


Originally Posted by SimJock (Post 6393725)
US Airport Design uses documents like this, they seem to prefer 'Aircraft Design Group'

Thanks, I'll read that soonest.

Globaliser 15th Apr 2011 21:00

Further up this thread, Huck posted a diagram of the relevant part of the airport.

Looking at this end of the terminal on Google Maps, it looks like all the lettered stands have been more recently grafted on to an existing terminal. Is that correct? Does their proximity to the taxiway and the shape of the area inside the "bowl" increase the likelihood that if something isn't right on the apron, an arriving aircraft will have to hold short at a position where it might not have completely cleared the taxiway?

I can't help wondering whether - if one is looking for holes in the cheese rather than trying to assign fault or cast blame - adding all these gates exactly where they are might not have been such a good idea, if their position increases the risk that an incident like this might occur.

Huck 15th Apr 2011 21:38


it looks like all the lettered stands have been more recently grafted on to an existing terminal. Is that correct?
Most definitely. Initially I'm sure pax were walked across the ramp to their jets. Then the airline built a thin, c-shaped structure to shelter them.

JFK has seen every era in modern aviation, from piston airliners to the 380. At some point maybe they should have lined up bulldozers side-by-side, scraped the whole thing off into the bay and started over. But they did something else - just made it work as they could.

I remember the TWA terminal with its stunning jetways that could reach over the wings of a 747. Now it is surrounded by A320s....

bubbers44 16th Apr 2011 00:07

Not knowing how far your wings extend upgrading to a bigger airplane is no excuse for hitting another object. It is like knowing when to flare for landing when going to a bigger airplane. You have to learn your new equipment and fly it properly, and taxi.

M609 16th Apr 2011 00:43

Heathrow has a quite good chart in the AIP regarding A380 ground ops: AD 2 EGLL 2-1

As far as the lynch mob in here goes.....hang the AF crew and all that....

Sure, captain has the ultimate responisibility for his a/c but:

In the bowls of DOC444 we find:

7.1.1.1 Aerodrome control towers shall issue information and clearances to aircraft under their control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome with the object of preventing
collision(s) between:

........

e) aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area.


Iīm sorry, but GND at JFK did not quite achieve that last point there. I know the US is not quite ICAO compliant when it comes to ATC, but there is blame to go around for more than just the AF guys. The fact that JFK might be thight for the A380, and that aircraft not clearing the TWY without telling GND is not a reason to hang the pilot, itīs a reason to ask why JFK allow A380 ops in the first place in that narrow pier area.

Airbus_a321 16th Apr 2011 09:49

@m609

itīs a reason to ask why JFK allow A380 ops in the first place in that narrow pier area.
...I agree see #239

it's just much too easy always to blame the skipper. the:mad:guys on the ground/tarmac are to blame for this me$$

and it's all about money. money making the American way: take the fees from the big birds, but do not invest one single $ to accommodate them properly :yuk:

Capn Bloggs 16th Apr 2011 11:48


The APRON IS NOT a part of the MANOEUVRING AREA
Taxiways are. :ok::ok:

aterpster 16th Apr 2011 12:58

airbus321:


and it's all about money. money making the American way: take the fees from the big birds, but do not invest one single $ to accommodate them properly :yuk:
Oh please, give it a rest. I operated the L1011 into all three New York area airports for a few years. Before that the 767 into JFK. Before that the 727 for many, many years. With all three of those aircraft I had to stop plenty of times because wingtip clearance wasn't assured. I had enough common sense to stop when there was any doubt.

ATC is not all seeing, nor all attentive; not in the U.S., not even in Europe.

Part of seasoned, prudent pilot experience is to know that JFK has always been a chaotic place.

Suzeman 16th Apr 2011 14:39

A380 at EGCC
 
Somebody asked about A380 Operations at other airports and whether they meet ICAO requirements. Below is some stuff extracted from the UK AIP for
Manchester / EGCC which has a daily EK A380 service, scheduled to operate around lunchtime so normally in daylight and a not very busy time of day. The AN-124 is an irregular visitor - maybe half a dozen times a year.

You will see that some of the taxiways do not meet the standards (49m - should be 55m) but the mitigation is to provide escorts. The UK CAA will not have authorised these procedures and A380 ops in general at EGCC without a robust safety case being presented by the Airport Authority.

EGCC AD 2.20 — LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS

g. Ground Movement Restrictions

iv A380 and AN-124 aircraft will be provided with wing-tip escort vehicles on taxiways northside of Runway 05L/23R.

vi. A380 aircraft - Taxiway routes available are shown on page AD 2-EGCC-2-3, marked in yellow. Reduced taxiway centre-line to object clearance of 49 m applies along Taxiways Alpha and Juliet

Chart here
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2011-01-13.pdf

Also from the UKAIP for Manchester

h. Ground Manoeuvring Restrictions
i. ATC instructions will normally specify the taxi route to be followed. This does not necessarily guarantee clearance from other aircraft,
vehicles and obstructions on the manoeuvring area.


ii. Pilots are reminded of the need to exercise caution on wingtip clearances from other aircraft when manoeuvring in close proximity on the
ground. Particular care should be taken in the runway holding areas and at runway crossing points.

Hope this helps

Loose rivets 16th Apr 2011 15:16

Interesting. So Manchester provides the escort - presumably because it wants the revenues and perhaps even the kudos. Just how do they do this without assuming some responsibility?

Perhaps a tablet of stone delivered to the captain. "You taxi at your own risk."


To absolve themselves during high court action, I would imagine the wording would have to be more . . . involved.


I think everything hangs on what the AF skipper was thinking/saying at the moments leading up to the collision. If he was giving the taxiing 100% of his attention, then I think the local system/procedures/staff are failing him to some degree.

Having said this, I have a gut feeling it will be found he was distracted into the office at this crucial time. The view from that seat at my suggested 150M must be, erm, spectacular.

DA50driver 16th Apr 2011 16:07

Responsibility
 
The argument you guys have going is a cultural one.

Do you want to have freedom which brings with it responsibility? (Screw up and you're in trouble). Or do you want the government to hold your hand and tell you what to do at any given time?

(Take it like a man or run hide behind your mothers skirt when things go wrong?).

The AF Captain screwed up, end of story. I have been in tight spots and stopped to ensure that I have had enough room. I would rather get yelled at for tying up traffic than bending the airplane.

Lord Spandex Masher 16th Apr 2011 16:11

LR, there is wording in every OPS manual that I've ever read to the effect that:

"Even under marshallers direction, follow me cars, stand guidance etc.. it is still the Captain that is responsible for avoiding collision when moving under own power"

It is, therefore, the captain who is responsible for any collisions which may happen.

Full stop, end of story.

I always taxi at my own risk.

Shanewhite 16th Apr 2011 17:47

On the A380 engine failure thread, it was mentioned that the crew were rushing about looking out of the cabin windows trying to see what had happened, but were unable to, and I asked the question why it would not be possible to mount a camera or two at points where they could see the engines, since CCTV cameras about the size and weight of a fag packet can be obtained for only few pounds.

Would it not also be a good idea to install one looking forward from each wingtip to see any obstructions that might be looming in their path?

Capt Groper 16th Apr 2011 18:00

ACAS / TCAS for GRD movements is the answer
 
Unfortunately an Aircraft Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) for ground aircraft (A/C) movements, like TCAS airbourne, could have avioded this accident. It is not possible to see wing tips from many wide bodied A/C.

Also improved taxi cameras could also help avoid this type of accident. These technogies have all been available in modern vechicles for some years.

The system works like this; it's not until a certain amount of accidents occur that authorities mandate the inclusion of technology to avoid future accidents. For example, EGPWS, TCAS and RAAS. It's a reactive world.

It will be the pilots and possibly ATC who will be the fall guys. However one could also argue that A/C Manufactures and Civil Aviation Authorities are severly lacking in proactice practices. :mad:

Nardi Riviera 16th Apr 2011 18:09

JW411 said "Congo line" here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post6365996

I believe you mean the "CONGA line": Conga line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides, I've heard that taxying at such airports is worse than complicated approaches...


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:21.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.