|
robertbartsch wrote:
....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..." |
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. |
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?! |
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... |
@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. |
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? |
CaptainDan80:
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. |
Advance
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 |
There are many "reasons" for the collision, but ultimately... who ran into who?
Answer that question and THAT is who is responsible. No? |
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? 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 :) |
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? |
Advance:
What defines an ICAO CAT F aircraft? Is a 747 a CAT F aircraft? |
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 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. |
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. |
|
Perhaps signs at the appropriate distance declaring Get your tail past here before contacting apron |
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. |
I believe Air France had a score to settle.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...420-122359.jpg http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...420-122362.jpg (Pictures from Flightblogger) :p |
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 ? |
I tried to Google the subject, but without any success, sorry.... Anybody else ? http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...0_13_chg10.doc |
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? 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. |
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.
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]. |
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? 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. |
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? 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 :) |
Originally Posted by SimJock
(Post 6393725)
US Airport Design uses documents like this, they seem to prefer 'Aircraft Design Group'
|
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. |
it looks like all the lettered stands have been more recently grafted on to an existing terminal. Is that correct? 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.... |
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.
|
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. |
@m609
itīs a reason to ask why JFK allow A380 ops in the first place in that narrow pier area. 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: |
The APRON IS NOT a part of the MANOEUVRING AREA |
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: 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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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: |
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 00:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.