2 777s ground incident at JFK
 

China Southern and Kuwait. Looks like some parts of the Kuwaiti tail cone on the tarmac. With Pax onboard, maybe lucky no repeat of Toronto incident.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...468209313.html

The word tarmac has been officially declared "sermo non grata". Please replace all occurrences with either runway, taxiway, or apron.

Or "ground", even.

Why such fear and loathing of such an historic portmanteau?

Because, used generally, it is imprecise wrt airport grounds?

Per the link in post #1, the China Southern flight was being towed and was the perpetrator. In Toronto, a similar situation. Does this mean we should trust pilots more than tow drivers? Or are these cases, rather, of the pilot doing nothing and so being able to safely blame the other guy? (I was just settin’ there mindin’ my own business and she run right into me” (channeling Ray Stevens’ “The Streak”)) ? Does anyone license the tow boys? Convenient for the pilots if the answer is “no”.

The whole ground handling is not subject to licensing.

That is decidedly untrue. You can't just set-up shop and offer GSP services at an airport; you'll need a license from the airport (and by extension of that, the local CAA) in question. Granted, it's a far cry from the requirements of an AOC, but it's equally far from being an unlicensed free-for-all.

As for training standards, they are to a large degree set by the contracting airlines. Keep in mind, an airline may outsource the work but never the responsibility. Consequently it's the airline setting the standards, including those for training, and have a responsibility to audit those services at regular intervals.

On top of that, GSPs worth their salt will be ISAGO certified, which is the ground handling equivalent of IOSA.

As for towing drivers, they are trained to set standards and are - or at least should be - regularly audited.

A quick Google indicates, JFK ground may have to re-think how they're doing things; I can't recall any major airport exhibiting a similar rash of ground collision incidents, with seemingly nothing effective being done about it.

April 2011: AF A380 vs DL* CRJ9 - CRJ hit by taxing A380 passing behind on TWY.
October 2014: RJ A340 vs DL* EJ145 - Nose of A340 hits tail of ERJ (?)
August 2017: DL 737 vs AA 757 - Winglet of 737 hits horizontal stab of 757
November 2017: MS 777 vs VS A330 - Wings clip on TWY
January 2018: KU 777 vs CZ 777 - Wingtip of CZ strikes tail cone of KU

Well they need a valid Civil Driving Licence, an airport driving Licence, training on the tug and have to pass a driving test using the tug.

I'm not sure what else can be done.

All GHA are regularly audited by the airlines they are contracted to handle. With some airlines for a busy route it can be annually, others might make it bi-annual or share an audit. One aspect that the auditors will target are the training records of the ramp staff and especially those operating the push back tugs, Hi-lo's etc.
A push back tractor driver will also have a basic training in RT procedures as they will be inter acting with ATC.
Many GHA have printed licences that can be ramp checked and these allow auditors to confirm that the operator has the right training and is up to date with their re-currency training.
Even the humble baggage tractor drivers have to be trained and their licence stamped before being let loose on the ramp.

It is not so much how JFK is doing things as it is trying to fit a quart of widebodies into a pint of narrow body maneuvering area. To some extent virtual queues have reduced some congestion but the entire surface design, ramp, taxiways and runways is 'challenging'. Add into that running the airport at just over 105% capacity and incidents are bound to occur. Indeed it is a testament to the skills of tug-drivers, pilots and ground controllers that more ground incidents do not occur. :ok:

Ground handling is not licensed. Items you referring to are not aviations regulations. Show me the relevant part in FAR or EASA regulations and I will admit I am wrong. Show me a copy of ground handling company license issued by CAA in Europe or US and I will admit I am wrong.
ISAGO, as well as IOSA are not based on aviation regulations because IATA is not a regulatory body. It is a commercial club where members have agreed to follow certain internal rules, same like in a golf club.

There was also a fairly recent case (September 2015) at JFK of a Virgin aircraft losing a winglet after being pushed into a blast fence. Aircraft was G-VBUG (A340 c/n 804).

Again it is the license which doesnt worth the paper it is printed on. Issued by not licensed organisation who accepted a training from another not licensed organisation conducting a training based on training program approved by no one and containing some references to expensive books published by a golf club aka IATA.

Ground handling is the biggest dark hole within the civilised aviation world and most of CAA inspectors share this opinion.