Cirrus pilot not observing social distancing guidelines
 

Anyone else surprised/disappointed how little the controller seemed to care?

That's just your perception. Believe me it will be fully investigated. There was nothing more to say on the r/t at the time, that's all.

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.

It didn't look all that bad in the film - minimal risk to the A320, possible jet blast risk to the Cirrus - meh

Probably thinks the chute will protect him, even on the ground :ugh:

709
 

With a ground crew walking away in hearing protectors and all the bleed noise of that engine starting?
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..:-)

Why do you assume it is the Cirrus pilot who is at fault here ? There also plenty of other possible scenario to this situation . That it was not supposed to be there is a fact,, The rest is still pure speculation .

Youtube comment:
:ok: :D

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.

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.

Is that a movement area? If not, how does the FAA get involved?
Edit: It looks like the 320 is not in the movement area,

Quite so.

What we're told happened:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9428bedc4d.jpg

What actually happened (from the same VASAviation YouTube post :ugh:):

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6a2a35ed55.jpg

Conclusion:
How to get 333,000 subscribers for your YouTube channel: post sensationalist cr*p like this.

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.

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

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,

In which jurisdiction does “keep clear” permit you to taxi under the wing of an aircraft?

To my knowledge, the FAA doesn’t explicitly prohibit this, but “careless or reckless operation” comes to mind. Part 91.13

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.

More information is needed. The cartoon shows the Cirrus wing under the A320 engine, but the video shows the wing well clear of the engine, and possibly well clear of the wing itself. One still photograph from one angle is not enough to convict, for me.

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.