Back to Squawk list
  • 50

Taxiing jumbo jet clips other plane at JFK airport

제출됨
 
NEW YORK (AP) — The world's biggest commercial passenger jet has clipped the tail of another plane while taxiing out to depart New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport. Federal Aviation A . . . (flightaware.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


cm5299
Chuck Me 0
Is it possibly Comair 293? That seems to match with the AF7 original departure time.
garrettgee2001
Flaps...Set V Speeds...Calculated Flight Direct.. Oh Snot What was that?
jim1105
its amazing, all this technology to ensure the pilots get their emails, and that the first class riders get heated towels, but the cant put a set of proximity sensors of the wing tips... my Volkswagen does ;)
preacher1
Well, you can look at the video in another link here and it is close but both were where they were supposed to be. The ComAir was taxiing in and the AF was on the taiway going out. Kinda ironic that there is also another story here about some smaller airports making application to the FAA for the 747-800. This bigger size is just going to have to be looked at by everybody.
mpradel
this is what happens when you text and drive. Froggies!
preacher1
You know, Jimmy's comment about the proximity sensors makes some sense but you would have to wonder about the settings giving Pilot's fits in that kind of congestion. Pulling the settings down tighter would call into question the stopping distance. I hate to place blame on the controllers again, BUT, under current regs, THEY have the authority and are SUPPOSED to know all Aircraft types and sizes, hence clearances.
JUSTINJOHN
Just human Error.
pinktristar
From youtube - the vdeo of the event!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKGv3KFqKo
preacher1
Probably so. There is a comment on the video link that the AF flight was told to "hold for opposing traffic". Now, the ComAir was off the taxiway and at a 90degree to the AF so he was not opposing. May not have been opposing but apparently not clear (sad part here is that by any other plane, he probably would have been). There was another comment from a witness that the ComAir was held up by a marshaller. Now, not opposing but not clear. It'll be for the courts to decide.
boknowsau1
Looks like Air France will be posting some A380 flight deck job openings.
truckerken63
Bigger is not always better. Just sayin. All boils down to human error. Could have been alot worse.
Av8nut
Again, further proof why I think Airbus miss the target on this boat. It's too big for over 90% of airports worldwide. It is only feasible on a handful of airports, and ideally should be the only one on the airfield when taxiing which will never happen, especially at JFK! For the class, the 747-8 is still the better option in my opinion.
JG7XMAN
Blame goes to the A380 flight crew first, ground control second and the marshaller third and last the Comair crew! The size if the aircraft wasn't the issue, but individuals that were not fully aware of hazards in their surroundings - I'm with Ken

However, the size if the aircraft wasn't the issue here - with only an 8m difference in width, the 747-8i would have been too close for comfort too. Also when we talk about size, remember the 747-8i is almost 1m longer than the A380. :)
AZAFVET
The passengers on the Conair are very lucky that they were not injured after being spun 90 degrees in a fraction of a second. How about the ground crew?
preacher1
Holden: I am going to disagree with you on the blame. Both flight crews were following the cardinal rule on a controlled Airport, They were obeying the contoller. The AF crew was cleared to taxi, holding for opposing aircraft. The Delata was not opposing, and had obviously been cleared to the gate and looks like was clear of the taxiway, regardless of what the marshaller was doing to him. The issue of all around clearance for the heavy is what will have to be decided, and you are correct on the 747-8 size. There won't be a lot of difference with it. Whether or not any injuries on the ComAir flight, I expect there were some wet pants and a flight crew saying "what happened" or worse!!!!!!!!!!!!
dmanuel
dmanuel 0
I cannot tell from the video, but it appears the CRJ was actually on the non-movement area (fancy way of saying ramp, where the airline ramp control directs aircraft movement) not on a section where the Ground Controller has authority. In any case, let's wait for the facts before assuming anything.
davysims
A very similar incident happened at ORD last year, where a 747F struck a passenger aircraft that had not yet pulled all the way into the gate. I think the problem in both cases was the pilots of the larger aircraft assuming they had wingtip clearance, when the other aircraft hadn't pulled completely clear yet.
Av8nut
Holden - Correction: the difference in wingspan is 11.25m, (747-8: 68.5m; A380: 79.75m). We wouldn't even have this discussion if it wasn't for that whale jet!
preacher1
Well it will all be interesting to see how it all shakes out. It does appear that the CRJ was clear and probably had already called clear of the taxiway and under ramp control. One other contibuting factor; nothing ever says but it looks like that CRJ was the 90 series, meaning there was some extra length there the flight crew may not have been used to.I do know that all Delta connections were moving to the 90 series and getting away from the 50's, but as dmanuel said, the post mortem will be interesting. Fact remains that it happened. They need to act quickly to keep it from happening again.
patsrichs
WING WALKERS!!!!
preacher1
Probably the best suggestion yet for it or any of the super jumbos, BUT, at their present rate of speed, it would take the FAA 2 years to design the training plan and procedure for it, and OSHA another 2-3 to approve it. I don't think we have that long. Hopefully, the Airline lawyers will affix blame fairly quick, settle the $ damage and life will go on.
Like they did on the Southwest rupture, that happened on Friday, Southwest cancelled flights and inspected planes over the weekend and Monday and nearly had all done by the time the FAA got around on mid day Tuesday deciding what needed to be done! Our tax $ at work. Ain't you proud???????
JCCasebeer
After many hours of lying a given aircraft type Ethe pilot develops a lot of "feel" about where the wingtips are. This i not acceptable but certainly helps. It takes years and nobody has that length of experience in the 380. The striping on the taxiways/runways are supposed to guarantee xlearance from fixed in place things but nothing mobile like an airlines. Maybe the CRJ was not really clear of the taxiway. Maybe the stripes have not been revised for the 380. Maybe they should only taxi when there are no other aircraft in the area.
cm5299
Chuck Me 0
I guess I'll leave my seatbelt on now after we land.
distar97
Here's a novel idea. Use the equivalent of a marine harbor pilot to bring her to and from the gate. Said pilot would also need to be a attorney.
beatlefan156
Little kid on Comair CRJ: "WEEEEE"
patsrichs
Listening to Control Tower tapes, amazed no "Oh, $%%#@)"! Hats off to controllers every day, I could barely make out the french pilot. My translation of his response was, "Who, Moi?"
beatlefan156
Which tape did you find it in? Is it in the liveatc archives?
preacher1
To John Casebeer: I disagree a little on the lines. To my knowledge, the taxiway marking lines simply mark the outside and centerlines of a taxiway. If a Pilot has his nosewheel on a centerline, ain't nothing else he can do. Taxiway and runway length, width, and surface condition are given in all airport diagrams so he knows what he has under him. When an airport receives permission from the FAA to receive a whale , they are certifying they have what it takes to handle it. At that point and time, the onus is on the airport to actually meet those requirements such as taxiway width or put procedures in place to meet it. As this is the first time it has happened, maybe the investigation ought to center on what was different this time than all the days before when this flight and all the other whales have came in and gone out without a hitch.
cm5299
Chuck Me 0
ATC here:
http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php

Click "AFR 7 Super vs. Comair 553 at KJFK" for the audio. You have to register.

Sounds like the intersection of A and M.
beatlefan156
Thanks!
preacher1
Chuck: You are close and the CRJ pilot may have been a tad off himself. I just heard his tower call on CBS evening news, and he said " Send the Emergency trucks to Taxiway Mike, we just got hit by the Air France" so he undoubtedly knew what was around him, and according to CBS, the investigation was going to concentrate on whether he was actually clear or not.
cm5299
Chuck Me 0
My guess is the RJ wasn't clear of the runway.

From looking at google earth (yeah it's not the most accurate) it looks like there's about 180 feet from the centerline to the movement boundary. That should be plenty for the wing and being well off the centerline.

Again, just my internet armchair investigation. Take it for what it's worth. (not much)
preacher1
paralell 11000+ long 150 wide no sur type given Surface Good
04R/22L 8400 200 Asphalt Good
13L/31R 10000 150 Asphalt Good
13R/31L 14511 200 Concrete Good
I looked at FW's KJFK diagram and while thw widths are probably on th actual diagram, they are to smaall to se and the are not listed on the overview sheet but above are the runway sizes. The wingspan on a 380 is approx.240 ft., longer than the runways are wide. Dunno
preacher1
Karl: as much as this thing has been commented on, and we have all been there, you have probably boiled it down to what it is. What will be interesting is how many words it will take the FAA to report the same 10 words you have said here. lol
JCCasebeer
Wayne Bookout. I was wrong about the runway center line but probably correct about taxiway center lines. I looked it up on Wikipedia and it states "The taxiway centreline is a single continuous yellow line, 6 inches (15 cm) to 12 inches (30 cm) in width. This provides a visual cue to permit taxiing along a designated path. Ideally the aircraft should be kept centred over this line during taxi to ensure wing-tip clearance. It is pretty vague but something I was taught years ago and always observed. I don't fly anymore due to age. Thanks for your comment.
cm5299
Chuck Me 0
So this was Comair 553? Right? (JFK to STL) That's what the ATC sounds like to me (contrary to what I originally posted)

If so, does that mean the aircraft was PARKED? As opposed to taxing in to the ramp? Another potential wrinkle in this mess.

But again, I acknowledge this is all armchair internet BS speculation.
cm5299
Chuck Me 0
Actually I guess it could have been pushed back from the gate when it was hit. I'm going just from the video and sat image of the area.

That may be the most simple explanation for this mess.
rwf1001
one word to describe that....WOW!
And according to ATC transmissions from ATCnet it was Comair 553
preacher1
He was inbound and late. he had just arv from Boston as 6293. 6553 was due out at 8pm for Lambert at STL. Story shows 6293. Flight Aware tracking shows it as Delta 6553 out to Lambert. ATC runs them as aircraft call sign and FW tracker uses Delta for all public notification
b717cpt
Hey guys any captain, whether fresh out of training or the most senior at AF, should know the dimensions of his aircraft and operate it accordingly. He is the one ultimately responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. If there is any question regarding clearances, either verbal or physical, it is up to the pilot to take appropriate action; i.e. ask questions, slow down, STOP.

It appears from the video that the AF was taxiing too fast. As for Comair, he may or may not have actually been completely on the ramp and totally clear of the taxiway, but YOU CAN SEE THAT AS YOU SPEED DOWN THE TAXIWAY!!! When the AF captain saw the Comair tail was going to be a factor, he should have held until the Comair tail was clear before proceeding, and if he didn't recognize that it was going to be a factor he had no business being in charge of that aircraft. I place the blame for this 100% on the AF Captain.
capetonian
Marcus Pradul that was nasty and uncalled for!
militron
Are the A380 wingtips visible from the cockpit? It's always the PIC's responsibility for safe operation and it is clear that he was taxiing very fast in a congested space. No excuses.
wallypiper
To Wayne - I'm confused about your conclusion on the flight number. He identifies himself as 553 on the radio. Seems to me that makes him outbound and likely had just bee pushed back. Could he have just been wrong, already thinking about the outbound? Does he change his call as soon as he lands?
JCCasebeer
Wally has a very good pont. Anyone know the answer?
ulta
When a big jumbo land, you see a security truck to guide him to his stall.
Now, why it is not possible to do the reverse action, that the security truck come again, but this time to guide it to his departure runway?

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료