Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JFK: AF A380 Collided W/ Comair CRJ While Taxiing Part 2  
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 25
Posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 39552 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

This is a continuation thread from part 1, which can be found here: JFK: AF A380 Collided W/ Comair CRJ While Taxiing Part 1


Rgds

SA7700


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
154 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineketa From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 39606 times:

I've read in the previous thread some people say that the taxiing aircraft has ultimate responsibility of maintaining clearance. I have a question regarding that, what happens in fog? If an airplane cannot see past its wings, it cannot taxi?


Where there's a will, there's a way
User currently offlineAirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 39609 times:

This is the result of 747 vs EMB. Interesting!



(Also AF involved  duck  )

[Edited 2011-04-13 00:59:37]

User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 39282 times:

Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 2):
(Also AF involved )

ah yes, but they were the victims...

Ref that 747 vs ERJ clash, it was at Madrid airport, between a Thai airways 747-400 taxiing out (to Bangkok) and an Air France Regional ERJ... shows that even the 747 can sometimes hit things! (and the Embraer isn't as solid as Bombardier?).





User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 38773 times:

It is always very interesting to read the opinion of all the A.Net "Experts" ...
Now the investigators will have to answer the real questions about tis incident :

- Was the A380 taxiing with the proper clearance and was it following the center yellow line correctly ?

If the answer to this premordial question is "Yes", and apparently it is ... then :

- Were the pilots of the A380 informed by the ATC of the prensence of the CRJ ?
- Was the CRJ holding at the correct position ?
- Could the A380 pilots see the CRJ from where they were ?

And many more ....


User currently offlinebj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 38681 times:

Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 2):
This is the result of 747 vs EMB. Interesting!

WOW

Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 2):
(Also AF involved

They are involved in quite a lot of ground incidents or is it just my imagination?

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 3):

Ref that 747 vs ERJ clash, it was at Madrid airport, between a Thai airways 747-400 taxiing out (to Bangkok) and an Air France Regional ERJ... shows that even the 747 can sometimes hit things! (and the Embraer isn't as solid as Bombardier?).

It looks like the 747 slammed into the Embraer from the back. The back of the vertical stabiliser is not as strong as the front part which has to deal with the wind so it would be easier to decapitate a plane from that angle. It also depends on how hard you it it and how big the contact service area is. As far as I can tell the A380 hit the CRJ with it's little winglet. The 747 slammed into the Embraer with at least a part of the wing spar, which is quite a bit stronger than a winglet.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
- Was the A380 taxiing with the proper clearance and was it following the center yellow line correctly ?

As far as I could tell from the atc recording, yes. He did seem to be traveling rather fast though. Then again it might just look like that because of the bad quality footage.

Her is a link to the ATC conversation: http://www.luchtvaart.tv/video.php?id=13609


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 38649 times:

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
It is always very interesting to read the opinion of all the A.Net "Experts" ...

Thank you  
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
Now the investigators will have to answer the real questions about tis incident :

Now we did answer real questions, just no one respects the experts of a.net, its about the messenger not the message.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
- Was the A380 taxiing with the proper clearance and was it following the center yellow line correctly ?

Hence the question of airport authorities really getting their airport ready for the A380,a foot left or right means disaster, should have a bit more tolerance no?

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
- Were the pilots of the A380 informed by the ATC of the prensence of the CRJ ?

Initially yes, the ATC recordings indicate that they were told to hold, whether the flight numbers were mixed up by the media or ATC is still in doubt.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
Was the CRJ holding at the correct position ?

Will ultimately be used as a smoke screen, a/c could only park on the outer gates, a/c are supposed to wait for marshalls, authorities stated that the airport is A380 capable, so there must have been enough room for the a/c to pass each other.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
- Could the A380 pilots see the CRJ from where they were ?

Like the previous point, if they could not see and at night it is difficult, they must rely on the visible markings at the airport, marshalls, ground controllers, etc etc etc,they are not supposed to guess and proceed, they should have stopped or questioned. A question for you, if they were told to proceed and this happened, do they bear any responsibility for the hit, will AF and the authorities accept such?

This is an internet forum, some here have real knowledge, they actually fly planes and work at airports, its why we are here, those folks let us know about this issue before the actual authorities, how cool is that 


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9109 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 38538 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Initially yes, the ATC recordings indicate that they were told to hold, whether the flight numbers were mixed up by the media or ATC is still in doubt.

ATC asked the A380 to taxi on "Left onto Alfa" and hold short "Echo" which is on the other side of the airport.

They then amended the clearance about the same time of the incident to ask the A380 to give way of opposite direction traffic on "Kilo Delta", 4 intersections past taxiway "Mike" where the incident occurred.

The A380 crew appear to be reading back the “give way to the opposite direction” when the collision occurred. The crew more than likely would have been trying to locate not only where “Kilo Deta” was, also the traffic they were asked to give way to.

Listening to the ATC recordings, ATC did not ask the A380 to hold short of "Mike".



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 886 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 38144 times:

$375m aircraft and it doesn't even have a horn?  


To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlinebj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 37940 times:

Quoting offloaded (Reply 8):
$375m aircraft and it doesn't even have a horn?

Actually, it does.

It is used to get the ground crews attention. Almost every plane has one.


User currently offlinetsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 37856 times:

Local ABC affiliate claiming that the A-380 is "too big" for JFK...link here...
this ought to help whip up some more hysteria...  http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...ion=news/local/new_york&id=8066927


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 37870 times:

Quoting bj87 (Reply 5):
Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 2):
(Also AF involved

They are involved in quite a lot of ground incidents or is it just my imagination?

AF is not having much luck... Sad to see another A380 incident...  

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1614 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 37588 times:

Quoting bj87 (Reply 9):

Quoting offloaded (Reply 8):
$375m aircraft and it doesn't even have a horn?

Actually, it does.

It is used to get the ground crews attention. Almost every plane has one.

Wow, this is the first time I hear this! Not that I'm not believing you, but I honestly never heard of that before. Where is this horn normally located? Anyone got a photo?



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 37532 times:

Quoting tsnamm (Reply 10):
Local ABC affiliate claiming that the A-380 is "too big" for JFK...link here...

Well actually the media is also pulling in Boeing, so it does not seem to be an attack on just the A380, the aviation story today in some papers and on web sites is the amount of waivers being granted to US Airports for the A380 and the 747-8. One does have to read further to discover that at this time, the Boeing waivers are for small airports attempting to lure more cargo traffic expected with the 747-8 F, but a headline is a headline and right now this incident has opened a small flood gate.

Interesting times ahead.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 36911 times:

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
- Could the A380 pilots see the CRJ from where they were ?

From the video, there appears to be plenty of visibility for the A380 crew to see the CRJ.

But you have to remember, this collision only occurred because one of the aircraft was out of position by just a couple feet. The A380 crew obviously thought the CRJ was clear of the A380 wingtips.

Quoting bj87 (Reply 5):
He did seem to be traveling rather fast though.

But the A380 comes to a complete stop in approx 1/2 plane length after the contact.

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 3):
and the Embraer isn't as solid as Bombardier?
Quoting bj87 (Reply 5):
The back of the vertical stabiliser is not as strong as the front part which has to deal with the wind so it would be easier to decapitate a plane from that angle. It also depends on how hard you it it and how big the contact service area is. As far as I can tell the A380 hit the CRJ with it's little winglet.

I'm actually surprised the landing gear of the CRJ did not fold. The A380 knocked the CRJ sideways making it jump and slam the gear into the ground sideways.

That CRJ weighed somewhere close to 40,000 lbs and it spun around like a kids toy. The tail of the CRJ was moved 30 to 40 feet by the impact forces.


User currently offlinesardiniangirl From Italy, joined Dec 2010, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 36714 times:

Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 2):

what effect has had the pilot of 747?

[Edited 2011-04-13 05:51:02]

[Edited 2011-04-13 05:58:50]

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 36294 times:

Quoting keta (Reply 1):
I've read in the previous thread some people say that the taxiing aircraft has ultimate responsibility of maintaining clearance. I have a question regarding that, what happens in fog? If an airplane cannot see past its wings, it cannot taxi?


You got it!

That is why there has never been a CAT IIIc landing. While auto-land can put the aircraft on the center line of the runway, there is no way to taxi in zero/zero visibility.


User currently offlinecotparampguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 36145 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 12):

It's not really a "horn" per say. It's a loud beeping sound like "ding ding ding ding." A way for the crew to alert you to get on the headset or look in the cockpit for an instruction of some sort.

[Edited 2011-04-13 06:14:37]

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8383 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 35925 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 16):
That is why there has never been a CAT IIIc landing. While auto-land can put the aircraft on the center line of the runway, there is no way to taxi in zero/zero visibility.

The technology does exist however. If my office's mail cart can do it there's no reason a $375 million plane couldn't do it. Of course the logistics are a bit more complicated  


User currently offlinetrigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 35615 times:

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 3):
Ref that 747 vs ERJ clash, it was at Madrid airport, between a Thai airways 747-400 taxiing out (to Bangkok) and an Air France Regional ERJ... shows that even the 747 can sometimes hit things! (and the Embraer isn't as solid as Bombardier?).


Well obviously this brings up a VERY serious A vs. B situation! Obviously the engineering, assembly, and maintenance on Boeings are FAR superior to Airbus as the Boeing RIPPED the tail off of the ERJ while the Airbus only did a little damage. This is clear evidence that Boeing is superior!

Now, for those of you who have no concept of "tongue-in-cheek" or sarcastic/humorous comments, please rest assured that the comment above was completely in jest. Sit back, quit screaming at your computer monitor (your monitor has done nothing to offend you, quit slapping it) and continue on through the rest of the thread.

In all seriousness, this is a triangle of fault/guilt/error (whatever you wish to call it). As said before, the RJ was short of the stop line, the 380 did not have situational awareness with regards to its wingspan, and ATC was probably asleep again. While some of you may not advocate serious consequences for those involved in this incident, it could have been far worse.

As for the manufacturers of the aircraft, it is a moot point. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the brand of aircraft, but with the operators.

BTW, do you think that the obvious grunge and dirt on the AF plane had anything to do with the collision?   

[Edited 2011-04-13 06:35:19]

User currently offlinecx777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 153 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 35177 times:

Quoting trigged (Reply 19):
Well obviously this brings up a VERY serious A vs. B situation! Obviously the engineering, assembly, and maintenance on Boeings are FAR superior to Airbus as the Boeing RIPPED the tail off of the ERJ while the Airbus only did a little damage. This is clear evidence that Boeing is superior!

It's actually mostly physics!! The 'kiss' of wingtip to tail was dependent on the velocity, angle, inertia, mass, VECTOR, AND THEN the engineering of the materials.

If the vector was bit off, this could have resulted in clean cutting off the tail regardless of how it's 'bolted' to the fuselage.

Also very important factor was the parking brakes were OFF and wheels were not locked, which help to 'pivot' the little place on is axis and in the end did not break.


User currently offlinemac3xx From France, joined Mar 2009, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 35125 times:

Quoting cotparampguy (Reply 17):
It's not really a "horn" per say. It's a loud beeping sound like "ding ding ding ding."

It is a horn, like on your car ! In any Airbus A/C you have this horn to get attention from ground crew located in the nose gear bay. Most of the time triggered from flight deck to request mechanic to connect to the flight interphone because you need him.



mac3xx
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 34702 times:

Quoting tsnamm (Reply 10):
Quoting tsnamm (Reply 10):
Local ABC affiliate claiming that the A-380 is "too big" for JFK...link here...
this ought to help whip up some more hysteria... http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...66927

Our ever vigilant responsible media at work.
 


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 34173 times:

Quoting bj87 (Reply 5):
They are involved in quite a lot of ground incidents or is it just my imagination?

Every big airline has incidents on the ground on a regular basis. Most don't make the news, is all.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 33633 times:

Quoting trigged (Reply 19):
Well obviously this brings up a VERY serious A vs. B situation! Obviously the engineering, assembly, and maintenance on Boeings are FAR superior to Airbus as the Boeing RIPPED the tail off of the ERJ while the Airbus only did a little damage. This is clear evidence that Boeing is superior!

LOL

... actually this raises a much more interesting ERJ vs CRJ comparison.
That ERJ had the tail completely detached, but was repaired and is still in service (I believe).
That CRJ tail stayed on, but may have twisted the fuselage in which case it could be a write-off.
... so which would you rather have?  

(either way, I don't recommend getting in a flat spin in either!)


25 Post contains images AirNZ : ........and, in complete honesty, I have knowledge of four others occurring today so a bit curious as to why a thread wasn't started on any of them!
26 Post contains images B6JFKH81 : This is from the first thread (don't know how to quote from a different thread so I'll copy/paste: ****************** CPD writes: "I don't remember an
27 cotparampguy : Must have not heard the horn on the 'bus yet, all i've heard is the beep noise.
28 chuchoteur : On the 'bus, it's more of a "honk" than a horn or a beep I guess...
29 Post contains images lightsaber : Wow! When did that occur? Does someone need to find a new job? Ok, we all know ground incidents are fairly common. But I do recall a bit too many AF
30 vegas005 :
31 richierich : I'll be Captain Obvious here and say that both incidents were completely different in nature and say nothing at all about the structural integrity of
32 chuchoteur : Madrid airport, July 2006. *sorry, the original comment was made in jest, and my reply was also meant in the same way. :o)
33 Post contains images readytotaxi : So the AF ground staff,who were just going home after seeing their aircraft depart the gate now have to rush back, unload the passengers,cargo,caterin
34 Post contains images goblin211 : A horn, huh? Well, any driver out on the street would tell you to move out of the way. Looks like pilots are more nonchalant about other planes lol. W
35 Post contains images nordair737242c : I am sorry i have to disagree here with your statement this definitely shows that a CRJ can withstand an assault from an A380 better than an ERJ can
36 nordair737242c : Very simple anything whalejet related and the Boeing Boys get a thread going to blast it.....
37 trigged : No, simple numbers. RMS Titanic sank and everyone knew about it. There were probably dozens of smaller ships that sank the same year and no one heard
38 Post contains links tsnamm : According to the report JFK recieved waivers on upgrading taxiways for A380 ops, and are now attempting to connect the accident to the taxiways being
39 nordair737242c : Agree with you on that somewhat but remember the Titanic sunk half way through its maiden voyage and the hype around it was tremendous for the day...
40 bj87 : How to irritate as many people as possible in as little amount of words possible...... Go Canada, Go Canada. And while we are at it. The A380 doesn't
41 Post contains links trigged : True, but my reference was to size difference, not number of cycles. The 747 incident I referenced above happened almost 5 years ago. I was asking if
42 rcair1 : Easy - this was rather spectacular and there was video.
43 dh106 : Britannic actually. Olympic was the only one of that class of three ships not to sink.
44 Post contains images DocLightning : This got me thinking about the wingtip cam issue. First, The A380 has both a belly cam and a tailfin cam. Neither of these show the wingtips. But if
45 filejw : OK having read most of this its my turn.Having taxied down that taxiway many a time here are few thing for all to digest.The CRJ properly cleared or n
46 richierich : I'm going to guess considerably more than that, just for the A380 alone. Without any sort of background into exactly what level of work needs to be d
47 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : IATA reported a year or two ago that ground collisions, mostly minor involving aircraft and/or ground vehicles, cost the industry over $4 billion a y
48 Post contains links mike96 : Here's a good video with Subtitles, ATC, and video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCqBQLTWmw
49 Post contains images kiwimex : What? No bluetooth? Sheesh!
50 Acheron : Problem is the depth perception of cameras. I think it would be easier and cheaper to fit similar sensors to those fitted in cars along the leading e
51 bikerthai : Or a more expensive solution is to have a sensor on each aircraft that relay to a computer at the tower. The computer would know exactly the position
52 B6JFKH81 : This is my reply from the previous thread (reply 199) about the same thing that was brought up with an initial response from Mir (reply 194): Quoting
53 redflyer : I don't think a camera in the wing tips would be very helpful, at least when it comes to judging clearances. Cameras provide a 2 dimensional view, wh
54 ikramerica : You obviously haven't seen how reverse cameras work on cars then. They are calibrated with a graphic overlay on the image. That overlay has distance
55 kiwimex : Stick some of those big-ass chemical lasers in each wingtip, so if they get too close to anything the laser would slice through it, allowing it to har
56 redflyer : I have...my wife's car has one. (And one thing I notice when backing up is how distorted the image is, which leads me to use it as a secondary system
57 ikramerica : That was my question, about cost. As for your other concerns? So we are supposed to be worried the pilots would be too distracted or ignore the camer
58 trigged : Here is the issue. Taxiways are a known width, correct? The A380 is a known width, correct? If the wingtip distance from centerline exceeds the half-w
59 Mir : There's no way they could have seen where the tail of the RJ was in relation to the taxiway - had it been light, they could have seen it was over the
60 KBOS : What is the ground steering setup of an A380 like? Does it use the tiller steering wheel and is it left seat only is it on both sides?
61 filejw : Mir ,that is incorrect ,you should know exsatly where you wing tip and tail is at all times..
62 Airvan00 : Is there a Surface Movement Radar at JFK? I have seen SMR's where it was possible to see if an aircraft was infringing the cleared area of a runway or
63 DocLightning : And with a wingspan of 78-ish meters, the human brain cannot easily process those sizes and distances intuitively. The cameras will help a lot.
64 Post contains links CapEd388 : Heres another link that has a little animation as to how the accident happened. They also claim that JFK's taxiways are 75 ft. in width instead of the
65 rfields5421 : True - Taxiway B is 75 feet wide - but there is a 50 foot blast buffer on each side of the taxiway giving a paved width of 175 feet. That puts approx
66 Post contains images rfields5421 : The CRJ was stopped short of Taxiway A. Did they have clearance to cross A? The ATC audio says the A380 is on Bravo, the CRJ on Mike, and that they h
67 runner13 : As a former gate agent, the first thing I thought of when I heard this was trying to imagine rebooking 500 pax. Any current or former gate agents thin
68 m404 : I cannot tell for sure but does anyone have an idea how far was the truck that passes from (camera viewpoint) left to right in front of the RJ?
69 rfields5421 : There is a vehicle route about 150 feet from the centerline of Taxiway A toward the camera. That would be about 185-190 feet from where the CRJ nose
70 m404 : rfields5421 That's just what I wanted to know. Thanks The "Hold Short" command seems to be in discussion of late in other incidents and the meaning an
71 kanban : first.. why not just change the lens to a wider angle?.... the existing isn't exactly a navigating tool now. Second... at landing/takeoff speeds and
72 Post contains links and images mandala499 : Listen to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjuCI2yAVD8 The A380 was on A... THis is the area of interest: (rotated to suit the collision video's angle
73 Mir : The pilot should have a good idea, yes - it's impossible to know exactly. But ATC can't be expected to - they might have a weird angle from the tower
74 DocLightning : Then why is it available to the pilots in the cockpit? The wider angle you make a lens, the more distortion. Yes, you could reduce the zoom, but I th
75 AirlineCritic : I don't know about the repair cost, but: Just looking at the cost of accommodating this flights passengers, say, conservatively 130$ hotel bill, $20
76 Post contains images AirlineCritic : From the previous thread: Unfortunately, both AF and QF damaged the *left* wing. Otherwise you could have cut off a wing from one and put it in anothe
77 Mir : This is true, but that's irrelevant in this case. 75 feet is the pavement width - about the same as a CRJ700's wingspan. So even a 737's wings will h
78 Post contains links DAL763ER : http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749...port-accident-planes-bump-24890632 Check this video out. Right at the end of the video, the girl says "...accom
79 Post contains images DocLightning : If it had been the right wing, then they could do a switch. And one aircraft would be left with NO wings. And just think how safe it would be to taxi
80 DocLightning : And if the fuselage of the CRJ was damaged such that major structural members are bent or broken, then that's a whole CRJ. So suppose two cams and th
81 Post contains images GBan : To me that sounds like a reasonable summary
82 garynor : Question: Would you also have evacuated the CRJ immediately had you been the captain in this situation? What kind of alarms/warnings would have gone o
83 Eskimotail : Several years ago, NW Airlines A330 at PDX struck Q200 rudder while taxing. Swung Q200 only about 20 degrees. Only obvious damage was the torn rudder
84 ltbewr : A number of persons here have suggested adding cameras to the wingtips and other areas of the aircraft to help the pilots see better during taxiing. S
85 Post contains images rfields5421 : Thanks I was wrong The vehicle route was under the CRJ. The vehicle we saw was on the ramp area. No idea exactly how close to the CRJ - but less than
86 rfields5421 : The pilots of the CRJ did order an evacuation which occured quickly after the impact.
87 par13del : Yes, no different than the stopping points at gates that are used for multiple a/c, if you are ever at a gate area which has a view of the tarmac you
88 bikerthai : I still advocate tapping into the airplane transponder (do these work at ground level?). If all planes have a GPS transponder, then they would know t
89 zeke : Not sure about that, I heard the controller say that they were evacuating, however a news link I saw yesterday had the passengers wanking from the fr
90 DocLightning : To within 6 meters, which is way too much margin of error.
91 zeke : Actually could be better than that, the airport could have a GPS receiver at a known location, and apply the correction obtained at the control point
92 moose135 : Well, they were sitting there minding their own business when they were struck, and the aircraft spun nearly 90 degrees. At that point, I'm sure the
93 Post contains images dh106 : What - ALL of them Zeke ? [Edited 2011-04-14 07:40:03]
94 Post contains links and images 9V-SPJ : @ bikerthai, they already have this system installed at JFK. It's called ASDE-X. Acts a bit like ground radar. My company developed it http://www.sens
95 kanban : I believe this the second for this aircraft... documentation in Part 1 thread You'd think someone with Airbus knowledge would know the answer... howe
96 Post contains images par13del : This would work if two a/c end up on the same taxiway going in opposite directions, but I'm not sure it is precise enough to prevent this type accide
97 Post contains images chuchoteur : It's there for taxi purposes, and has reference marks as to where the main undercarriage is. Helps you ensure your wheels are on the taxiway... Actua
98 par13del : Just based on your flag, I would say why not. Good one Cheers
99 Post contains images Pihero : Have you ever seen a picture of an A380 cockpit? Where are you going to dispkay those 2 cameras views of the wingtips ? Another armchair solution : T
100 Pihero : NO, they don't; Their purpose is different The top tailfin camera provides a view of the top fuselage, but more importantly the wing surface and the
101 bikerthai : Maybe you would have ideas on how this may work (if it's not a trade secret). The transponder would need to identify the plane type, position and spe
102 DocLightning : That's a lot more expensive and complicated than my suggestion. The other thing is that the computer system would have to have a 3-D real-time model
103 bikerthai : Sorry doc, I was thinking more holistically. There are many occurrences of airplane vs. airplanes incidents on the ground, A380 notwithstanding. The
104 Post contains images bikerthai : Might be a good idea to know the location of every truck on the tarmac. bikerthai
105 Post contains links and images SSPhoenix : I know what happened: the A380 had anger management issues ok now that we are done with that - Jon has written an excellent piece (as usual) about the
106 Post contains images Pihero : I was expecting that answer : Computers will solve all our failings and woes. Please onz day spend one hour of your time watching the airport movemen
107 Post contains images seabosdca : These kinds of systems are already under development for automated highways, which (although they will not present such a staggering diversity of equ
108 Post contains images bikerthai : Seriously, when I wrote the "computerizing everything" comment I did have at the back of my mind the question: "What if the computer crashes"? From m
109 CuriousFlyer : I would love more pictures of both planes!
110 Post contains images Pihero : That's a ridiculous statement. One, I have adapted to nearly forty-five years of aviation evolution, from the DC-4 to the latest of the technology, s
111 Pihero : There is only one way to manage in a highwayè and everybody is supposed to follow the same route. The complexity of an airport traffic system can't
112 zeke : That still would not be a good enough reason for me to initiate an emergency evacuation, no immediate threat to life. Most emergency evacuations resu
113 Post contains images bikerthai : You are right that I do not have a logical answer, I just put out scenarios so as others with more knowledge who may be able to address the problem.
114 seabosdca : In theory, there are only a limited number of routes on an airport tarmac. (Of course, ground vehicles often -- typically -- choose their own routes
115 Post contains images Pihero : That's what I thought and what I said. The other problem is the human interface : Where does the info go and who takes action and responsibility ? Qu
116 Post contains links and images ikramerica : Expensive? Yes. Not there? http://www.wheels.ca/article/794356 Many of the technologies added to the prius to make it work are already installed in a
117 rfields5421 : This is a question for someone who knows the details of the JFK Airport. At the edge of the vehicle road is a hold short marking. The way I view it -
118 Mir : This isn't quite right - aircraft are required to get clearance from whoever controls the ramp (at some airports that's ATC, at others, including JFK
119 Pihero : that's why I wrote this : For that, I'd play the cornet in the metro corridors to finance your flight. Cheers ![Edited 2011-04-14 16:54:29][Edited 20
120 CX flyboy : If only anything in aviation was that cheap. I can remember the exact figures but a single windscreen panel on a 777 costs over a hundred thousand do
121 MattRB : Judging from the video, I'd say the crew pushed the CRJ too far off the gate & committed a taxiway incursion.
122 DocLightning : All right. So $100,000 for the system. Remember, a camera system is already installed.
123 Mir : The CRJ was coming into the gate, not going out. It wouldn't make sense for the ramp crew to push an airplane to that position, as it would be pointe
124 MattRB : Comair 553 is JFK-STL. You can see in the video that the a/c is positioned with the taxiway centre line to its right, which corresponds with the firs
125 rfields5421 : According to FlightAware - Comair 553 did not fly on Apr 11 - the day of this incident. It did fly daily through the 10th and on the 12th & 13th.
126 Mir : It was a flight from BOS-JFK according to the news, and I tend to believe them on this one. I know the pilot said 553 over the radio, but it's not un
127 rfields5421 : Could the 553 aircraft and crew normally fly BOS-JFK then JFK-STL ? Comair 293 arrived from BOS at JFK at 1944 EDT on Apr 11. What time did the incide
128 Post contains links MattRB : DL flights BOS-JFK on CR7: 6399 6495 Neither of these flights arrive around the time the incident occurred and neither are anywhere near the flight n
129 Post contains links rfields5421 : I see five flights for Apr 14 Flight - Aircraft - Arrival at JFK DL6281 - CRJ9 - 0732 DL6467 - CRJ9 - 1154 DL3064 - CRJ9 - 1359 DL6399 - CRJ7 - 1525 D
130 Post contains links rfields5421 : 6495 is Orlando to Miami - http://www.delta.com/flifo/servlet/D...light_date=04/11/2011&request=main
131 MattRB : Correct. Misread the schedule (which 6495 is listed, but doesn't start until 01May). That should be 6293. 6293 arrived at 19:44 EST on the 11th.[Edit
132 Mir : It would end up there anyway, as the airplane would have to turn around to get out of the ramp. The exhaust doesn't present a danger as long as the t
133 Post contains links AeroWesty : The Comair plane was inbound: Air France, Delta jets collide "The Federal Aviation Administration’s Jim Peters said at approximately 8:15 p.m. the
134 Post contains images bikerthai : Ah, my culture betrays me. With our customs, invitees often pay their own way if they can afford it. If they can't, they politely decline with a post
135 kanban : since this thread has moved to prevention from the actual incident, question... if a plane had all these added proximity warning devices, more cameras
136 WingedMigrator : Only one wingtip of its own. The other wingtip incident was somebody else's wingtip (A330) going into this plane's APU doors.
137 litz : Isn't there a strobe light on the tail for precisely this reason?
138 KBOS : They could always go back to the good old "Follow Me" vehicle. An extra set of eyes outside the A380 looking back without the aid of camera's......ju
139 ikramerica : Might be good practice for any F aircraft taxiing on an E taxiway. A380, 748, etc. As someone in the know pointed out, for the F birds to taxi on the
140 kanban : in case nobody noticed the A380 was speed taped (high speed duct tape the manly way to fix your problems) together and flown back to Paris within 24 h
141 Post contains images Aircellist : I can't believe that. Mixing cars bikes with pedestrians with trucks and buses and with emergency vehicles is still much simpler than adding planes i
142 FlyASAGuy2005 : I was quite surprised that over 200 posts later, people were still confused on which flight this incident involved as far as the Comair 700. Someone e
143 Kaiarahi : Does it need to be a "pan"? I advise ground as a matter of course whenever I'm unable to clear a taxiway and ask which frequency they want me on.
144 Post contains links canoecarrier : One which I believe most carriers include on the IFE system for passengers to view. I'm not advocating for or against the idea but it really isn't a
145 Goldenshield : Closer to 67,000, but compared to the A380, it's not that big of a difference.
146 kanban : now they say she didn't leave... who knows for sure????
147 moose135 : A friend arriving at JFK this afternoon saw it parked behind the Triple Hangars, workers on a lift at the left wingtip. He posted a photo, but links
148 FlyASAGuy2005 : I found the bit about it being flown back to France already a little hard to believe.
149 Mir : The beacon light is on the top (and bottom) of the fuselage, as you can see in the video. The white nav light on the tail wouldn't have been visible
150 jetway879 : Here is my take.... JFK is highly congested, especially in certain areas of that airfield. That makeshift gate area for the Rj's at terminal 2 is a me
151 Post contains links CuriousFlyer : So is it still at JFK? I wonder if would be able to see it there. According to this article in French, it will take about 3 weeks to repair it. http:/
152 KHPN : I flew on B6 4 today and taking off on rwy 4L I saw it parked on the north side of 31R/13L abeam the intersection of C and CB.
153 B6JFKH81 : Yes, it is sitting behind the Hangar 3/4/5 complex on the north side of the field.
154 MSN007 : Does anyone know if this A380 shortage and delays for AirFrance affects the CDG-IAD launch on June 6?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
No AF A380 CDG-JFK End June? posted Sun Apr 4 2010 12:35:07 by cgnnrw
AF A380 Stay On Ground At JFK posted Tue Dec 15 2009 00:18:53 by DID747
AF A380 Returns To JFK posted Mon Nov 30 2009 11:46:51 by Ryu2
Why Comair CRJ From JFK - DTW? posted Sat Jan 31 2004 05:37:54 by Dandy_don
Russian Passenger Jet Catches Fire While Taxiing! posted Sat Jan 1 2011 04:15:10 by lhr380
Minor Ground Collision In CDG Including AF A380 posted Sat Oct 30 2010 09:14:17 by reifel
AF A380 07/10 At YUL posted Mon Oct 4 2010 15:50:21 by Aeolus
Next AF A380 Destinations Are ... posted Mon Oct 4 2010 07:54:28 by FlySSC
AF A380 At BDL posted Sun Sep 12 2010 16:31:10 by sectflyer
Help With AF A380 Reg LHR-CDG 29/8 posted Fri Sep 10 2010 02:01:15 by richcandy