Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 27014 times:
Noted following Transport Canada incident report for December 22, the first day of YVR service by a CX 747-8F on CX 87 which operates LAX-YVR-ANC-HKG. Apparently there wasn't enough wingtip clearance from a BA 744 going the opposite direction on a parallel taxiway. Lucky they recognized the potential conflict in time. Sounds like a lack of planning by the airport authority. The report below says CX was departing for Hong Kong. I think that should read Anchorage.
Cathay Pacific Flight CPA087, the first Boeing 747-8 at Vancouver (CYVR), was taxiing westbound for an IFR departure to Hong Kong on Twy JA, supposedly an approved taxiway for this aircraft, as a British Airways Boeing 747-400 operating Flight BAW085, IFR London Heathrow (EGLL) to CYVR, was taxiing eastbound on Twy M. CPA087 stopped as they didn't think there was enough room to pass the BA 744 safely. Airport Ops was called to check the wingtip clearance. Both aircraft had to deviate off the taxilines to be able to pass safely.
UPDATE from System Safety; The following B747 wingspan dimensions information is subject to confirmation by manufacturer's documents: B747-100, 200, 300, 195 ft, 8 inches, B747-400 211 feet, 5 inches, B747-8 224 feet 7 inches.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 26895 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1): The incident was that an incident was avoided?
My guess is that even though nothing really happened, but since both (I'm assuming both) aircraft came to a stop and airport operations were called it, documentation may have been required making it an incident.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 26858 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 2): Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1):
The incident was that an incident was avoided?
My guess is that even though nothing really happened, but since both (I'm assuming both) aircraft came to a stop and airport operations were called in, documentation may have been required making it an incident.
Maybe I should have used another word other than incident. "Occurrence" may have been better as that's actually the name of the Transport Canada system used to report anything out of the ordinary (CADORS - Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System).
jetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2066 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 26757 times:
It is 100% incident. An aviation incident is when there as an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations. An accident is when there is damage to a plane or property and/or injury
Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3290 posts, RR: 19 Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 26691 times:
Quoting jetfuel (Reply 4):
Reply 4, posted Sat Dec 24 2011 20:52:29 your local time (6 minutes 58 secs ago) and read 44 times:
It is 100% incident. An aviation incident is when there as an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations. An accident is when there is damage to a plane or property and/or injury
Can't agree with that, in this case, due to the care of the respective flight crews, an incident / accident / occurrence
whatever you want to call it was avoided.
Nothing happened, the airport authority, however needs to investigate the taxiing procedures to make sure nothing keeps happening.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
jetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2066 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 26307 times:
An incident report was raised after the incident. This is the whole point of having incident reports so that issues relating to safety can be dealt with. If you want the airport authority to investigate then you need an incident report. No question the event was an incident.
Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5341 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 26129 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 5): Can't agree with that, in this case, due to the care of the respective flight crews, an incident / accident / occurrence
whatever you want to call it was avoided.
Agree with it or not, unfortunately, this is the regulatory description of these words.
While I agree that a lot of this stuff is stupid, whether you and I agree with it or not is kind of like arguing that the sky is sometimes purple. Entirely irrelevant.
wolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 453 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 25881 times:
Well, that could have been ugly and costly. Good thing both pilots were alert and avoided a collision. Seems like the airport either is not fully aware of the dimensions of their taxiways or, more likely, not yet accustomed to the wingspan of the 747-8. Strange.
Also strange that some don't want to call this an incident, which it of course is, because in the end 'nothing happened'. Following that logic a near-miss would also not qualify as incident.
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1273 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 25613 times:
After a quick look at the YVR map I'm not entirely sure how this happened. It appears M and J are perpendicular, but I may be reading it wrong. But regardless of that, someone really dropped the in terms of planning. Hopefully this doesn't affect future movements with worse results!
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 25262 times:
Quoting wolbo (Reply 9): Seems like the airport either is not fully aware of the dimensions of their taxiways or, more likely, not yet accustomed to the wingspan of the 747-8. Strange.
More likely the former...in order to accept a 747-8 in the first place, airport ops should have already checked out all the taxiways for clearance so that the appropriate controllers knew where they could and couldn't send the big jets. There shouldn't be any aspect of being accustomed to it unless a controller accidentally put the two jets on taxiways they shouldn't have been on.
Quoting wolbo (Reply 9):
Also strange that some don't want to call this an incident, which it of course is, because in the end 'nothing happened'. Following that logic a near-miss would also not qualify as incident.
A near-miss is a near-miss...what distinguishes it from an incident is that it *isn't* an incident. However, we're mixing regulatory terminology and normal usage (which are not necessarily the same). By jetfuel's definition in Reply 4, it's an incident. Whether that's actually the correct definition in the context of the relevant Transport Canada regulations is a different issue.
THEBATMAN From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 829 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 23913 times:
Whether it's an incident or not, I think a better title for this thread would have been "close call" at YVR. The current title is kind of misleading. I'm glad no one was hurt, and I'm glad they didn't smash a brand-new 747-8. Merry Christmas everyone!
Pilots without aircraft mechanics are just pedestrians with sunglasses and a leather jacket.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 23688 times:
Quoting THEBATMAN (Reply 14): Whether it's an incident or not, I think a better title for this thread would have been "close call" at YVR. The current title is kind of misleading. I'm glad no one was hurt, and I'm glad they didn't smash a brand-new 747-8. Merry Christmas everyone!
And kudos to the pilots for not breaking their plane on its maiden commercial flight!
Jayce From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 520 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 22140 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 9): After a quick look at the YVR map I'm not entirely sure how this happened. It appears M and J are perpendicular, but I may be reading it wrong.
It looks like CX was on JA and BA was on M, which run parallel to eachother. JA comes off Juliet and heads east towards the international terminal just south of Mike.
"Trying is the first step towards failure" -Homer Simpson
esdex From Australia, joined Jan 2011, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19652 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 5): Quoting jetfuel (Reply 4):
Reply 4, posted Sat Dec 24 2011 20:52:29 your local time (6 minutes 58 secs ago) and read 44 times:
It is 100% incident. An aviation incident is when there as an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations. An accident is when there is damage to a plane or property and/or injury
Can't agree with that, in this case, due to the care of the respective flight crews, an incident / accident / occurrence
whatever you want to call it was avoided.
Operational risk management, whether in aviation or any other sensible industry, is all about reporting 'incidents' whether they result in an accident or not. The concept of an incident properly includes things called 'near misses' which help us to learn how to avoid accidents. In aviation it's what safety authorities call it and it's what they expect. And to be honest, it really doesn't matter which word a particular safety authority chooses, it's the concept of reporting that counts.
In this case, both aircraft were cleared onto taxiways which could have resulted in unsafe operation, had we not had two attentive sets of pilots. The learning here is that the taxiways might be incompatible for simultaneous B748 & B744 operations. There was 100% an incident.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19227 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11): A near-miss is a near-miss...what distinguishes it from an incident is that it *isn't* an incident.
So therefore, it shouldn't be considered an incident if a plane plummets from the sky towards the ocean, but the pilots manage to regain control at the last second, and everybody was strapped in properly so there are no injuries or issues.
An incident is any issue that threatens the safe operation of an aircraft -- which is absolutely what happened here.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11363 posts, RR: 50 Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 18943 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 18): An incident is any issue that threatens the safe operation of an aircraft -- which is absolutely what happened here.
I don't think that's what Tom's saying - I think he was making the distinction between a near-miss and an incident.
This clearly was an incident - action had to be taken to avoid the planes making contact and, assuming they were both on the taxiway centre-lines, future action will have to be taken to avoid a repeat.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13001 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 18): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
A near-miss is a near-miss...what distinguishes it from an incident is that it *isn't* an incident.
So therefore, it shouldn't be considered an incident if a plane plummets from the sky towards the ocean, but the pilots manage to regain control at the last second, and everybody was strapped in properly so there are no injuries or issues.
You've lost control of an aircraft in flight...that's an incident by any definition. Incidents aren't about effects, they're about events.
The incident in this case was either the controllers put the aircraft on taxiways they shouldn't have been on or airport ops screwed up the taxiway surveys. From the aircraft's point of view, it was a near-miss (an incident with no effects on either aircraft).
Quoting scbriml (Reply 19):
I don't think that's what Tom's saying - I think he was making the distinction between a near-miss and an incident.
Exactly. Near-misses are very important to investigate (more important than actual accidents, usually) and that's why the definition of "incident" is nearly all-encompassing. I was just pointing out that, in non-regulatory conventional usage, a near-miss, an incident, and an accident are different things (but all related).
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15733 posts, RR: 48 Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12780 times:
On a somewhat unrelated note--can the 748 not do YVRHKG nonstop?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10715 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 22): On a somewhat unrelated note--can the 748 not do YVRHKG nonstop?
The passenger aircraft can. The freighter can only do it nonstop with a payload penalty. Boeing payload/range charts on their website shows the 747-8F maximum range as approximately 4200 nm at maximum zero fuel weight (YVR-HKG is 5555 nm). And the payload-range data assumes no wind. Headwinds can be very strong on westbound transpacific flights.
25 flightsimer: An accident is not anything that causes damage in the US. In short, an accident is any occurrence that causes major structural damage to an aircraft.
26 something: Without dismissing the interesting discussion about the precise phraseology of what happened, I am more interested in knowing: Would those wings even
27 Daysleeper: Had the pilots not noticed this who would have been responsible for the resulting accident? While I understand that ATC shouldn’t have directed them
28 RG787: If the 748 was a 744, would they collide anyway?
29 qf002: Sorry, my comments weren't directed primarily at you... More pitching into the conversation as a whole, should have picked someone else to quote rath
30 817Dreamliiner: maybe, maybe not. It all depends on how close the were to actually hitting each other remember the wingspan of the 744 and 748 are 211ft and 224ft re
31 flythere: So it was the Cathay pilots who found this potential problem and the Traffic Controller was called to reconfirmed.
32 ikramerica: I think RG787 was wondering considering the 748 is less than 7' wider from centerline is it really safe to send 744s this way? Seems far too close for
33 YVRLTN: To add to this post, regardless of what the correct terminology may be, understanding what CADORS is will help understand why it was posted on the Tr
34 Burkhard: What we do not know from the the original text if there really was the possibilty that they could touch, or if there still was enough space and only t
35 LTC8K6: I can't understand the confusion. The report is pretty clear. "Both aircraft had to deviate off the taxilines to be able to pass safely." They could n
36 My16SidedOffice: A bit late to the thread but centerline to centerline on these taxiways is 80m. B777-300ER's routinely pass each other in this same very area with ver
37 threepoint: Assuming the following is accurate: ...there would also be more than 10 metres of air between the wingtips of two of the larger Boeings passing abeam
38 cloudyapple: 3.3.2 describes types of event that require a mandatory report to be filed (MORs). Other types of event not described in 3.3.2, if you read on to 3.3
39 zeke: If it is 80 m, that is below what is required for a code F aircraft like the 747-8
40 rcair1: I still think a near-miss is a hit. A near-hit is a miss. -- Heck - follow the lead of the papers and title it "747's nearly collide head on at YYZ..
41 Viscount724: December 28 Transport Canada update to the CX-BA wingtip clearance issue at YVR. There was no problem and it appears to have only been an incorrect pe
42 My16sidedoffice: While the B748 may fit into the Class F category, it's on the bottom range and as such is being treated and is approved at many airports as a top of t
43 pliersinsight: TRUTH. [quote=Viscount724,reply=41]December 28 Transport Canada update to the CX-BA wingtip clearance issue at YVR. There was no problem and it appea
44 ikramerica: This is exactly what Boeing was selling with the 748. Technically it falls in class F, but practically it can use 80m spacing without incident (just
45 Daysleeper: That has to be one of the most ridiculous and dangerous selling points I’ve ever heard. If an aircraft is class F then its class F. Encouraging it
46 zeke: It does not matter what Boeing says, YVR cannot handle the 747-8F everywhere. It has a limited number of approved taxiways and only 2 approved bays t
47 threepoint: I would assume we could say the same about most airports throughout the world. As long as there are approved routes to utilize, and procedures are be
48 tdscanuck: Boeing never said that YVR could handle a 747-8F everywhere. As you noted, YVR can't even handle a 767 *everywhere*. When you say "airport XYZ can ha
49 ikramerica: People who miss this point don't want to get the point because of their bias. The point is, with some precautions, the 748 can fit at airports that c
50 zeke: Other people make posts that are not factual. The largest 747-8 operator at the moment is not able to fly the 747-8 onto all airports it can fly a 74
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 426 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2066 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 453 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11363 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
