Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cameras On Heavies To Avoid Ground Collisions?  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1995 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4533 times:

NTSB recommend to FAA the implementation of external cameras that help pilots to avoid ground collisions with the wingtips of their planes. This is for all aircraft considered "Heavy", from 757 to A380. ( BTW, long time without a thread discussing if the 757 deserves the "Heavy" title   ).

This recommendation follows three ground collision accidents in which large aircraft collided with another aircraft while taxiing, in a short period of time.

Do you see any future to this recommendation ??


http://atwonline.com/international-a...und-collision-aids-large-aircraft-

Rgds.
G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLLA001 From Turkey, joined May 2005, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4442 times:

It would be nice if they showed these new views at the IFE of the passengers    

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12175 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4359 times:

I, myself strongly believe in the pilots looking out the cockpit windows and staying on the TWCL while taxiing, instead of heads down doing checklists or something else. Putting TV cameras on the wingtips and a display in the cockpit just puts their eyes back inside the airplane, this time watching a TV monitor.

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4319 times:

Has it ever been considered to use echo devices to warn of a nearby obstacle of the wing tips. These help a lots in cars, cost almost nothing, have no practically no weight.

User currently offline26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 851 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4240 times:

@TopBoom.

Often the wingtips on these large jets cannot be seen from the cockpit windows. Instead, how about an optical device on the cockpit side window that can illustrate the wingtip relative position to objects as they are approached. Sort of like a HUD but not really.

Also, the OP commented about the 757 and it's "heavy" designation. I believe this is only in reference to the wake turblence category the 757 falls under requiring greater separation from others. The actual weight of the 757 does not qualify it as a heavy in the traditional sense. At least one accident, the In-n-Out biz jet at KSNA,, was caused by 757 wake turbulence. There might be others.


User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4151 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 3):
Has it ever been considered to use echo devices to warn of a nearby obstacle of the wing tips. These help a lots in cars, cost almost nothing, have no practically no weight.

I would agree, sort of like a ground TCAS. But if would be nice to have an added benefit to have wing tip cameras if there was a warning.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3761 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

would cameras provide enough warning to stop or turn.. probably will only provide clear pictures of incidents for investigators.

User currently offlinecopter808 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1125 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I, myself strongly believe in the pilots looking out the cockpit windows and staying on the TWCL while taxiing, instead of heads down doing checklists or something else. Putting TV cameras on the wingtips and a display in the cockpit just puts their eyes back inside the airplane, this time watching a TV monitor.

My thoughts exactly! Besides, who is going to pay for this? Not the NTSB!!

As far as I know, there has never been a fatality involved with the collision of 2 aircraft on the ramp. These collisions are strictly a financial loss and whether or not to install cameras should be at the discretion of the operator.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3905 times:

TCAS on ground mode type of mechanism would be great.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1995 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I, myself strongly believe in the pilots looking out the cockpit windows and staying on the TWCL while taxiing, instead of heads down doing checklists or something else.
Quoting copter808 (Reply 7):
My thoughts exactly! Besides, who is going to pay for this? Not the NTSB!!

The problem is ( from the article ) :

According to the NTSB, on large aircraft—such as the Boeing 747, 757, 767 and 777; the Airbus A380; and the McDonnell Douglas MD-10 and MD-11—the pilot cannot see the wingtips from the cockpit “unless the pilot opens the cockpit window and extends his or her head out of the window, which is often impractical.”

Regarding the cost, I think that a couple of small cameras, a few wires and a small screen are not so expensive compared with an A380 cancelling the flight, being on the ground for two days to change a wingtip, and 450+ pax requesting meals, hotel rooms and re-bookings....I think the recommendation from the NTSB has a good support in the three recent incidents whit planes damaged, airport traffic impact, and an overall safety deterioration during ground operations.

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting copter808 (Reply 7):
As far as I know, there has never been a fatality involved with the collision of 2 aircraft on the ramp. These collisions are strictly a financial loss and whether or not to install cameras should be at the discretion of the operator.

So, your view is that only if someone is killed should airlines/ aircraft manufacturers be required to implement some type of additional safety procedure/ process? If not, please let use know.

I haven't seen video of the other incidents, but the way the RJ is tossed around in the A380 incident clearly shows the potential for a disaster. What is going to happen eventually is two aircraft with 500+ people aboard with a huge fire right in an area where it could invove other aircraft and the terminal. Along with quite a few ground workers/ ramp rats - caught in the middle.

There is a procedure that could be implemented which would avoid the cost of cameras. Though tripling taxi times by requiring wing walkers at all times heavies are moving on taxiways would probably be more expensive.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3683 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I, myself strongly believe in the pilots looking out the cockpit windows and staying on the TWCL while taxiing, instead of heads down doing checklists or something else. Putting TV cameras on the wingtips and a display in the cockpit just puts their eyes back inside the airplane, this time watching a TV monitor.

A TV monitor will never be a fix for poor airmanship. However, the distances involved when piloting an A380 are simply too big for a human brain to process well based on vision alone. That's why wing walkers are used during pushback. The A380 had multiple tipstrikes during its first several months in service.

Quoting copter808 (Reply 7):
As far as I know, there has never been a fatality involved with the collision of 2 aircraft on the ramp. These collisions are strictly a financial loss and whether or not to install cameras should be at the discretion of the operator.

A fatality has never occurred because of good fortune. Did you watch the video of the AF A380 hitting the CR7? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSUL46Jdudw

Look at how violent that is. Fortunately, everyone aboard was buckled in. Fortunately, nothing heavy flew out of the overhead bins (which held) and land on anyone's head. Fortunately, the wing didn't hit the ground and rupture a tank.

Remember this one?

That could have ended a lot worse, too. Again, good fortune.

The point is that these events are both very costly and very dangerous. It's a matter of time before it's two VLA's and one or both of them ruptures a fuel tank and then there's a spark...

The A380 already has a camera mounted in the tailfin. It would be a trivial engineering problem to either install cameras in the tailfin that can see each wingtip OR mount cameras in the wingtips. If every A380 has this system installed and it prevents even ONE collision, it will probably pay for itself.


User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):

At least one accident, the In-n-Out biz jet at KSNA,, was caused by 757 wake turbulence. There might be others.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...211X13867&ntsbno=LAX94FA073&akey=1

Sorry for the diversion, but I had to look it up and know others were curious.

The cameras will add additional unnecessary workload during the busy taxi/take-off time. I agree the alert system similar to what's put on many new cars today would be a better option. I know there are speed restrictions, but it seems the AF A-380 was taxiing along at a good clip when it struck the CRJ. Could have been my perception from the video? Slower taxi in the ramp/terminal area could be the most simple option, then open it on up once out of the more congested areas. Maybe this exists, just a thought. In this case, the pilots did not see the CRJ due to lights flashing, etc, however in many accident reports, the pilots admittedly questioned the proximity, however kept on taxiing. If there's a question, STOP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XvJMk5CGds

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...ef.aspx?ev_id=20110412X23201&key=1

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45363621&opt=0

M


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 12):
The cameras will add additional unnecessary workload during the busy taxi/take-off time.

They do not need to. Having the imagery available does not necessarily add workload. It's like adding an extra cockpit window.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3607 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 12):
but it seems the AF A-380 was taxiing along at a good clip when it struck the CRJ.

While it was moving along, my memory from the threads at the time is that the A380 was traveling well under what other aircraft taxi on that route. The A380 stopped very quickly, before its tail clears the intersection where the colision occured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk8yeyMVkFk

I'm sure the movement of the CRJ makes the speed seem higher. But that movement is more due to the weight difference between the two aircraft than speed.

After all at MTOW the A-380 outweighs the CRJ-700 better than 16 to 1. So in this case the A-380 probably had a 20-1 weight advantage over the CRJ.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3369 times:

As well with cameras as with echo systems I would estimate the costs to be a few thousand $ max, so easily the accidents we saw, if half of them could have been avoided, cost more than to equip at least all new planes with such a system.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21804 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 15):
As well with cameras as with echo systems I would estimate the costs to be a few thousand $ max

Definitely not. What with certification and installation costs and all, you're probably looking at at least $20,000 per airplane, especially if you're going to talk about sensors and an alert system and not just a camera. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but we do need to realize that there are some costs involved.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12175 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3316 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):
@TopBoom.

Often the wingtips on these large jets cannot be seen from the cockpit windows. Instead, how about an optical device on the cockpit side window that can illustrate the wingtip relative position to objects as they are approached. Sort of like a HUD but not really.
Quoting copter808 (Reply 7):
My thoughts exactly! Besides, who is going to pay for this? Not the NTSB!!

Taxiway centerlines at all US commerical airports (I am sure at all global commerical airports, too) are surveyed to assure proper wingtip clearances for the largest airplane design group that will use that taxiway. If something bigger needs to use it, then there are restritions put in place for other airplanes and/or objects. If all airplanes always stayed on the TWCL, and always parked were they are designated to park, there shouldn't be a problem.

However, when an airplane turns onto an adjacent taxiway, and does not stay on the C/L, there could be a problem.


User currently offlinealphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 581 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3282 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Taxiway centerlines at all US commerical airports (I am sure at all global commerical airports, too) are surveyed to assure proper wingtip clearances for the largest airplane design group that will use that taxiway. If something bigger needs to use it, then there are restritions put in place for other airplanes and/or objects. If all airplanes always stayed on the TWCL, and always parked were they are designated to park, there shouldn't be a problem.

However, when an airplane turns onto an adjacent taxiway, and does not stay on the C/L, there could be a problem.

In the most recent issues where an Eva 74F hit in ORD and the LH A333 hit in IAD, both aircraft were actually on the centerline. The issue was the RJ sticking out into the taxiway.

Interesting that the NTSB didn't include the A330/340 in their list of aircraft...


User currently offlineAviRaider From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

If moderatly priced cars can have reverse sensors there is no reason aircraft wingtips could not have them. No need for cameras. If something gets dangerously close to the wingtip, the sensor goes off in the cockpit and pilots then investigate it, no need to over-complicate it.

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Taxiway centerlines at all US commerical airports (I am sure at all global commerical airports, too) are surveyed to assure proper wingtip clearances for the largest airplane design group that will use that taxiway.

The AF A-380 was on the taxiway centerline. The CRJ-700 was stopped at a legal stop point. Both surveyed and checked. There was a 16 foot overlap between the length of the CRJ and the A-380 wingtip.

Obviously someone messed up - however, it is also becoming very clear that the practice of airlines controlling ramp areas increases the possibility of conflicts.

Conflicts which the control tower is often unable to see.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Neither the sensors nor the cameras need cables as example, they all could transmit with RF - they switch off as soon as you are on the runway.

User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

A lot of cars have cheap collision avoidance systems. There are many types and technologies. Some systems look forward at night, some rearward when backing, others monitor the "blind spots" for changing lanes. In all of these cases, most of the systems are cheap to manufacture and use. They can be included by the manufacturer or purchased independently.

Also, they only alert you when there is a problem, then you you use other means to determine the problem (like video when backing). You are not constantly relying on and looking at the system.

Surely, the cost has come down to where they could be installed for a "relatively" low cost. Of course, relative in airplane terms, usually mean a whole lot more than the consumer version.


User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

A simpler easier less complex fix: Stay on the line! After all, that's what it is painted there for.
More weight, More expense, more regulation, more distraction is not a good thing!



737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

But in all three of the collisions the moving aircraft was on the taxi centerline. So staying on the line isn't the answer.

25 cmf : Isn't enough to avoid all accidents. Enough examples given in this thread.
26 Maverick623 : Do people bother reading previous replies anymore?
27 Mir : No technical reason, sure. But technology on cars doesn't have to go through the same certification process that technology on airplanes does. That's
28 copter808 : Damage repair and other expenses, although considerable, would likely be far less than certifying and equipping the thousands of aircraft out there.
29 spiritair97 : In addition, the 757-300 is technically a heavy because it's takeoff weight exceeds 255,000 lbs.
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...
Miami Breaks Ground On Rail To Airport posted Fri May 1 2009 12:37:58 by MAH4546
D/FW Airport To Break Ground On New Taxiway posted Mon Oct 9 2006 20:21:04 by Danairbus
FAA To Propose Security Cameras On Planes posted Wed Sep 21 2005 01:18:05 by Syncmaster
Any New Airlines Planning On Coming To MKE? posted Fri Aug 10 2012 10:40:28 by rj777
Would Island Air Ever Take On HA To Mainland? posted Fri Jul 20 2012 05:06:28 by Canflight
B6 Pilot Injured By Laser Beam On Approach To JFK posted Mon Jul 16 2012 12:20:29 by Gonzalo
Merger To Form Ground Handling Giant posted Tue Jun 26 2012 06:42:17 by Gonzalo
Coup In Mali - Impact On Airlines To BKO? posted Sat Mar 24 2012 09:20:57 by af022
GOL B763 Already In TUS On Delivery To DL! posted Sun Dec 11 2011 08:34:05 by audidudi
Emirates To Go Triple Daily On A380 To LHR posted Wed Nov 16 2011 05:12:07 by EK156