Viscount724
Topic Author
Posts: 18831
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:18 am

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.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:28 am

The incident was that an incident was avoided?
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7175
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:32 am

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.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
Viscount724
Topic Author
Posts: 18831
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:37 am

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
Posts: 1027
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:52 am

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
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:03 am

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
Posts: 1027
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:59 am

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
Posts: 4887
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:12 am

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
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:09 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:25 am

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
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:38 am

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!
Flying refined.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:39 am

I thought it was A380 ready though? It seems like an A380 wouldn't have been able to pass at all if a 748 had to move over.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:58 am

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.

Tom.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:13 am

Well, the TC page calls it an incident. I wouldn't, but no one asked me.  

It does need to be resolved, though.
 
User avatar
thebatman
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:15 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:23 am

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!
Aircraft mechanics - because pilots need heroes too!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19593
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:37 am

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!
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Jayce
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 1999 10:36 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:40 am

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
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:08 am

Good job for both the crews for noticing and doing something about it before the expensive crunching sound!!
 
esdex
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:06 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:41 am

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
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:12 am

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.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13229
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:34 am

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.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
RNAVFL350
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:56 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:33 pm

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 4):

Per NavCanada ATC MANOPS, jetfuel pretty much quoted verbatim the definition of an incident. it is considered an incident by Transport Canada.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:27 pm

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).

Tom.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15208
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:37 pm

On a somewhat unrelated note--can the 748 not do YVRHKG nonstop?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Viscount724
Topic Author
Posts: 18831
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 8:52 pm

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.
 
ssteve
Posts: 1124
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 8:56 pm

Not too much of a detour:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=yvr-hkg
 
flightsimer
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:28 pm

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 4):

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. If the landing gear and or engine is the only thing damaged, then it is an incident per FARS

Two diamonds wrecked at our airfield over the summer, wihin 2 weeks of each other, with both having the nose landing gear collapsed and an abrupt stop on the engine. Both Times the FAA was called and came to the airport and both times they were only "incidents".
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:47 pm

Without dismissing the interesting discussion about the precise phraseology of what happened, I am more interested in knowing: Would those wings even have collided, or are they maybe at different heights?

[Edited 2011-12-25 15:48:39]
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:32 am

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 into a collision I’ve always assumed that the captain is ultimately responsible for ensuring he doesn’t run into anything.

OT. But why does it matter what this is called? Be it "Incident", "Near Miss" or "Bob" - I don't see why people care. If it helps The Oxford English Dictionary defines an Incident as “an instance of something happening; an event or occurrence:”
 
rg787
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:28 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:21 am

If the 748 was a 744, would they collide anyway?
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:30 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):

Sorry, my comments weren't directed primarily at you... More pitching into the conversation as a whole, should have picked someone else to quote rather than just the last post!
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:51 am

Quoting RG787 (Reply 28):

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 respectively.
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
flythere
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 3:24 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:03 am

So it was the Cathay pilots who found this potential problem and the Traffic Controller was called to reconfirmed.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:24 pm

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 safety to me even with 2 744s passing.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2261
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:06 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
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).

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 Transport Canada website. It basically reports anything outside of "normal" operations which shouldnt happen and for the most part dont result in anything untoward happening - look through it, you will find ELT's accidentally set off, unauthorized Joe public walking onto taxiways, possible bird stikes, lasers pointed at planes, smokers in the washrooms, go arounds due to slow exiting aircraft from the active, power outages or no staff at smaller airfields and so on.

As to the "incident" this makes sense

Quoting Jayce (Reply 15):
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.

As JA leads to the remote stands where I would imagine they would park (the usual 744F does usually). In future, I would imagine any fix would be pretty simple by holding a large aircraft on M after vacating 26R/08L until CX is parked up on stand. If that interferes with other larger aircraft exiting that runway, divert them to 26L/08R or give the Dash's and below priority which can exit earlier.

On a personal note, bummed not to see it - great weather that day too, unlike this weekend...
Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:48 am

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 the CP crew thought there wasn't enough space to pass safely. For sure he was right to call the tower since he was in doubt, and the tower was right to avoid any potential problem by giving them another taxiway, and now it is time to remeasure and reevalute if this was an incident or a crew that was very cautious which is their duty on a brand new plane - to add to the lingusitic discussion here only once the incident report is closed we know if it was an incident and safety was affected, or it wasn't.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:05 am

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 not pass safely. They had to deviate to get by.

It's pretty clear that any planes with similar or longer wingspans also cannot pass by each other there, such as a 744 and an A380.
 
My16sidedoffice
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:39 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:31 am

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 very similar clearances. Between the B748 and 744 there would be more than 13m. (42feet) of wingtip clearance. CADORS reports are often quite vague but it seems more than anything to have been an overly cautious pilot operating the type it's first time in YVR and in the dark as well.

[Edited 2011-12-29 20:32:00]
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:20 am

Assuming the following is accurate:

Quoting My16SidedOffice (Reply 36):
A bit late to the thread but centerline to centerline on these taxiways is 80m.

...there would also be more than 10 metres of air between the wingtips of two of the larger Boeings passing abeam each other, so in theory we could have a pair of brand new 748s on the taxiways at YVR and still have room for Peter Besenyi to fly his Extra 300 between the wingtips.

Quoting My16SidedOffice (Reply 36):
it seems more than anything to have been an overly cautious pilot operating the type it's first time in YVR and in the dark as well.

I agree. And given that doubt, they were entirely justified to come to a stop and request confirmation.

Now...about terming this an "incident", here's my view. TC regs are quite specific in this regard and what happened in YVR does not fit into the criteria of an incident. Read the definition of a "reportable aviation incident" at the following link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...ions/tp14371-gen-3-0-2562.htm#3-2. Scroll down and note the criteria include (j) a collision, a risk of collision or a loss of separation occurs; . Can we not agree that assuming both aircraft were adhering to the painted centreline (of course they were, they're BA/CX crews for goodness sakes) and the taxiway clearance was sufficient in its design (putting some faith in My16SidedOffice's assertion here), then there was no risk of collision nor loss of separation? Which as I mentioned above, should in no way discourage the captain to halt the aircraft if he/she has any doubt concerning the safe operation of the flight.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:46 am

Quoting threepoint (Reply 37):
definition of a "reportable aviation incident"

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 3.3.4, can also be reported, so long as the reporter feels there's a safety risk involved.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 37):
Scroll down and note the criteria include (j) a collision, a risk of collision or a loss of separation occurs; .

Risks as in real risks AND perceived risks. The whole purpose of any safety reporting system is to capture all events, where people feel there may be a safety risk. The incident investigation process that follows the report will determine if the risk was real or perceived. That's not the responsibility of the pilots or whoever reported the incident.

[Edited 2011-12-30 03:49:51]
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9739
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:36 pm

Quoting My16SidedOffice (Reply 36):

If it is 80 m, that is below what is required for a code F aircraft like the 747-8
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1109
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:12 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
near-miss is a near-miss.

I still think a near-miss is a hit. A near-hit is a miss.  

--
Quoting THEBATMAN (Reply 13):
close call" at

Heck - follow the lead of the papers and title it "747's nearly collide head on at YYZ...." (yes I got the airport code wrong on purpose).
rcair1
 
Viscount724
Topic Author
Posts: 18831
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:48 pm

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 perception by the CX 748 crew that there was insufficient clearance. The only clearance issue on those taxiways apparently involves the A380.

UPDATE from Aerodrome Safety: Vancouver (CYVR) Operations confirms that adequate clearance exists between all models of B747 for movement on taxiways M and JA. Special operating procedures are in place for A380 operations in this area. No further action required.
 
My16sidedoffice
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:39 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:42 am

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 the scale Class E aircraft. There is a great read covering the subject here http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2010_q3/3/
 
pliersinsight
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 6:06 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:34 am

Quoting esdex (Reply 17):
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.

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 appears to have only been an incorrect perception by the CX 748 crew that there was insufficient clearance. The only clearance issue on those taxiways apparently involves the A380.[/quote


Better safe than sorry. From now on, if the nosegear is on center for both aircraft and a 744 and 748 clip tips, I take it Transport Canada will be happy to pay for the damage? There should have been another sentence that said words to the effect of "Although the perception by the CX crew might have been incorrect, the actions taken by the respective flight crews were appropriate given the circumstances."
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:47 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):
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 perception by the CX 748 crew that there was insufficient clearance. The only clearance issue on those taxiways apparently involves the A380.

UPDATE from Aerodrome Safety: Vancouver (CYVR) Operations confirms that adequate clearance exists between all models of B747 for movement on taxiways M and JA. Special operating procedures are in place for A380 operations in this area. No further action required.

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 no room for sloppy taxiing).

The 777NG will be the same way, should they build it. It will have roughly the same span as the 748.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:10 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 44):
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 no room for sloppy taxiing).

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 to be treated differently will eventually lead to an accident.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9739
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:31 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 44):

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 no room for sloppy taxiing).

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 that the aircraft type can use. YVR actually has numerous taxiways that cannot handle aircraft larger than a 737 or 767, it is not the easiest place to get around with wide or long aircraft.

The 747-8 is not a 744, it cannot go everywhere a 744/744ERF can go despite what Boeing says.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:40 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):

It does not matter what Boeing says, YVR cannot handle the 747-8F everywhere.

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 being followed accurately, then there should be no risk/hazard.
At any rate, until YVR sees extensive simultaneous use of Class F aircraft (with wingspans greater than a 747-8), there exists a very limited impact on operations, unlike the potential complications at say, LHR, LAX or DXB.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:57 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):

It does not matter what Boeing says, YVR cannot handle the 747-8F everywhere.

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 handle this aircraft" there is no implication of any kind that that means that aircraft can go everywhere on the airport.

Tom.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: CX 747-8F Incident YVR - First Day Of Service

Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:58 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 48):
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 handle this aircraft" there is no implication of any kind that that means that aircraft can go everywhere on the airport.

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 can take the 744, and if spacing is 80m, the airport can operate as normal, even though the 748 is technically not in code E. The wheel track is code E, and the span is slightly more than code E. Ground controllers need to take care to send it the right way, and the pilot needs to make sure the longer wheelbase is accounted for when turning, but it's not going to hit anything when handled correctly.

The A350-1000 would likely be a better aircraft if it stretched the wingspan outside 65m, but Airbus has made a decision to keep it code E. It will make things easier, obviously.

The 777NG design is heading toward the 748 span of 68m as well. This means that even Boeing's suggestion for how to park a 748 in 65m wide box really goes out the window. But with more and more airports building 80m wide boxes for gates, over time, it won't matter much.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, angelopga, Baidu [Spider], BlueSky1976, KarelXWB, LG777, Lofty, MSNbot Media, Phen, qf789, Rookinla, stratocruiser, tobseren, wezgulf3 and 245 guests