A380 vs RJ7 @ JFK

[grizz441]

I blame the entire country of France for this.

[-tronski-]

How, I'm curious, is it the fault of a stationary airplane or a controller that a moving airplane smashes into a stationary airplane?

When is the last time you hit a parked car in your vehicle and had it being the parked cars fault?

If my car is controlled by ground, I'm cleared and sticking to the centreline in that visibilty and another car has stopped in an adjoining taxilane and unknowing to me is infringing the twy and either hasnt told ground, or ground hasnt passed along he's stopped and i clipped him with my mirror (not that i can see them)...yeah I'm blaming them

And that changes that Air France smashed into a stationary airplane how?  ATC can clear me to do whatever I want it's up to me to make sure it's safe. That generally includes not running into stuff that isn't moving.

The Comair jet looked like it was waiting for marshallers and are as far as they can go without the ground crew there to walk them in. You know, to prevent them from running into stationary objects with the wingtips they can't see from the flight deck.  Obviously AF expected their wingtips to clear if they paid any attention at all. They were wrong and the responsibility lies with the AF captain.

Never worked at JFK, but with traffic/visibilty alone it was possible that A388 wouldn't have even seen the CRJ until it hit the txylane.

 Tronsky

[Golfer]

If my car is controlled by ground, I'm cleared and sticking to the centreline in that visibilty and another car has stopped in an adjoining taxilane and unknowing to me is infringing the twy and either hasnt told ground, or ground hasnt passed along he's stopped and i clipped him with my mirror (not that i can see them)...yeah I'm blaming them

Never worked at JFK, but with traffic/visibilty alone it was possible that A388 wouldn't have even seen the CRJ until it hit the txylane.

 Tronsky

One of my favorite misconceptions:

What protection does staying on centerline of a taxiway give you?

I'm talking FAA guidance.

[Golfer]

If my car is controlled by ground, I'm cleared and sticking to the centreline in that visibilty and another car has stopped in an adjoining taxilane and unknowing to me is infringing the twy and either hasnt told ground, or ground hasnt passed along he's stopped and i clipped him with my mirror (not that i can see them)...yeah I'm blaming them

Never worked at JFK, but with traffic/visibilty alone it was possible that A388 wouldn't have even seen the CRJ until it hit the txylane.

 Tronsky

Blame whoever you want. If you're the captain of an airplane that smashes into something that isn't moving you will (and should be) responsible for it.

I also think you're putting too much stock into what an ATC instruction is going you in this case as well. Especially with regards to what's known as a non movement area which is essentially uncontrolled. Also company ramp controllers on their own discrete frequencies which aren't overseen by certificated ATC specialists.

And you're also not seeming to grasp that the AF A380 hit a stationary airplane.  Smashing into a fixed object is not generally the fault of the stationary object.  It was a big white airplane with nav lights and a beacon in a reasonably well lit area. Not moving.  The ultimate responsibility to not do something you're "cleared" to do because it might bend metal or otherwise violate you lies with the Pilot in Command. In this case the AF captain.

It may well have been as simple as misjudging how big your airplane really is bit the airplane was still taxied into a stationary object.

[MachFly]

He's right ^

[flight17]

Okay.

234 orders.
63 deliveries.
Freighter program "frozen" & orders converted to passenger models.
357 more deliveries needed just to break even.
EADS needs 123 more sales to break even, assuming orders don't change.
So production on current sales wraps in 4 years, with them $46,125,000,000 in the hole.
But rest assured, the host countries of EADS, their tax payers will make up the loss, via the tax system. 

*ok
*ok
*nope all conversions have been canceled (just two months ago actually by ILFC)
*357 more/123 more orders- i believe that was from the numbers published a few years ago. They stopped saying what the break even was around 2008 (iirc), but its expected to be over 600 frames by many.
*yup, such a comerical success


With boeing on the other hand.... the 747-8 was a mere 6 months delayed, which that delay was directly caused by the 787. In its first 6 months of being certified, it will have over 20 deliveries to at least 6 different customers, 1/3 of all A380's delivered in the past nearly 4 years.

Typical French, no respect. 'Hon hon! I pee on your pathetic little American flying can ... <puffing on a cig> ... Off the way of Le Magnificient you go ... Brigitte, bring on le cheese, we arrived to burgeearland'.

Im too is surprised about the strength of that wingtip, tail. As far as who's fault is it, the 380 crew since it wasn't a low vis taxi condition.
With all the cameras on that 380, they should have some on the wingtips.

lmao

It wasnt that strong it broke off. It appears to me that when it caught, the CRJ began to run up over the upper wing tip fence until the right wing of the CRJ struck the ground and the horizontal surface could no longer keep going over the fence. Once that happened, then the CRJ was swung ~90 degrees until the H stab broke the wingtip fence off and it landing back on its left main gear

Their is only one camera that im aware of on the A380 and thats the tail camera. The only purpose for it is to help in taxiing by showing where the fuselage (which then the landing gear position can been interpulated) is in relation to the taxiway. Because of this, the view on the camera ends just outside of the #1 and #4 engines, so the wingtips are not seen by the pilots.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

One of my favorite misconceptions:

What protection does staying on centerline of a taxiway give you?

I'm talking FAA guidance.

In my other life, 15+ years ago, when I graduated that God forsaken degree in Airport design, I recall fancy tables about airplanes wingspan, gear thingy dictating the radius, witdth of taxiways and object/zones clearances associated with those numbers. Let me Google something, here :

AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, current edition. (See Appendix 1.) See Table 4-1 taxiway dimensional standards.

Table 4-1. Taxiway dimensional standards
1/ Letters correspond to the dimensions on figures 2-1 and 4-1.
2/ For airplanes in Airplane Design Group III with a wheelbase and equal to or greater than 60 feet (18 m), the standard taxiway width is 60 feet (18 m).
3/ The taxiway edge safety margin is the minimum acceptable distance between the outside of the airplane wheels and the pavement edge.
4/ For airplanes in Airplane Design Group III with a wheelbase equal to or greater than 60 feet (18 m), the taxiway edge safety margin is 15 feet (4.5 m).
5/ Airplanes in Airplane Design Groups V and VI normally require stabilized or paved taxiway shoulder surfaces.
Consideration should be given to objects near runway/taxiway/taxilane intersections which can be impacted by exhaust wake from a turning aircraft.
The values obtained from the following equations may be used to show that a modification of standards will provide an acceptable level of safety. Refer to paragraph 6 for guidance on modification of standards requirements.
Taxiway safety area width equals the airplane wingspan;
Taxiway OFA width equals 1.4 times airplane wingspan plus 20 feet (6 m); and
Taxilane OFA width equals 1.2 times airplane wingspan plus 20 feet (6 m).


Here's the table http://nevada.sierraclub.org/rolgroup/text/airport/reference/5300-13%20Table%204.1.pdf

And here's case about SEA and taxiing the 747-800
http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/nla_mos/media/SEA_747_mos_6.pdf

9. STANDARDIREQUIREMENT:
Background:
Seattle-Tacoma Intemational Airport is an ARC D-V airport. with the 8747-400 as the design aircraft. The 8747-8 is a new aircraft that will begin using the airport in 2009. The 8747-8 is an Airplane Design Group VI (ADG VI) aircraft by definition, but closely resembles the 8747-400 (an ADG V aircraft) in many ways. Even the wingspan, the historical detenninant of an aircraft's design group, is only eleven feet wider than the 8747-400. Many other characteristics such as tail height, width of main gear, and engine placement are within inches of being the same as the 8747-400. Some characteristics, such as wheel track and wingtip track around a turn are actually less demanding than some existing ADG V aircraft. Taxiway 8 parallels taxi lane W in the passenger tenninal area. Taxiway B is an ADG V taxiway. Taxilane W is designed for aircraft with a 125 ft wingspan (B757-200) or less. There is 219 ft between the centerlines of taxiway 8 and taxilane W. Having a B747-8 on taxiway 8 and a 8757-200 on taxi lane W would provide for 44.3 fL between aircraft wingtips Standard/Requirement: Table 4-3. Wingtip Clearance Standards. Table 4-3 states that ADG VI taxiways shall have 62 ft. of wingtip clearance. The fonnulas associated with the table allow for aircraft specific wingtip clearance standards. Utilizing the fonnulas provides a wingtip clearance standard of 54.88 fl for the B747-8. 10.
PROPOSED:
Allow the 8747-8 to operate on taxiway 8 without restrictions, while aircraft with wingspans up to and including 125 ft. simultaneously operate unrestricted on taxilane W. !!.

EXPLAIN WHY STANDARD CANNOT BE MET

(FAA ORDER S300.!E): The standard cannot because: • Sea-Tac has a limited footprint making it cost prohibitive to relocate the taxiway. It would require relocating the entire airfield to the west. • There is not enough room to relocate the taxi lane to the east, as it would negatively impact aircraft parking al the terminal. • Restricting operations on taxilane W would have a negative impact to airfield efficiency.

So I don't see it as a missconception, there are taxiways safety areas, taxiways object free areas and what not that equate to "protection for staying on the centerline".  

That's why I think that NTSB will blame everyone, Bus pilots, ground control, ramp control, Comair pilots, airport authority at a minimum of "Failure to advise".

BTW, Golfer when I do UPS out of DEN, they have ramp control, and those are ATC guys. Maybe JFK as the same thing, not just local company ramp control?  

[Vulcan]

But rest assured, the host countries of EADS, their tax payers will make up the loss, via the tax system. 

Cos US taxpayers never have to bail out US companies right rip

[Golfer]

Typing on my phone sucks for putting together coherent thoughts so if I was overly general about company ramp usages that's my error.  Charlotte, NC is a good example of how non ATC certified individuals controls the airlines ramp outside of the conventional ATC environment. For push back you called the ramp controller who was usually a guy named Jimmy and or whoever was on duty ran the show. You'd start and taxi up to the top of the alleyway to call ground for taxi. You still were under the control of someone whose job it was to herd the cats and they did a hood job but my point was to illustrate the potential for a wide gap in experience and credentials that may exist on different sides of a movement area line.

Speaking of UPS I had a jumpseater in a former life that was a relative new hire at the time who was talking about how they can self marshal themselves in Louisville. That's pretty nice when time is an issue but use a method of lights and if memory serves mirrors to aid the pilots vision when pulling to where need to be. If we could have dome that I would have made a lot less money waiting for a ground crew to walk us into the gate.

I took a couple airport design courses for my degree program a number of years ago. My head is still spinning but it was great information. I still get cold sweats when I see drawings of future airport plans

[Ripsnort]

Cos US taxpayers never have to bail out US companies right rip

Boeing doesn't use taxpayer money directly like EADS, unless you consider our government buying military planes as subsidies. (And if you do, you're a fool. The government buys a product, and recieves a product, that the customer-aka Taxpayer-pays for)

If we lose money, no one bails us out.

Matter of fact, Boeing almost folded in 1973, when it had depleted all of its investment money into the 747 program.
Mass lay-offs, and a sign on the freeway that said "last one out please turn off the lights".

However, I can't speak for the other companies. 

[RTHolmes]

iirc only france and spain are investors in EADS, and I'd be suprised if their combined stake is more than 25%. so their taxpayers would take a hit for any losses, or indeed benefit from any profits, in the same way as any private shareholders would.

[B-17]

Roger

but wouldnt it take a bit more than just an average joe to pilot an A380, the largest airliner in the world?

[Tupac]

but wouldnt it take a bit more than just an average joe to pilot an A380, the largest airliner in the world?

No doubt he was an experienced pilot, but it is THE LARGEST AIRLINER IN THE WORLD. He misjudged how big his airplane was I bet. What you can't see in the video is all of the escape doors opening up and white flags popping out.

[RTHolmes]

so presumably when 747s crash they deploy 5cwt hoists and a fleet of 600 mobility scooters, while reading the safety instructions r e a l l y  s l o w l y  u s i n g  s m a l l  w o r d s ...

[Tupac]

so presumably when 747s crash they deploy 5cwt hoists and a fleet of 600 mobility scooters, while reading the safety instructions r e a l l y  s l o w l y  u s i n g  s m a l l  w o r d s ...

Lol