Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FTJR on April 12, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
-
http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story?videoId=202003240&videoChannel=1
-
Was just about to post that. Really spun the small jet around. Lucky no one was hurt.
-
Hopefully not to much damage. Dang french.
-
WOW! Cannot believe it moved that plane like that.
-
Same video here at bbc..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13054205
:eek:
-
It was just a matter of time with a lemon that big. :old:
-
Keep your seatbelts fastend and stay in your seats until the plane comes to a complete stop at the gate....
wrongway
-
Imagine the ride in the cockpit of the smaller jet! Wheeeee 90 degrees in 2 seconds. Might have been fun as long as you were strapped in. :)
-
Wow.
Would have expected the stabilizer to rip off.
-
Same video here at bbc..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13054205
:eek:
That's one smart reporter..."it involves two planes on the runway" :bhead
-
Host: Air_France has collided with you
System: You have ditched
200: Comair: Nice ram!
-
Host: Air_France has collided with you
System: You have ditched
200: Comair: Nice ram!
If it was indeed AH he'd get accused of HOing as well.
-
Wow.
Would have expected the stabilizer to rip off.
I was expecting that too. With that force to move that plane, I am a bit shocked that it didn't. However, i bet the ppl on that plane toejam bricks.
-
It was just a matter of time with a lemon that big. :old:
My thoughts exactly
-
It was just a matter of time with a lemon that big. :old:
lol Boeing worker
-
If it was indeed AH he'd get accused of HOing as well.
I swear it was a front-quarter shot!
-
I swear it was a front-quarter shot!
If you ever hear me say that, I'm cacking myself laughing at the same time.
-
lol Boeing worker
lol Indeed
A guess off the vision would be its the fault of the CRJ, or maybe JFK ground
Tronsky
-
lol Indeed
A guess off the vision would be its the fault of the CRJ, or maybe JFK ground
Tronsky
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?
-
Movie looks sped up to me: the pedestrian in a high-vis jacket walks faster than Buster Keaton!!
A slower speed would explain why there weren't a lot of injuries in the front end of the "small" jet's cabin.
-
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?
What I am reading is that the Airbus was moving as directed by the controller and the commuter plane was not pulled as far forward as it was supposed to be due to heavy traffic.
-
What I am reading is that the Airbus was moving as directed by the controller and the commuter plane was not pulled as far forward as it was supposed to be due to heavy traffic.
It was on the ramp so there was no controller involved. Regarding the "heavy traffic" (I assume you mean car traffic because there was no room for an airplane there) it is an airport, airplanes have right of way, if an airplane has to be somewhere than the car has better move. (note that I don't know what actually happened, just commenting on what you read)
Don't listen to what the news say, they have no idea what they are talking about. For example the reporter on BBC news said that it was a runway :bhead. Since when are there parked planes (or a terminal) on the runway? :bhead
-
What I am reading is that the Airbus was moving as directed by the controller and the commuter plane was not pulled as far forward as it was supposed to be due to heavy traffic.
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.
-
Golfer, any chance of the Captain keeping his job after that?
-
If he's an average Joe without a file probably. I probably wouldn't fire him/her for it at face value but it would depend on the individual more than anything. It's a great accident to learn from and nobody died. I don't think that they'd make the same mistake again and with a non punitive safety reporting system and French labor rules I imagine they'll stay employed. If they're a basket case with a file this is a good reason to cut them loose. I'm not their supervisor and it could go either way really for all sorts of good reasons on both sides of the fence.
-
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. I think everyone is going to be splashed with that one.
Ground control for the taxi instructions
Ramp control for allowing the commuter to be too far back
Airport authority for not providing the required clearance between taxiway/ramp
Ramp agents for not marshalling quick enough
The commuter crew for being too far back
And ultimately the AF creew for not clearing the commuter, but will argue he was 'on the centerline'.
Everyone will be investigated, and sue each other ... Yay.
I sure hope the commuter didn't have it's tail sticking out of the non movement area by a single inch.
With all the cameras on that 380, they should have some on the wingtips. :old:
-
Lol keep the hate flowing.
-
If he's an average Joe without a file probably. I probably wouldn't fire him/her for it at face value but it would depend on the individual more than anything. It's a great accident to learn from and nobody died. I don't think that they'd make the same mistake again and with a non punitive safety reporting system and French labor rules I imagine they'll stay employed. If they're a basket case with a file this is a good reason to cut them loose. I'm not their supervisor and it could go either way really for all sorts of good reasons on both sides of the fence.
Roger
-
Host: Air_France has collided with you
System: You have ditched
200: Comair: Nice ram!
:rofl :aok
-
Lol keep the hate flowing.
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. :devil
-
I blame the entire country of France for this.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
He's right ^
-
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. :devil
*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. :old:
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.
-
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 (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 (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". :old:
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? :cheers:
-
But rest assured, the host countries of EADS, their tax payers will make up the loss, via the tax system. :devil
Cos US taxpayers never have to bail out US companies right rip :D
-
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 :)
-
Cos US taxpayers never have to bail out US companies right rip :D
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. :cool:
-
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.
-
Roger
but wouldnt it take a bit more than just an average joe to pilot an A380, the largest airliner in the world?
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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
-
Stereotypes are wonderful things, aren't they?
-
but wouldnt it take a bit more than just an average joe to pilot an A380, the largest airliner in the world?
An average Joe line pilot. He or she is just a pilot with a seniority number that holds the bid for the type and they're trained to the same standard. If he or she kept their nose clean and isn't a basket case (average Joe) then I'd be in their corner. If they were a person with a file of reasons they might not be a good person to keep around I'd use this to cut them loose. It also depends on their attitude after the fact as well but there is no way for me or anyone from the outside to know.
But they're just pilots. Not superhuman and all capable of mistakes
-
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. :cool:
Ahem :)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110331/bs_nm/us_boeing_airbus_wto
GENEVA (Reuters) – Planemaker Boeing received at least $5.3 billion of illegal U.S. subsidies, the World Trade Organization said on Thursday in a dispute that shows no signs of an end to years of inconclusive wrangling.
The banned aid included $2.6 billion of research funding from space agency NASA. But a WTO verdict sparked an immediate row over whether trade judges were right to include more than $2 billion of further support on the charge sheet against Boeing.
The ruling is the latest chapter in a six-year battle between the industry's two giants. The spat has already entered the record books as the world's largest and costliest trade dispute.
The WTO verdict backs some, but not all, of a tit-for-tat legal case over Boeing aid brought by the European Union.
A separate WTO trade panel condemned European support for Boeing rival Airbus in a parallel case last year.
As so often in a row which now extends to 2,000 pages of complex trade court rulings, both sides claimed victory.
"This WTO panel report clearly shows that Boeing has received huge subsidies in the past and continues to receive significant subsidies today," European Union trade chief Karel De Gucht said.
...
Boeing acknowledged receiving $2.7 billion of aid on top of a dispute that has already been aired, but accused its rival of diverting attention from more pernicious types of European aid.
:neener:
-
a whoping 5.2 bil, of which boeing claims 2.5 was illegal. Airbus has a tab of over 40 billion... still really want to say Airbus hasnt recieved anything?
-
a whoping 5.2 bil, of which boeing claims 2.5 was illegal. Airbus has a tab of over 40 billion... still really want to say Airbus hasnt recieved anything?
Did I say airbus hasn't received anything?
-
but wouldnt it take a bit more than just an average joe to pilot an A380, the largest airliner in the world?
There is no way to tell. As Golfer pointed out it depends on your seniority level, logically if you have more seniority you'd probably be more experienced and be a better pilot but there is no way to tell exactly without knowing who the pilot is and what he did before. Seniority stays (and rises) only if you stay with one company, for example if the airline you worked for gets bough by another than your seniority level drops. So just knowing that he was an A380 captain (so his seniority is high) does not tell you enough.
-
Can you see the wingtip from the cockpit of an A380?
I dont know.
If you're keeping to the centreline of the taxiway unless there is a notam to say otherwise you've got a right to expect that you'll have wingtip clearance.
Does this absolve you from watching out for things that infringe, of course not, but I can see the pilot, presumably the captain doing the taxi'ing and looking ahead to keep the plane on the lines. A prefunctaly look at the RJ, then look forward again.
Everyone is to blame and no one is to blame just be thankfull there where no lives lost.
-
One of my favorite misconceptions:
What protection does staying on centerline of a taxiway give you?
I'm talking FAA guidance.
For a twy thats rated for a code F aircraft, enough wing tip clearance not to smack into another aircraft
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.
I grasp aircraft movements fine, even at night and I also know how easy it is to lose aircraft (especially from the arse end) in a congestion apron...and it might be different @ JFK but in sydney you cant enter or move anything on the movement area without ground clearance, aprons are still controlled by ground...that A388, and CRJ were both still on the manoeuvring area and I've heard plenty of captains baulk moving within a country mile of aircraft @ holdpoints that includes plenty of A388's so I find it hard to believe that an A380 captain would knowingly roll past something within wingtip clearance.
Can you see the wingtip from the cockpit of an A380?
I dont know.
I'm pretty sure you can't
Tronsky
-
Ahem :)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110331/bs_nm/us_boeing_airbus_wto
:neener:
Speaking in private, however, sources involved in the case clashed over whether the $5.3 billion figure cited by the WTO against Boeing was a fair account of where it went wrong.
The figure includes $2.2 billion of export assistance under a previous assistance program known as Foreign Sales Corporations, which the U.S. says is defunct.
"It is interesting but irrelevant," a U.S. source said.
FWIW, we don't get PUBLIC loans from the Government. EADS does. We get contracts for R&D from the miltary, but its not a public loan, it's part of the government military budget.
-
assistance programs and tax breaks are examples of using public money to support a private enterprise. are you really suggesting boeing has never used public money in any form?
FWIW, we don't get PUBLIC loans from the Government. EADS does.
interesting, you have any details on these loans?
a whoping 5.2 bil, of which boeing claims 2.5 was illegal. Airbus has a tab of over 40 billion... still really want to say Airbus hasnt recieved anything?
so you're saying EADS has received 40bn of public money from somewhere. how did that work? loan? gift? tax break? investment capital? what amounts and from whom?
-
Can you see the wingtip from the cockpit of an A380?
I dont know.
If you're keeping to the centreline of the taxiway unless there is a notam to say otherwise you've got a right to expect that you'll have wingtip clearance.
Does this absolve you from watching out for things that infringe, of course not, but I can see the pilot, presumably the captain doing the taxi'ing and looking ahead to keep the plane on the lines. A prefunctaly look at the RJ, then look forward again.
Everyone is to blame and no one is to blame just be thankfull there where no lives lost.
The only thing the centerline does it makes sure you don't get off the pavement in 0 visibility. You are responsible for where your wings are.
Also he was not even on a taxiway, it was a ramp, I'm not sure he even had a centerline.
-
assistance programs and tax breaks are examples of using public money to support a private enterprise. are you really suggesting boeing has never used public money in any form?
interesting, you have any details on these loans?
so you're saying EADS has received 40bn of public money from somewhere. how did that work? loan? gift? tax break? investment capital? what amounts and from whom?
States give businesses tax breaks to keep jobs within the state. If you consider that a public loan, so be it. We call it capitalism. Its money no one ever HAD in the first place, but from your perspective, you see it as potential money coming in for government. I don't see it that way. For instance, today, Boeing moved a 2nd 787 line to S.C. because S.C. is giving Boeing better tax breaks than this state. That's not a direct public loan.
Regarding Airbus public loans, its a known fact, quoted in the article. I'm pretty sure those public loans can be found if the European countries involved have a Freedom of Information Act. Look for yourself.
-
For a twy thats rated for a code F aircraft, enough wing tip clearance not to smack into another aircraft
I grasp aircraft movements fine, even at night and I also know how easy it is to lose aircraft (especially from the arse end) in a congestion apron...and it might be different @ JFK but in sydney you cant enter or move anything on the movement area without ground clearance, aprons are still controlled by ground...that A388, and CRJ were both still on the manoeuvring area and I've heard plenty of captains baulk moving within a country mile of aircraft @ holdpoints that includes plenty of A388's so I find it hard to believe that an A380 captain would knowingly roll past something within wingtip clearance.
Tronsky
I didn't intend to sound condescending if that's how you took it now that I reread my post. I'll blame it on writing from my phone and not as easily being able to format my thoughts into a more presentable fashion.
I don't believe the captain of the 380 in question knowingly or willingly would taxi where there would be an overlap with another object. That's why I maintain this accident is just that and one the 380 captain is responsible for. That's the end of it. It's not Comair's fault, they werent moving.
While there are design standards for airport and taxiway construction and it's great information to know it's going beyond what pilots need to know. Simplify it. How? Read the AIM in chapter 2:
AIM 2-3-4;
b. Taxiway Centerline.
1. Normal Centerline. The taxiway centerline is a single continuous yellow line, 6 inches (15 cm) to 12 inches (30 cm) in width. This provides a visual cue to permit taxiing along a designated path. Ideally, the aircraft should be kept centered over this line during taxi. However, being centered on the taxiway centerline does not guarantee wingtip clearance with other aircraft or other objects
Anything you want to say about safety areas with regards to taxiway architecture is all well and good. That right there is black and white and all a taxiway centerline means is someone painted a line on a taxiway. With as restricted as a 380 is regarding to where it can actually go and how it can get around I'm surprised this happened in the first place but shake my head that some extra caution wasn't given. I wasn't there, perhaps I would have done the same thing but throwing blame to anyone other than the individual responsible for not hitting stuff that isn't moving with their airplane isn't something I'm going to do.
Look where these guys were as they taxied along in Teterboro, NJ a few years ago. Did it change the fact that at least the captain lost their job? I don't know/recall about the other pilot in this case but I am quite confident that I remember being told the pilot taxiing was fired for it.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/TEB-2.jpg)
This 380 isn't the first airplane to hit something that wasn't reported/notam'd/lit/marked/where it should be while maintaining centerline during taxi and won't be the last. I can go on but being "right" in the eyes of the lawsuit that follows to determine who pays is one thing. It's another when it comes to keeping your certificates and getting a (at least now with the FAA) ding on your record that will not be expunged for something that might well not be your fault. I'd like to say that keeping on the centerline of a taxiway will guarantee you'll keep from whacking into stuff. It'd be nice and even logical. It won't.
-
so airbus and boeing have both recieved subsidies, tax breaks and assistance programs using public money.
boeing are a shining example of capitalism and free-market economics because ... um ... they are a US company.
airbus are a disgraceful example of socialism and market distortion because ... um ... they are european company.
ok I get it now :aok
-
so airbus and boeing have both recieved subsidies, tax breaks and assistance programs using public money.
boeing are a shining example of capitalism and free-market economics because ... um ... they are a US company.
airbus are a disgraceful example of socialism and market distortion because ... um ... they are european company.
ok I get it now :aok
How can it be public money if it is not collected?
Oh, and replace "are" with "is".
Is Japn susidizing Boeing because we outsourced work there? India? Italy? Australia? Russia?
Boeing gets tax cuts to set up shop in a particular area be it in WA or elsewhere , they get tax incentives just like any other aerospace or large production house gets for setting up a shop in a particular area and contributing to the economic development of that region through employment and buisness generation . Boeing gets defense contracts through its Integrated defence and Phantom works division but has to compete for those contracts in one of the most cut throat defence industries anywhere in the world ( BA-ID is second to LMA and in many ways have lost due to various reasons) . Those contracts might be for product development , technology development , procurment etc etc and FIXED profits are given to boeing as per US laws and dealings with the DOD . Boeing is not owned by the US govt and is a publically traded company with many share holders (some own more then others) . Boeing does not Get launch aids from the US govt to start a particular jet development , it hires sub contractors who compete amongst themselves for the lucrative contracts and get tax breaks etc to be more competitve so that they win over others .
-
The only thing the centerline does it makes sure you don't get off the pavement in 0 visibility. You are responsible for where your wings are.
Also he was not even on a taxiway, it was a ramp, I'm not sure he even had a centerline.
Not sure thats entirely correct, if the taxiway is limited to a particular wingspan, it will be notamed or in the aerodrome notes.
As to the ramp statement.. we talking about the RJ ? If so we may be talking cross statements here
-
How can it be public money if it is not collected?
hmmm ...
company X has a tax bill of $1m, they pay all of it, then the govt gives them £200k of public money.
company X has a tax bill of $1m, the govt gives them a tax break of £200k, the company pays $800k.
same thing. its still $200k of public money, whether you collect it and give it back, or just collect the difference.
-
assistance programs and tax breaks are examples of using public money to support a private enterprise. are you really suggesting boeing has never used public money in any form?
interesting, you have any details on these loans?
so you're saying EADS has received 40bn of public money from somewhere. how did that work? loan? gift? tax break? investment capital? what amounts and from whom?
As for the second part of the first line, Boeing launched the 747 back in the 1960's betting the entire company on its success. Airbus launched the A380 with at least 33% of the costs being paid by the governments. Big difference especially since the A380 has taken orders away from the 747.
Yes the claim on airbus is that they have recieved 26-40bil dollars in loans by the Goverments of the countries that EADS builds in (UK, Spain, Germany, France) that were all under the average market interest rates that boeing would have had to pay for the same amount of money on the free market. Airbus only has to pay back the money if the Aircraft is a commercial success, which as of now, the A380 is nowhere near being.
-
Tell you what, Woulda crapped my pants had I been on that small plane. :uhoh
-
Airbus launched the A380 with at least 33% of the costs being paid by the governments.
you need to work out the difference between a gift, a loan, and an investment.
-
States give businesses tax breaks to keep jobs within the state. If you consider that a public loan, so be it. We call it capitalism.
Err technically thats socialism rip. Capitalism lets the business stand alone on its own two fit.
I don't disagree with it, I see the benefits. Just saying that people accusing airbus of being govt funded needed to check their own house is order. Plus different countries around the world dress up tax payer funding in different disguises - despite what many of it's citizens believe the US is highly protectionist (we see it in steel, wood, meat exports) - quite the opposite of pure capitalism.
-
^ this
edit: so I did a little digging on recent UK investments (RLIs) in airbus and I found ~£600m for the A380 in about 2000, and ~£400m for the A350 in about 2005. sounds like alot, but it isnt - thats less than the cost of 2xA380s and 2xA350s respectively.
It comes from the UK govt strategic investment fund and as a taxpayer I have no problem with it at all - the yields on SIF investments in airbus going back to the 70s have been stunning. we could lose all of the A380 RLI and all of the A350 RLI and still have better than FTSE100 yields our airbus investment over the long term.
-
lol Indeed
A guess off the vision would be its the fault of the CRJ, or maybe JFK ground
Tronsky
Can not be controllers fault, the ramp is NOT under ATC control.
-
per the 1992 US-EU Bilateral, Airbus can be given up to 33% of the entire developemental costs of a large aircraft program by European government through RLIs. These RLIs are to be repaid within 17 years in full including interest and royalties if and only if the aircraft is a commercial success, if it fails, then Airbus got completely free money to use to develope technologies and processes. The interest on these RLI's are minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%, which ends up being lower than the market rates that airbus would be paying in interest if they got the money through the free market like boeing does.
if you seriously think they have only reciving a few hundred million for both the A380 and A350, then you are pretty naive considering the A380 is a 20 billion program and the A350 will be almost as much!
-
Not sure thats entirely correct, if the taxiway is limited to a particular wingspan, it will be notamed or in the aerodrome notes.
As to the ramp statement.. we talking about the RJ ? If so we may be talking cross statements here
So what do the NOTAMs and obstacles on the side of a taxiway have to do with a centerline? Sure you will get a NOTAM if there is something like a snowbank but the centerline will always be in the center.
Both aircraft were on the ramp.
-
I didn't realise the A380 wasn't on a taxiway. So that's the confusion from my part. As to the notam. I mean it will state whether the taxiway is suitable for a particular category of plane, which means to me, if the 380 is on a taxiway that is suitable for its use, than there is provision made for its wingspan.
However since it was on the ramp, all points are moot, but its an interesting discussion.
p.s
Just went back to watch the video, if the 380 was on the ramp, he was moving Waaay too fast.
-
I didn't realise the A380 wasn't on a taxiway. So that's the confusion from my part. As to the notam. I mean it will state whether the taxiway is suitable for a particular category of plane, which means to me, if the 380 is on a taxiway that is suitable for its use, than there is provision made for its wingspan.
However since it was on the ramp, all points are moot, but its an interesting discussion.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember ever seeing a NOTAM regarding the size of the aircraft and if it will fit on a taxiway. Sometimes they have a weight limit, but I don't remember ever seeing a NOTAM for the wingspan.
p.s
Just went back to watch the video, if the 380 was on the ramp, he was moving Waaay too fast.
Take a look at the airport diagram at JFK (link is bellow). We know that the video was taken from the terminal, and we know that the A380 was not far from the terminal. There are no taxiways that close to any terminal at JFK.
http://tiles.skyvector.com/sky/files/tpp/1104/pdf/00610AD.PDF (http://tiles.skyvector.com/sky/files/tpp/1104/pdf/00610AD.PDF)
It does seem that he was moving a little fast for the ramp, but as I don't know his exact speed I can not comment.
-
I was gonna say, I've never seen one either.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember ever seeing a NOTAM regarding the size of the aircraft and if it will fit on a taxiway. Sometimes they have a weight limit, but I don't remember ever seeing a NOTAM for the wingspan.
Yeah I see it all the time, though maybe its in relation to upgrade works, I dont really note the reason, just that taxiway x is limited to cat X/Y aircraft which in addition to their weight is also related to the wingspan (im my interperation).
I just edited my previous post about the 380's speed being excessive on the ramp.
Cheers
-
Yeah I see it all the time, though maybe its in relation to upgrade works, I dont really note the reason, just that taxiway x is limited to cat X/Y aircraft which in addition to their weight is also related to the wingspan (im my interperation).
I just edited my previous post about the 380's speed being excessive on the ramp.
Cheers
Would you remember what airport that was at?
I'd like to see the actual notam (I'm not saying I don't believe you I just want to see what it looks like)
-
Take a look at the airport diagram at JFK (link is bellow). We know that the video was taken from the terminal, and we know that the A380 was not far from the terminal. There are no taxiways that close to any terminal at JFK.
http://tiles.skyvector.com/sky/files/tpp/1104/pdf/00610AD.PDF (http://tiles.skyvector.com/sky/files/tpp/1104/pdf/00610AD.PDF)
Thanks for the link, since I dont know where it all happened I also cannot comment.
-
Would you remember what airport that was at?
I'd like to see the actual notam (I'm not saying I don't believe you I just want to see what it looks like)
I live and operate in Asia, and fly down to Australia, I just looked to see if I had any old copies on my pc, I'll just log on and have a look.
-
Thanks for the link, since I dont know where it all happened I also cannot comment.
I have no idea where it happened either. But we know what the terminals look like (a building with that long thing sticking out), also take a look in the center where it says "INTERNATIONAL ARRIVAL TERMINAL U.S. CUSTOMS". There are no taxiways that close to any of those terminals. I believe all other buildings shown on the diagram are hangars.
-
I live and operate in Asia, and fly down to Australia, I just looked to see if I had any old copies on my pc, I'll just log on and have a look.
I never flown internationally (as a pilot) so I'm thinking if the NOTAMs are in different format? And perhaps say different kind of stuff?
-
I just downloaded this off the company internet, I dont have the ability to link, so here is the cut and paste.
What I am refering to is the 2nd last notam, Code E which refers to the wingspan I believe
1F3267/11
HJ MON-SAT
TWY A1 LEFT INTO RWY 06 OR RWY 06 RIGHT INTO TWY A1
AVBL TO A321 B767 A330 A340 B747 B777 VIA MODIFIED WHITE DASHED
LEADIN LINE. REFER AIP SUP H13/11
REFER METHOD OF WORKING PLAN YPPH 001/11
1F3084/11
HN
TWY P MOVEMENT AREA GUIDANCE EXIT SIGN FM RWY 03 NOT AVBL
1F3081/11
TWY W BTN TWY B AND H LANE AVBL FOR B737 AND BLW AT DISCRETION OF
ATC
1F3036/11
TWY W BTN C1 AND THR RWY 24 AVBL TO CODE E ACFT AND BLW
AMEND EN ROUTE SUPPLEMENT AUSTRALIA
REPLACE APRONS AND TAXIWAYS NOTE 1.
1F2767/11
DOMESTIC APRON CL TAXILANE LGT ADJACENT TO TWY D NOT AVBL
AREA LIT BY APRON LIGHTING
-
And here is a link with the definitions
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...esigngroup.pdf
again, nice conversation, made me look at stuff i've not looked at for a few years.
-
Guys, we need to lay this out there and get it straight. The A380 was on a taxiway, not a ramp. He was on Alpha, near the Mike intersection.\
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/jfk.jpg)
i drew it out. The A380 was heading down Alpha. The CRJ was on Mike waiting to enter the appron area, but as it turned out was not far enough in for the A380 to pass without incodence.
-
Hey Thanks Flight17, makes it alot clearer
-
I just downloaded this off the company internet, I dont have the ability to link, so here is the cut and paste.
What I am refering to is the 2nd last notam, Code E which refers to the wingspan I believe
1F3267/11
HJ MON-SAT
TWY A1 LEFT INTO RWY 06 OR RWY 06 RIGHT INTO TWY A1
AVBL TO A321 B767 A330 A340 B747 B777 VIA MODIFIED WHITE DASHED
LEADIN LINE. REFER AIP SUP H13/11
REFER METHOD OF WORKING PLAN YPPH 001/11
1F3084/11
HN
TWY P MOVEMENT AREA GUIDANCE EXIT SIGN FM RWY 03 NOT AVBL
1F3081/11
TWY W BTN TWY B AND H LANE AVBL FOR B737 AND BLW AT DISCRETION OF
ATC
1F3036/11
TWY W BTN C1 AND THR RWY 24 AVBL TO CODE E ACFT AND BLW
AMEND EN ROUTE SUPPLEMENT AUSTRALIA
REPLACE APRONS AND TAXIWAYS NOTE 1.
1F2767/11
DOMESTIC APRON CL TAXILANE LGT ADJACENT TO TWY D NOT AVBL
AREA LIT BY APRON LIGHTING
Thanks, did not realize that.
I just check the NOTAMs for JFK, a lot of taxiway closures but nothing that limits the size. Maybe there was something up a few days ago but I don't know.
-
Guys, we need to lay this out there and get it straight. The A380 was on a taxiway, not a ramp. He was on Alpha, near the Mike intersection.\
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/jfk.jpg)
i drew it out. The A380 was heading down Alpha. The CRJ was on Mike waiting to enter the appron area, but as it turned out was not far enough in for the A380 to pass without incodence.
How do you know that?
-
Thanks, did not realize that.
I just check the NOTAMs for JFK, a lot of taxiway closures but nothing that limits the size. Maybe there was something up a few days ago but I don't know.
It would only be notamed if it was changed, my initial statement was to the effect that if there was no notam out then the 380 could presume wingtip clearance from all
"properly" parked or holding aircraft on adjacent taxiways, holding points.
This doesnt absolve him from not being cautious though.
-
It would only be notamed if it was changed, my initial statement was to the effect that if there was no notam out then the 380 could presume wingtip clearance from all
"properly" parked or holding aircraft on adjacent taxiways, holding points.
This doesnt absolve him from not being cautious though.
Right
-
How do you know that?
ATC recording. Intersection of Alpha and Mike.
http://youtu.be/WjuCI2yAVD8
-
ATC recording. Intersection of Alpha and Mike.
http://youtu.be/WjuCI2yAVD8
Thanks, could not find a recording.
-
Not sure thats entirely correct, if the taxiway is limited to a particular wingspan, it will be notamed or in the aerodrome notes.
Notams for that are generally due to WIP
I didn't intend to sound condescending if that's how you took it now that I reread my post. I'll blame it on writing from my phone and not as easily being able to format my thoughts into a more presentable fashion....
....This 380 isn't the first airplane to hit something that wasn't reported/notam'd/lit/marked/where it should be while maintaining centerline during taxi and won't be the last. I can go on but being "right" in the eyes of the lawsuit that follows to determine who pays is one thing. It's another when it comes to keeping your certificates and getting a (at least now with the FAA) ding on your record that will not be expunged for something that might well not be your fault. I'd like to say that keeping on the centerline of a taxiway will guarantee you'll keep from whacking into stuff. It'd be nice and even logical. It won't.
No offense taken
There was a TG B744 in Madrid which which took a wrong twy which was Notam'd for works and cut the tail off a parked E145. The twy had a reduced clearance for code C acft only and as they deviated onto the new centerline, the first officer monitored as they passed the Embraer believing they had just enough space, and only calling to stop as they cut its tail off.
Tronsky
-
any damage reports on the aircraft yet? as prangs go that looked pretty expensive :uhoh