Delta knocks tail off other plane on ground

tobnpr said:
I know JS about commercial jets...
But for f**** sake, we have backup cameras as standard equipment on even cheap cars these days.
No one has had the thought of sticking cams on the wingtips and nose gear of these airliners where the wingtips aren't visible from the cockpit?
This is insanity.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the Airbus A380 *does* have a wide-angle camera mounted in the tail that can see both wingtips.

This is the result.


All the technology in the world doesn't help the pilot who's not paying attention to it.

Bob Noel said:
How much would it cost to equip the fleet to avoid something we could avoid IF WE USE OUR EYES?
Click to expand...
I've heard, maybe even in this thread, that you can't see the wingtips of the A350 from the cockpit. Eyes don't exactly help when there's metal and carbon fiber in the way.
 
AFAIK the A350 has taxi-aid cameras installes, same as the B777-300, but on both planes they don't show the wingtips and are more for checking you stay within the taxiways with regards to the landing gear, not the wingtips.
 
Spinka said:
AFAIK the A350 has taxi-aid cameras installes, same as the B777-300, but on both planes they don't show the wingtips and are more for checking you stay within the taxiways with regards to the landing gear, not the wingtips.
Click to expand...

Can't speak to the Airbus, but in the case of the 777-300 that is correct - the cameras' FOV doesn't extend much past the engine nacelles. It's for making sure the gear is where you want it to be.

We can't see our wingtips, but as @Greg Bockelman said we spend time learning to have an idea of where they'd be. After pushback, my check airman would have one of the tug drivers stand out in front of the plane, but off to the side to line up with the right wingtip. That'd give me a decent point of reference. And with the wingspan at 213 feet (200' for the -200ER), you're very aware that your tips are hanging out well over the edges of most taxiways.

Seeing the wingtip doesn't necessarily solve everything anyway. In the 737-800 you'd really have to crane your neck to see the tip, which never inspired a lot of confidence. So if it's close you'd set the parking brake and wait for the plane/equipment to move out of the way, or get someone out to be a wing walker.
 
kayoh190 said:
Can't speak to the Airbus, but in the case of the 777-300 that is correct - the cameras' FOV doesn't extend much past the engine nacelles. It's for making sure the gear is where you want it to be.

We can't see our wingtips, but as @Greg Bockelman said we spend time learning to have an idea of where they'd be. After pushback, my check airman would have one of the tug drivers stand out in front of the plane, but off to the side to line up with the right wingtip. That'd give me a decent point of reference. And with the wingspan at 213 feet (200' for the -200ER), you're very aware that your tips are hanging out well over the edges of most taxiways.

Seeing the wingtip doesn't necessarily solve everything anyway. In the 737-800 you'd really have to crane your neck to see the tip, which never inspired a lot of confidence. So if it's close you'd set the parking brake and wait for the plane/equipment to move out of the way, or get someone out to be a wing walker.
Click to expand...
Sunset_Equator_2008.jpg
The 747 offered pilots a unique vantage point--it was the only big jet that I have flown that allowed a peek at the wingtips from the pilots' seats. But the distance and angle made it impossible to judge wingtip clearance with precision, as a few folks unhappily discovered. So yes, as Kayoh190 said, seeing the wingtip doesn't necessarily solve everything. It just makes you nervous.

I've often wished for cameras in the wingtips, which seems like a no-brainer since the technology exists. I suspect that manufacturers have created and developed wingtip cameras for later models but airlines have not bought them. Decisions like that are made by people who fly desks, not people who fly airplanes.
 
Roger Wilco said:
View attachment 133594
The 747 offered pilots a unique vantage point--it was the only big jet that I have flown that allowed a peek at the wingtips from the pilots' seats. But the distance and angle made it impossible to judge wingtip clearance with precision, as a few folks unhappily discovered. So yes, as Kayoh190 said, seeing the wingtip doesn't necessarily solve everything. It just makes you nervous.

I've often wished for cameras in the wingtips, which seems like a no-brainer since the technology exists. I suspect that manufacturers have created and developed wingtip cameras for later models but airlines have not bought them. Decisions like that are made by people who fly desks, not people who fly airplanes.
Click to expand...
The relevant question is whether putting wingtip cameras in the entire fleet costs less than the insurance premium reduction that would result.
 
Lindberg said:
The relevant question is whether putting wingtip cameras in the entire fleet costs less than the insurance premium reduction that would result.
Click to expand...

When you’re self-insured does it really matter?

Anyways, I blame all this on the airport designers. They should have built the airport so this would not have happened.
 
TCABM said:
When you’re self-insured does it really matter?
Click to expand...
The question remains the same, whether insuring the risk costs less than eliminating it. Even if the damage here is below the company's self-insured retention, is the risk-adjusted cost more or less than the cost of equipping all places with cameras? And how much would the cameras actually reduce the risk?
 
TCABM said:
When you’re self-insured does it really matter?

Anyways, I blame all this on the airport designers. They should have built the airport so this would not have happened.
Click to expand...

and exactly how do you propose that they accomplish that?

(or was that sarcasm?)
 
Let's not forget that technology doesn't eliminate risks.

how many instances are there of a pilot landing gear-up and later saying he couldn't hear the tower warning him because the gear-up alarm was blaring?

There was an instance of CFIT (into the side of a mountain) with the "Terrain Pull UP Pull UP" warning clearly audible on the CVR (nope, I don't remember which one).
 
Bob Noel said:
There was an instance of CFIT (into the side of a mountain) with the "Terrain Pull UP Pull UP" warning clearly audible on the CVR (nope, I don't remember which one).
Click to expand...
And “cancel that” is not an unheard-of response. :eek:
 
Bob Noel said:
and exactly how do you propose that they accomplish that?

(or was that sarcasm?)
Click to expand...

Logically, airport designers know the size of a B747 or C-5. They should have designed ATL to allow clearance (amd then some for safety) for worst case scenarios of intersection conflicts.

Unsarcastically, I expect NTSB to state causal factor was the A380’s crew’s failure to see and avoid the other plane. Contributing will be a whole laundry list of other stuff possibly including task saturation and aeronautical decision making.
 
ateamer said:
He certainly seems to hate the B-52. Quite the opposite of a B-52 pilot I met at an airshow a few years ago. I asked if it was fun to fly it and his eyes lit up, he broke out in a big grin and said “oh yeah!” He was one of the highest time B-52 pilots and said he just loved to fly it.
Click to expand...
From what I'm told, most do.
My son got FAIP'd after his T-38 training with a bomber follow-on expected next year. Anything, but the B-52 he sez...
 
TCABM said:
Logically, airport designers know the size of a B747 or C-5. They should have designed ATL to allow clearance (amd then some for safety) for worst case scenarios of intersection conflicts.

Unsarcastically, I expect NTSB to state causal factor was the A380’s crew’s failure to see and avoid the other plane. Contributing will be a whole laundry list of other stuff possibly including task saturation and aeronautical decision making.
Click to expand...
It’s a weird setup there. Most of the time if you have an aircraft on a parallel taxiway, it’s in line for departures from the adjacent runway and not passing by airplanes holding short on the last connector at the end of the runway.

In this case, the parallel taxiway goes right past that last connecting taxiway for 8R and continues on, around and behind the approach end of the runway, to provide clearance for both obstruction and localizer critical area so that a plane can taxi around to 8L (or from 26R). In that regard, it’s not a great setup for wide wingspan aircraft because of the limited space that would allow between that and any aircraft holding short.

I suspect they’ll soon be looking at publishing restrictions or notices for aircraft with wingspans exceeding x on that route.
 
Lindberg said:
The relevant question is whether putting wingtip cameras in the entire fleet costs less than the insurance premium reduction that would result.
Click to expand...
you are forgetting now you have to maintain the camera, provide documentation and training etc. The manufacturer surely isn't gonna do it, and an STC would cost a lot of money for a problem that is easily solved with insurance.
 
TCABM said:
Logically, airport designers know the size of a B747 or C-5. They should have designed ATL to allow clearance (amd then some for safety) for worst case scenarios of intersection conflicts.

Unsarcastically, I expect NTSB to state causal factor was the A380’s crew’s failure to see and avoid the other plane. Contributing will be a whole laundry list of other stuff possibly including task saturation and aeronautical decision making.
Click to expand...
there is an app that will tell the heavies what taxiways are clear for them to use at airports. but so far none of the posts solve the problem that the flight crew should have done: see and avoid. if there is any doubt stop. my guess is the Delta captain never considered that a jet on a crossing taxiway would be in a spot to get hit. well, now we all know.
 
Flying Keys said:
It’s a weird setup there. …..
Click to expand...
This is the part where I draw the line, because now we’re just down to excuses. If you’re making widebody money, it ain’t your first trip thru ATL. Especially at Delta.

Personally, if I ever run my plane into another object, I’ve failed so badly at my basic responsibility that I’ll hang up the spurs.

pfarber said:
there is an app that will tell the heavies what taxiways are clear for them to use at airports....
Click to expand...

Color me unsurprised. So easy a monkey could do it. A very well paid monkey.
 
pfarber said:
there is an app that will tell the heavies what taxiways are clear for them to use at airports. but so far none of the posts solve the problem that the flight crew should have done: see and avoid. if there is any doubt stop. my guess is the Delta captain never considered that a jet on a crossing taxiway would be in a spot to get hit. well, now we all know.
Click to expand...
What app is that?
 
TCABM said:
This is the part where I draw the line, because now we’re just down to excuses. If you’re making widebody money, it ain’t your first trip thru ATL. Especially at Delta.

Personally, if I ever run my plane into another object, I’ve failed so badly at my basic responsibility that I’ll hang up the spurs.



Color me unsurprised. So easy a monkey could do it. A very well paid monkey.
Click to expand...
It’s not an excuse. Notice I didn’t absolve the widebody of blame. But a simple point-out or restriction due to the uncommon setup doesn’t seem over the top. Especially so when you see it done at other airports for other aircraft with similar wingspan. Consider also that the parallel taxiway begins to diverge just before that point as well, which can cause an illusion of more space available than there is.

Yet, I don’t understand why there’s an aversion to using fairly innocuous tools.
 
Flying Keys said:
…Yet, I don’t understand why there’s an aversion to using fairly innocuous tools.
Click to expand...
I don’t either. The PIC has to be the PIC; they are the one in the cockpit. When you’re driving a $330+M bus with a few hundred humans on it, you don’t get the luxury of assumption; this ain’t a first job for unskilled labor.
 
hindsight2020 said:
In the context of the bellyaching about proximity radar/cameras being too costly/onerous to implement, I figured wingwalkers for certain wingspans wouldn't be the end of the world.

I do concede my bias having operated an exceedingly ground handling handicapped slant heavy for a while. Universally hated by airfield managements, hatred i certainly shared, but it was the cost of not knocking out everything sticking more than an inch off the ground on the airfield with our tips and outrigger gear....offense which we still accomplished (as a community) with incredible regularity anyways lol.
Click to expand...
Pop…pop. :p

 
jordane93 said:
Our version of Jepp FD has a wingspan restriction tab and will mark all of the unsuitable taxiways for your fleet in red.
Click to expand...

Tell me this, would this app have prevented this incident? The taxiway was usable for the aircraft in question. They just didn't judge their clearance from another aircraft using the same taxiways. There is nothing in Airport Design that can prevent that.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Tell me this, would this app have prevented this incident? The taxiway was usable for the aircraft in question. They just didn't judge their clearance from another aircraft using the same taxiways. There is nothing in Airport Design that can prevent that.
Click to expand...
Never said the app would have prevented the incident. :dunno: Just answered another poster’s question
 
TCABM said:
I don’t either. The PIC has to be the PIC; they are the one in the cockpit. When you’re driving a $330+M bus with a few hundred humans on it, you don’t get the luxury of assumption; this ain’t a first job for unskilled labor.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

Look at the design of that intersection. A little less than 500’ prior to the intersection the “parallel” taxiway E begins to diverge about 8° to the left. Ironically, this gives slightly more room to an aircraft holding short of 8R at H, compared to the other connectors from E to 8R/26L. However, it’s going to mess with the sight picture. You’ve been taxiing along a straight line with a pretty good idea of where your wingtips are, then it turns *right before where everybody else is holding short for takeoff.* Now there’s more room, until there isn’t.

It’d be pretty obvious you aren’t going to clear if you continued taxiing past on the same (parallel) azimuth, but now it’s changed, yet it still doesn’t diverge quite enough in this case. There is absolutely a possibility of an adverse human factors element to that design when dealing with aircraft taxiing past, especially those with wide wingspans. A note on the chart is the most simple way to apprise pilots of that possibility. I could swear I’ve seen it at other airports. Now I’m going to have to go look.
 
Oh, 295 wasn’t even heading around on V (there’s a restriction on that for their wingspan, anyway), they were supposed to takeoff on 8R, but had to troubleshoot something and ended up continuing on E past H. I assume the plan was to fix things over near the E/V hold short, then swing back F1, F, H to 8R? The instruction to hold short of V is interesting - you could ostensibly hold short 200’ or so of the V hold line and be still able to turn south, but if you made the right turn off of E and went all the way up to the V hold line in a 350, you’d be getting a tug out of there. So here’s another example of “where exactly do we hold short?”

Either way, I’m guessing there aren’t a lot of heavies that taxi past H on E (edit: during an east flow. V is mostly used for smaller aircraft coming off of 26R during west flows). So a non-standard op, another hole in the swiss cheese.

Again, not blaming or absolving anyone, just pointing out the potential gaps.
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
When you’re self-insured does it really matter?
Click to expand...
If one believes the Coase Theorem, it doesn't matter who is liable for damages; they will eventually come to the same resolution for any risk of loss.

Imagine two adjacent properties; a tree stands on one that overhangs the house built on the other. If the liability rule is that the owner of the land the tree stands upon is responsible for any damages the tree causes, that landowner acting in reasonable economic self-interest will spend up to the amount of damage the tree could cause to his neighbor's house to avoid the damage (e.g., remove the tree). If, on the other hand, the liability rule is that the owner of the house is responsible for damage by tree to his house, it is in his interest to pay the adjacent land owner the cost to avoid the damage (i.e., remove the tree) if it is less than the cost of the damage which could be done.

The result is that -- absent transaction costs -- if removing the tree costs less than replacing the house it hangs over, economically rational actors will negotiate to remove the tree; and if removing the tree costs more than replacing the house it will not be removed, regardless of who is responsible at the outset for damages caused by the tree.
 
Velocity173 said:
Pop…pop. :p

Click to expand...
yup, know that unit more than well. Put the BUFF in buffoons. For context, they were shining their rear with that crab walk. It wasn't a malfunctioning crosswind crab like they tried to sell the bosses back home ...before those brit planespotting nerds put the evidence on youboob in 4K HD that is. lol

Oh I got stories of that place, but I'll digress. In fairness, RegAF is no better. The latter did the same thing to the runways at CHS and HIK.
 
Maybe just move the hinges inboard?
1726624789390.png
 
jordane93 said:
Our version of Jepp FD has a wingspan restriction tab and will mark all of the unsuitable taxiways for your fleet in red.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't take into account airplanes hold short. That only indicates you, in the airplane you select, cannot use that taxiway.
 
Mikey52 said:
But that doesn't take into account airplanes hold short. That only indicates you, in the airplane you select, cannot use that taxiway.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Yea I know. I was just answering the question to another poster. Nothing less, nothing more. Never did I say otherwise.
 
VASAviation posted a good compilation of ground communications during and after the collision. There is also a fuzzy video toward the end that shows the collision from the best angle I've seen.

 
Palmpilot said:
VASAviation posted a good compilation of ground communications during and after the collision. There is also a fuzzy video toward the end that shows the collision from the best angle I've seen.

Click to expand...
One of the shortcomings of Victor’s video is that he excludes relevant comms prior to the collision. The A350 was directed to follow the CRJ (joining E at F3 coming out of Ramp 3) and then to monitor tower. The A350 was also identified by ground to the CRJ with the CRJ having right-of-way on E. Both aircraft should have had a clear view of each other at this point, with the destination for both being 8R at H. The A350 then contacts ground and proposes stopping short of F3 on E to work out a problem. Thus at this point the A350 is still short of F3, which should have continued to provide a clear view of the CRJ to the A350 (several videos show the A350 well past F3 at this point, which can’t be correct). Ground then directs the A350 to continue on E and hold short of V. As the A350 commences this taxi instruction starting short of F3 on E, the CRJ should have continued to be in full view, either turning onto H or stopped at its final position on H. It isn’t until the A350 is passing H on E that the A350 would have lost visual (or the ability to have a visual) on the CRJ.
 
AquaLand said:
One of the shortcomings of Victor’s video is that he excludes relevant comms prior to the collision. The A350 was directed to follow the CRJ (joining E at F3 coming out of Ramp 3) and then to monitor tower. The A350 was also identified by ground to the CRJ with the CRJ having right-of-way on E. Both aircraft should have had a clear view of each other at this point, with the destination for both being 8R at H. The A350 then contacts ground and proposes stopping short of F3 on E to work out a problem. Thus at this point the A350 is still short of F3, which should have continued to provide a clear view of the CRJ to the A350 (several videos show the A350 well past F3 at this point, which can’t be correct). Ground then directs the A350 to continue on E and hold short of V. As the A350 commences this taxi instruction starting short of F3 on E, the CRJ should have continued to be in full view, either turning onto H or stopped at its final position on H. It isn’t until the A350 is passing H on E that the A350 would have lost visual (or the ability to have a visual) on the CRJ.
Click to expand...
This. Also that liberties are taken with the scale of the animation.
 
AquaLand said:
One of the shortcomings of Victor’s video is that he excludes relevant comms prior to the collision. The A350 was directed to follow the CRJ (joining E at F3 coming out of Ramp 3) and then to monitor tower. The A350 was also identified by ground to the CRJ with the CRJ having right-of-way on E. Both aircraft should have had a clear view of each other at this point, with the destination for both being 8R at H. The A350 then contacts ground and proposes stopping short of F3 on E to work out a problem. Thus at this point the A350 is still short of F3, which should have continued to provide a clear view of the CRJ to the A350 (several videos show the A350 well past F3 at this point, which can’t be correct). Ground then directs the A350 to continue on E and hold short of V. As the A350 commences this taxi instruction starting short of F3 on E, the CRJ should have continued to be in full view, either turning onto H or stopped at its final position on H. It isn’t until the A350 is passing H on E that the A350 would have lost visual (or the ability to have a visual) on the CRJ.
Click to expand...
Why does that matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top