Delta knocks tail off other plane on ground

Palmpilot said:
Why does that matter?
Click to expand...
Once of the factors investigated during aircraft collisions is how the struck aircraft appeared to the striking aircraft. How long was it visible? Where in the flight crew’s field of view was it visible? Relative to the striking aircraft, did it appear stationary or was it in motion?

The comms prior to the collision establish that the CRJ should have been clearly visible to the A350 crew for an extended period of time prior to crossing H on E.
 
How hard would it be to add wingtip cameras for improved visibility? Backup cameras did wonders for car safety
 
RedAndWhiteCitabria said:
How hard would it be to add wingtip cameras for improved visibility? Backup cameras did wonders for car safety
Click to expand...

uh huh. Annually, how many people were killed by car backing up?

do the math sometime...
 
Bob Noel said:
uh huh. Annually, how many people were killed by car backing up?

do the math sometime...
Click to expand...
According to NHTSA, hundreds annually, comparable to all of GA deaths. Still a small fraction of all traffic deaths so I retract my “wonders” comment. But I do think cameras would help in this sort of situation.
 
RedAndWhiteCitabria said:
According to NHTSA, hundreds annually, comparable to all of GA deaths. Still a small fraction of all traffic deaths so I retract my “wonders” comment. But I do think cameras would help in this sort of situation.
Click to expand...
I could only find data from the early 2000s and 1990s from the NHTSA, in which they stated that, "From 1991 to 2004, there is no definite trend in the number of fatalities, and it seems to hover in a range of 60-80 cases a year (averaging 76 cases per year in 1991 to 2004), with a slight downward trend (averaging 74 cases per year in the last 10 years from 1995 to 2004" (source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/nhtsa-2006-25579-0001-2.pdf, page 18). Even if it doubled between 2004 and 2024, that would still be a worst case scenario of 160 people dying per year. Considering the miniscule percentage of total deaths that represents, I doubt cameras moved the needle. Then again, I was taught to clear the back and front of my vehicle before moving it and currently neither of my regular drivers has a backup camera so I don't really view cameras as necessary to safely operate a vehicle.

Also, to bring it back to aviation, how many incidents happen like this yearly? Perhaps I am uninformed, but I don't notice this happening all the time. If airliners want to add cameras, that's fine and up to them, but I don't see wingtip clearance as being an endemic problem right now.
 
Continuing the sidetrack, when I first saw a proposed rule it stated that there were 200 deaths annually The proposal claimed an estimated 100 deaths would be prevented.

With annual sales of about ten million cars and an estimated cost of $200 per car, that’s a lot of money to spend to save 100 lives. Especially when the deaths could be prevented by people OPENING THEIR DANG EYES!!!!
 
SkyChaser said:
I could only find data from the early 2000s and 1990s from the NHTSA, in which they stated that, "From 1991 to 2004, there is no definite trend in the number of fatalities, and it seems to hover in a range of 60-80 cases a year (averaging 76 cases per year in 1991 to 2004), with a slight downward trend (averaging 74 cases per year in the last 10 years from 1995 to 2004" (source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/nhtsa-2006-25579-0001-2.pdf, page 18).
Click to expand...
I’m really splitting hairs here, but from the same link, page 10: “The current approach produces an estimate of at least 183 deaths due to backovers annually.” They talk about how the officially reported numbers are underestimated due to most accidents occurring in private parking lots, etc. I was also going by https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813363.pdf which reports 200-300 annually.
 
Bob Noel said:
Continuing the sidetrack, when I first saw a proposed rule it stated that there were 200 deaths annually The proposal claimed an estimated 100 deaths would be prevented.

With annual sales of about ten million cars and an estimated cost of $200 per car, that’s a lot of money to spend to save 100 lives. Especially when the deaths could be prevented by people OPENING THEIR DANG EYES!!!!
Click to expand...
I think it got extra traction because most of the victims of that sort of thing are small children who a) aren't easy or even possible to see, and b) don't always know any better when it comes to going behind cars.
 
Bob Noel said:
uh huh. Annually, how many people were killed by car backing up?...
Click to expand...
My son backed into a car in a Target parking lot. Given the damage, he must have thought he was in a demolition derby. He tried to blame the accident on my 2007 without a camera!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think it got extra traction because most of the victims of that sort of thing are small children who a) aren't easy or even possible to see, and b) don't always know any better when it comes to going behind cars.
Click to expand...
And, while less important than lives saved, backup cameras also prevent a good bit of property damage and insurance claims caused by inattentive backing.

I see an example of this just got posted while I was typing.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think it got extra traction because most of the victims of that sort of thing are small children who a) aren't easy or even possible to see, and b) don't always know any better when it comes to going behind cars.
Click to expand...

Actually I had read that half of the victims were 16 and older
 
Or… wait for it… you could TRAIN THE PILOTS. Delta ain’t wasting any money taxiing around that plane for pilot training. He had some check airman point out a grease spot on the ramp as they were taxiing by say “that’s about where your wingtip is.” And that coulda been 15 years ago.

Heavy’s especially are handled with kid gloves. Monster straight ins, plenty of spacing (no need for s turns on final), no hurry off the runway, parking areas are big and clear, wing walkers there waiting on you. Other airplanes get out of your way, you don’t get out of theirs….

I’d bet good money their mindset was since they were cleared to taxi that ground thought they were clear.

Doesn’t matter “it’s always pic fault blah blah blah”. It’s a catch all like conduct unbecoming in the military. Doesn’t get you an inch closer to determining WHY this happened. The root cause.

1. Poor training
2. Not kept proficient at close quarter taxiing
3. Over reliance on ground control

About #3. When that heavy capt was a Saab captain 30 years ago, he was told by ground a million times to snug it up… and only had another 20’ to use. No wonder he thought ground COULD tell if he was clear or not.
 
Tools said:
Heavy’s especially are handled with kid gloves. Monster straight ins, plenty of spacing (no need for s turns on final), no hurry off the runway, parking areas are big and clear, wing walkers there waiting on you. Other airplanes get out of your way, you don’t get out of theirs….
Click to expand...
I’ve done s-turns on final. Controllers don’t always get the spacing right. As for monster straight ins, everyone is typically on IFR clearances and they all fly pretty much the same tracks.
Tools said:
I’d bet good money their mindset was since they were cleared to taxi that ground thought they were clear.
Click to expand...
Ground is not directly responsible for keeping the airplanes from hitting each other. That responsibility lies strictly with each Pilot in Command. The controller is often a mile or so away and cannot determine separation with that much accuracy.
Tools said:
Doesn’t matter “it’s always pic fault blah blah blah”. It’s a catch all like conduct unbecoming in the military. Doesn’t get you an inch closer to determining WHY this happened. The root cause.

1. Poor training
2. Not kept proficient at close quarter taxiing
3. Over reliance on ground control
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with this. But they get practice at close quarter taxing every time they pull into the gate.
Tools said:
About #3. When that heavy capt was a Saab captain 30 years ago, he was told by ground a million times to snug it up… and only had another 20’ to use. No wonder he thought ground COULD tell if he was clear or not.
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily agree with this. That was nose to tail and it is always the Captain’s judgment how close to get to the plane in front.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I’ve done s-turns on final. Controllers don’t always get the spacing right. As for monster straight ins, everyone is typically on IFR clearances and they all fly pretty much the same trackks.
Click to expand...

Why did you do s turns if you were all on the same track?

I’m sure I did s turns in a heavy, but not like I did on light twins and triples… But then again I’ve only ever been on three types of heavies, you’ve prolly seen a lot more.

Pulling into a gate with paint, wing walkers and taxi directors hardly qualifies for unsupervised close quarter taxi practice on an active taxiway. That guy was more worried about dropping a wheel off the taxiway than his wingtips. Dropping a wheel off is a threat ALL the time.

This kind of thing can ONLY be prevented by asking why A BUNCH of times. Everything you say is basically true, yet it still happened. There IS a why, what is it?

It didn’t happen because this guy was well trained by pulling into a gate. It didn’t happen because he probably has had to s turn on final. I think it’s more likely because he IS generally catered to more than smaller more nimble equipment. I think there is a chance complacency set in over time because his equipment is bigger and less nimble, prolly requiring more training that he received. Or maybe there should be more support in terms of taxiway monitoring (cameras, wing walkers, etc). Or maybe just some more training for the pilots. The type of training THOSE PARTICULAR category pilots don’t get.
 
Wouldn't it require the wing walkers to actually run in order to keep up? And how long would it take them to get back to the gate, which could be a mile or so away? If we're going to require wing walkers for every heavy, wouldn't it create extra hazards to have that much foot traffic on the taxiways of a major airport?
 
Last edited:
Just semi-educated speculation on my part but the WHY is most likely because the crew had their heads up their… uhh… up and locked and weren’t paying attention to their surroundings.
 
Yep, but WHY did they have their head up their butt? That answer is one step closer.

You can stop there, make it illegal to have your head up a butt… but… it already is, didn’t seem to help in this case.

If you believe it was a simple one time non systemic event, that’s fine, then nothing is gonna help. Nothing to see here, move along.

I just happen to think it is a systemic problem (ain’t ANYWHERE near the first time) and there is a reasonable solution. That however requires admitting there is a flaw in the current environment. People responsible for the current environment will resist that possibility.
 
Tools said:
Yep, but WHY did they have their head up their butt? That answer is one step closer.

You can stop there, make it illegal to have your head up a butt… but… it already is, didn’t seem to help in this case.

If you believe it was a simple one time non systemic event, that’s fine, then nothing is gonna help. Nothing to see here, move along.

I just happen to think it is a systemic problem (ain’t ANYWHERE near the first time) and there is a reasonable solution. That however requires admitting there is a flaw in the current environment. People responsible for the current environment will resist that possibility.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of SMS?
 
That’s administrative… but Ed (the head of deltas sms program) admitted in a deposition he hadn’t, as I recall.

Ever hear of TPS?
 
Tools said:
That’s administrative… but Ed (the head of deltas sms program) admitted in a deposition he hadn’t, as I recall.

Ever hear of TPS?
Click to expand...

Administrative? It's the Safety Management System. SMS is intertwined with every aspect of the companies operations. This latest event will be entered and ran through SMS, then the various departments will incorporate the mitigation procedures.

All 121's have SMS now, and the FAA has reps that sit in on their SMS meetings and event reviews.
 
Tools said:
Why did you do s turns if you were all on the same track?
Click to expand...
Because the controller screwed up the spacing? Preceding traffic slowed down unexpectedly? All kinds of reasons why that may be necessary.

Out of curiosity, what is your background?
 
Last edited:
Way back at post 23, flyingron said there was a transmission from 295 to ground "We have an issue, we need to stop and check something out".

Their attention was in the cockpit, solving a problem, and they had not stopped.

Presumably, that means they had an issue that needed to be corrected before taking the runway and departing. Trying to hold onto their departure slot, they lost the plane. Just my opinion, was not there, but have seen such at other times and places.
 
Tools said:
Or… wait for it… you could TRAIN THE PILOTS. Delta ain’t wasting any money taxiing around that plane for pilot training. He had some check airman point out a grease spot on the ramp as they were taxiing by say “that’s about where your wingtip is.” And that coulda been 15 years ago.

Heavy’s especially are handled with kid gloves. Monster straight ins, plenty of spacing (no need for s turns on final), no hurry off the runway, parking areas are big and clear, wing walkers there waiting on you. Other airplanes get out of your way, you don’t get out of theirs….

I’d bet good money their mindset was since they were cleared to taxi that ground thought they were clear.

Doesn’t matter “it’s always pic fault blah blah blah”. It’s a catch all like conduct unbecoming in the military. Doesn’t get you an inch closer to determining WHY this happened. The root cause.

1. Poor training
2. Not kept proficient at close quarter taxiing
3. Over reliance on ground control

About #3. When that heavy capt was a Saab captain 30 years ago, he was told by ground a million times to snug it up… and only had another 20’ to use. No wonder he thought ground COULD tell if he was clear or not.
Click to expand...
At airports the heavy aircraft use everyone pretty much flies the exact same ground tracks. They don’t have heavy only arrivals and heavies get tighter spacing than many smaller aircraft that have wake turbulence considerations. They also use the same taxiways and often the same gates.
 
Tools said:
Or… wait for it… you could TRAIN THE PILOTS. Delta ain’t wasting any money taxiing around that plane for pilot training. He had some check airman point out a grease spot on the ramp as they were taxiing by say “that’s about where your wingtip is.” And that coulda been 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

And it has been pointed out that you CANNOT SEE THE WINGTIPS from the cockpit of the A350.
 
I pop in and catch y’all slacking.

Not a single person has made the obvious joke yet…

“If only the FAA would ban these dangerous little airplanes from operating at the big plane airports none of this would have happened!”

/s

evil grin… I’m awake, bored, and salty at 2AM. Hahaha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top