Discussion:
blammo!
(too old to reply)
John R. Levine
2011-04-13 18:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Video of A380's wing hitting the tail of a commuter plane and spinning it
around:



I gather this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. There
seem to be places an A380 doesn't quite fit.

Regards,
John Levine, ***@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Cees Binkhorst
2011-04-13 19:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John R. Levine
Video of A380's wing hitting the tail of a commuter plane and spinning
http://youtu.be/2StZVDUck9M
I gather this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.
There seem to be places an A380 doesn't quite fit.
Regards,
I had understood that the Comair moved too early, against instructions.
The investigation will show what happened.

It is clear from the video that it could very easily have ended in
disaster. That A380 moved fast!

Regards / Cees
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2011-04-13 19:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cees Binkhorst
It is clear from the video that it could very easily have ended in
disaster. That A380 moved fast!
I wonder what it felt like on the comair plane.

Obviously, those near the tail would have felt more movement than those
near the main landing gear.

But I wonder how violent this would have felt.

BTW, ATC of the accident on youtube:



--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Jishnu Mukerji
2011-04-15 17:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cees Binkhorst
Post by John R. Levine
Video of A380's wing hitting the tail of a commuter plane and spinning
http://youtu.be/2StZVDUck9M
I gather this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.
There seem to be places an A380 doesn't quite fit.
Regards,
Dummies",
I had understood that the Comair moved too early, against instructions.
The investigation will show what happened.
It is clear from the video that it could very easily have ended in
disaster. That A380 moved fast!
Regards / Cees
The CRJ was waiting on taxiway Mike, to be marshaled in to its gate,
and had its tail a bit too
close to taxiway Alpha. The 380 guys did not notice that it was too
close. 380s are allowed to
operate on taxiway Alpha through an FAA waiver as it is known that the
clearances are too
tight. It would seem that there will be some additional procedure
changes or new rules
that will come out of all this.

Jishnu.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Cees Binkhorst
2011-04-15 18:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jishnu Mukerji
Post by Cees Binkhorst
Post by John R. Levine
Video of A380's wing hitting the tail of a commuter plane and spinning
http://youtu.be/2StZVDUck9M
I gather this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.
There seem to be places an A380 doesn't quite fit.
Regards,
Dummies",
I had understood that the Comair moved too early, against instructions.
The investigation will show what happened.
It is clear from the video that it could very easily have ended in
disaster. That A380 moved fast!
Regards / Cees
The CRJ was waiting on taxiway Mike, to be marshaled in to its gate,
and had its tail a bit too
close to taxiway Alpha. The 380 guys did not notice that it was too
close. 380s are allowed to
operate on taxiway Alpha through an FAA waiver as it is known that the
clearances are too
tight. It would seem that there will be some additional procedure
changes or new rules
that will come out of all this.
Jishnu.
--
Andrew Grossman in the Wall Street Journal of April 12. 2011 wrote a.o.
'It appeared that the smaller plane had moved too soon, according to a
person familiar with the matter.'

You think Andrew or the WSJ is biased in favour of the A380?

Regards / Cees
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2011-04-15 19:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cees Binkhorst
Andrew Grossman in the Wall Street Journal of April 12. 2011 wrote a.o.
'It appeared that the smaller plane had moved too soon, according to a
person familiar with the matter.'
Unless the CRJ had its thrust reversers on, it couldn't have moved "too
soon" into the path of the 380. It is more likely that it stopped too
soon, still too close to the taxiway.

Or was the CRJ being towed away from gate ?


Now, consider a case of a 777-300 instead of the CRJ. Stopping where the
CRJ stopped would have left a huge part of the 777 blocking the taxiway.
So, if the CRJ's taxiway had a "stop sign" there, to await marshalling
to the gate, then that stop sign is in error.



Don't know about you, but if I were the A380 pilot, and I see a parked
CRJ dangerously close to the edge of the taxiway, wouldn't that be cause
for concern ? 380 pilots have to be aware that their wings extend way
past the edge of the taxiway, right ?

Don't A380 pilots have views from cameras in different locations on the
aircraft to help prevent exactly this kind of accident ?

Shouldn't the pilots have radioed something akin to "we are
uncomfortable with a comair CRJ's position close to our taxiway, can you
confirm we have sufficient clearance ?"

When you look at the speed at which the 380 pushed the CRJ aside, it
looks to me like the 380 was moving at normal taxxing speed and thus not
concerned about clearance at all. Did they even see the CRJ ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Cees Binkhorst
2011-04-16 05:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Cees Binkhorst
Andrew Grossman in the Wall Street Journal of April 12. 2011 wrote a.o.
'It appeared that the smaller plane had moved too soon, according to a
person familiar with the matter.'
Unless the CRJ had its thrust reversers on, it couldn't have moved "too
soon" into the path of the 380. It is more likely that it stopped too
soon, still too close to the taxiway.
[deleted]
Post by JF Mezei
--
Taking 'moved too soon' literally, it should have stopped _before_ the
taxiway?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Jishnu Mukerji
2011-04-16 15:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cees Binkhorst
Post by Jishnu Mukerji
Post by Cees Binkhorst
Post by John R. Levine
Video of A380's wing hitting the tail of a commuter plane and spinning
http://youtu.be/2StZVDUck9M
I gather this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.
There seem to be places an A380 doesn't quite fit.
Regards,
Dummies",
I had understood that the Comair moved too early, against instructions.
The investigation will show what happened.
It is clear from the video that it could very easily have ended in
disaster. That A380 moved fast!
Regards / Cees
The CRJ was waiting on taxiway Mike, to be marshaled in to its gate,
and had its tail a bit too
close to taxiway Alpha. The 380 guys did not notice that it was too
close. 380s are allowed to
operate on taxiway Alpha through an FAA waiver as it is known that the
clearances are too
tight. It would seem that there will be some additional procedure
changes or new rules
that will come out of all this.
Jishnu.
--
Andrew Grossman in the Wall Street Journal of April 12. 2011 wrote a.o.
'It appeared that the smaller plane had moved too soon, according to a
person familiar with the matter.'
You think Andrew or the WSJ is biased in favour of the A380?
Regards / Cees
First a caveat that what actually happened will only be known after the
investigation is completed and a report comes out. This is not a matter
of being biased towards anything.

Having said that, I was merely reporting what a friend of mine who is a
pilot in the same airline as the CRJ involved and who has flown that
same flight at other times and personally know the pilot involved in
this one, mentioned to me. Now of course it is possible that he is
entirely clueless and is making up a story, but from past experience I
have good reasons to believe that he won't do so.

Note that stopping with tail sticking out in the area that would foul a
plane passing on the taxiway is not exactly something that owning up to
is advantageous to the CRJ pilot either. It is just a question of
understanding what happened rather than playing the blame game.

The other thing that I have heard is that in order to get marshaled into
the spot where the CRJ was going apparently it is not possible to move
any further forward before stopping. Hence my comment about the issue of
congestion and operating procedures in that area that might require some
rethinking.

But, let me restate, only the investigation will be able to determine
finally what actually happened and what needs to be done to prevent such
from recurring.

Jishnu.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2011-04-16 20:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jishnu Mukerji
The other thing that I have heard is that in order to get marshaled into
the spot where the CRJ was going apparently it is not possible to move
any further forward before stopping.
This still leaves the question on whether the A 380 pilots should have
noticed that their path was possibly not clear.


Or have 380 pilots become so used to it that they forget they are
driving a very large plane and assume all taxiways at all airports can
handle the 380 without problem ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Jishnu Mukerji
2011-04-16 21:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Jishnu Mukerji
The other thing that I have heard is that in order to get marshaled into
the spot where the CRJ was going apparently it is not possible to move
any further forward before stopping.
This still leaves the question on whether the A 380 pilots should have
noticed that their path was possibly not clear.
Or have 380 pilots become so used to it that they forget they are
driving a very large plane and assume all taxiways at all airports can
handle the 380 without problem ?
--
It is my personal opinion is that there is no conceivable circumstance
in this context that would completely absolve the A380 crew of their
responsibility to ensure that their movement does not cause them to
crash into something. It was their plane and their wing and they are
supposed to know where their wing is and that they are not about to hit
something as they go along. This is particularly so since the CRJ was
pretty much standing stationary through the period that the A380 came
down taxiway Alpha and hit the CRJ. If the CRJ was actually moving
towards the 380 there might be a case though a very weak one.

But again, we will know the full story upon the completion of the NTSB
investigation.

Jishnu.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
jbaloun
2011-04-16 00:20:53 UTC
Permalink
I was wondering if the CRJ structure was exposed to loads way past
ultimate since the plane is not designed to be flipped around like a
Navy tailhoook. I would think the owner of that aircraft would want
assurance as to the remaining lifetime of the airframe. This may be
difficult to calculate. Similarly the A380 outer wing has been exposed
to impact loads in directions that may not have been covered in the
analysis. Both planes may need specific extra inspections for
remainder of their lives.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Cees Binkhorst
2011-04-16 06:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jbaloun
I was wondering if the CRJ structure was exposed to loads way past
ultimate since the plane is not designed to be flipped around like a
Navy tailhoook. I would think the owner of that aircraft would want
assurance as to the remaining lifetime of the airframe. This may be
difficult to calculate. Similarly the A380 outer wing has been exposed
to impact loads in directions that may not have been covered in the
analysis. Both planes may need specific extra inspections for
remainder of their lives.
--
The owner of the LEGACY 600 N965LL with total time 36 Hours
at controller.com did not use the plane after having a mid-air collision
on 29 September 2006 at FL370 in Brazil (as N600XL with 11 cycles 19hrs)
for the same reason?

It lost part of the left winglet, and sustained damages in the left
stabilizer and left elevator.
The Gol airplane PR-GTD Boeing 737-8EH (162 cycles 202hrs) carrying 6
crewmembers and 148 passengers did not make it.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...