3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,169
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
One of my favorite scenes in a damned funny movie. Probably the best military satire ever.
One of my favorite scenes in a damned funny movie. Probably the best military satire ever.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"One of my favorite scenes in a damned funny movie. Probably the best military satire ever.
IIRC, the Airbus A380 *does* have a wide-angle camera mounted in the tail that can see both wingtips.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.
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.How much would it cost to equip the fleet to avoid something we could avoid IF WE USE OUR EYES?
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.
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.
The relevant question is whether putting wingtip cameras in the entire fleet costs less than the insurance premium reduction that would result.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.
In a word, nope.The relevant question is whether putting wingtip cameras in the entire fleet costs less than the insurance premium reduction that would result.
The relevant question is whether putting wingtip cameras in the entire fleet costs less than the insurance premium reduction that would result.
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?When you’re self-insured does it really matter?
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.
And “cancel that” is not an unheard-of response.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).
It's obvious. The big airplane spotted the little airplane and grabbed a piece of tail.
It happens all the time
expensive tail
No! Not sarcasm!(or was that sarcasm?)
and exactly how do you propose that they accomplish that?
(or was that sarcasm?)
From what I'm told, most do.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.
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.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.
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.The relevant question is whether putting wingtip cameras in the entire fleet costs less than the insurance premium reduction that would result.
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.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.
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.It’s a weird setup there. …..
there is an app that will tell the heavies what taxiways are clear for them to use at airports....
What app is that?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.
Our version of Jepp FD has a wingspan restriction tab and will mark all of the unsuitable taxiways for your fleet in red.What app is that?
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.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.
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.…Yet, I don’t understand why there’s an aversion to using fairly innocuous tools.
Pop…pop.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.
Our version of Jepp FD has a wingspan restriction tab and will mark all of the unsuitable taxiways for your fleet in red.
Tell me this, would this app have prevented this incident?
Never said the app would have prevented the incident. Just answered another poster’s questionTell 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.
I agree with that.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.
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.When you’re self-insured does it really matter?
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. lolPop…pop.
Our version of Jepp FD has a wingspan restriction tab and will mark all of the unsuitable taxiways for your fleet in red.
Sigh. Yea I know. I was just answering the question to another poster. Nothing less, nothing more. Never did I say otherwise.But that doesn't take into account airplanes hold short. That only indicates you, in the airplane you select, cannot use that taxiway.
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.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.
This. Also that liberties are taken with the scale of the animation.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.
Why does that matter?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.