[CallMeIshmael]

Following the show’s A380 being grounded, Boeing takes the opportunity to push the allegedly more efficient 747-8i and 747-8w

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13843685

[MartynSinclair]

It would seem pretty simple for pilots, follow the greens or the centre line when taxying.

I would assume that an aircraft owners safety department along with the airport authorities would have checked wing span/taxiwaya as part of their airport inspection check.

A report re the JFK incident talks of the commuter jet, holding short (by a few metres). It also states that some of the taxi ways at JFK are below the required standard width by 25%.

[RichHI1]

And at JFK add to that, they have been remodeling and changing taxis for months, it was dark and I believe raining. It ought to be simple but if the taxiway has changed since you last landed, the markings are hard to see through wear or weather and you are tired, it is perhaps easy to see why mistakes happen and the bigger the plane the less the margin.
Now if the taxiways were under spec how did it get certified? That was my question above. Is the process that all aprons, taxiways, runways and selected gates and facilities are upgraded or just some, so if they get routed incorrectly by ATC these things can happen?
Saw some pictures of the 747 8i yesterday, for me there is just something special in that sillhouette, not knocking the A380 as it is a fine aircraft but the design of the 747 for me will always be so special (as was the concorde – guess I am just too old).

[FlyingChinaman]

There is nothing wrong for being OLD and SENTIMENTAL!

I think for me the 747 jumbos represent trans-continental travels and I still remember my first flight on the 747SP!!

[craigwatson]

ok, for the record, the A380 in question was NOT being taxied at the time, it was being towed by a tug, so whether the tug operator took a route that wasnt standard for an A380, or he wasnt on the centerline will come out.

Martyn, it depends on the airline as to who taxi’s the aircraft, some airlines mandate the Capt. and yet others say it is the PM, with handover to the PF on entering the runway, and some it is the PF from gate to cruise.

There is some real confusion among pilots when it comes to taxiing. You are given ” taxi instructions” but some pilots take that as ” taxi clearance”, the difference being with the former you are given a route to take to the runway, but you must ensure the way is clear and safe to do so, but the latter many believe the route is and will be clear of traffic and obstructions…. not so, during the taxi you will only be given a “clearance” to cross an active runway.

[MartynSinclair]

With additional confusion in the states in that a taxi ‘instruction/clearance’ to a holding point includes crossing runways, whilst in the uk, an a specific runway crossing clearance is required.

[craigwatson]

say ICAO to an american pilot and you just get a blank stare back. As always they can and will do want they want, when they want

[Potakas]

“I cant believe that the world’s premier airshow had not got clearance for an A380, especially in its home country! There has to be another explanation – hmmmmm, may be not, we are talking about France!”

Indeed Martyn

“Experts stressed Sunday’s collision happened in a tight corner of the airfield, which doubles as a business airport and is not officially equipped to handle the largest “category F” aircraft like the 525-seat Airbus double-decker.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/21/us-airshow-a380-repair-idUSTRE75K2T320110621

[RichHI1]

Thanks P.Sepsas.
All the reports I have seen say it was taxiing yet Craig Watson has evidence these reports are false and it was not taxiing but being towed.
Also your report answers my question that parts of airfields need be certified rather than the total field. This looks like trouble waiting to happen as we see more and more of these large heavies in day to day service.
I wonder what the slogan on the belly of the A380 was – “duck”?

[craigwatson]

“all the reports i have seen”, and those would be from reporters right? if its on the ground and moving it must be taxiing at least according to the uninitiated. you dont taxi aircraft around airports unless your on your way to the runway, thats what tugs are for.

[RichHI1]

I would only expect taxiing under power to a take off or a hold with PAX loaded or from a landing to a park (with heavies even some gates are tow in). Given we hear the taxiway in use was not certified for A380 it is even more likely a tow should be used.
You are probably correct as precise use of terms of art (those with specific meaning in a specialist field) is not something that Journalists are known for.
That said, in this case, I look forward to reading the BAIB (I presume as in France and Airbus is part French) report. Let’s see who they blame for this one.

[craigwatson]

and this i cant confirm, but i have heard that the building in question was actually a temporary structure put up for the airshow, so maybe put to close to the taxiway.

[RichHI1]

Again I have also read this, I fear the stereotypical view of French organization may be borne out.

[Rioja112]

A photo of the incident:
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/epic-fail-photos-airbus-fail.jpg

[MartynSinclair]

taxiing or being towed (via a tug) I cant see there being any difference. The Guv in charge, still has pretty lines to follow. Any margin for error either side of the pretty lines should be accounted for by the airport authorities.

It seems too ridiculous for words if the casue was an “unchecked” ground route, irrepsective of whether the 380 was under its own power or not.

[Author]

Posts