NTSB - Preliminary Report A350 v. CRJ (ATL)
- Thread starter Malko
- Start date
That definitely stuck out. I went back and reread everything but didn't see any specific information speaking to why that would have been.
ERfly
Well-Known Member
I see it all the time, both in other airplanes doing it and in my cockpit. When I was an RJ FO, some were really bad about it.
Now that I work for an employer with mainly heavy jets, most guys are pretty good about pulling right up to the line to allow more airplanes in (with the exception of one fleet, but they're the except to EVER-Y-THING!)
Surprisingly, the MD-11 guys were the best at it, which is weird considering the nose wheel is about 9 miles behind the cockpit.
Skåning
Well-Known Member
My brain does the same when I hear A220, it’s a CSeries!
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Airport ops is usually on freq and happy to wingwalk in those situations if you must pass. Even tho the math says M1 and M2 in the SFO ramp can pass an A380 and 747, we'd have to at least every couple weeks ask ops to come reassure pilots as even those in an A330 would sometimes freeze up and say the A380 is too close to pass. But never KLM 747s. Those guys would somehow go from pushback to fully started in like 3 mins flat, wings rocking as they go flying around the concourse then 20 knots right past Emirates 13 feet off their right side then airborne off 01R (only EU 747 airline to almost never use the 28s too) in no time. Hell yeah, but in Dutch.
Not sure about now, but back in 2021/22, the DL 220-100s still said CS100 on the nose. I agree with you beyond the fact that like to say "Cannabus" on the radio.
Last edited:
GolfChuck
Trustworthy Source
I would say, it is not uncommon that as a controller I will have to tell an aircraft to pull all the way up to the hold short line so that other aircraft can pass behind, however, it is usually not 121 aircraft that I have to nudge. At the end of the day though, that is the flight crew's responsibility, and it looks like the clearance from ground was "when able, continue taxiing," implying that the A350 would likely have to wait for the CRJ to move up.
I remember learning to fly being taught to leave enough room to be able to make a 180 without crossing the hold short line, but that was in a ~30' cessna. I don't know if that is something commonly taught in primary training. I always thought it was dumb.
I remember learning to fly being taught to leave enough room to be able to make a 180 without crossing the hold short line, but that was in a ~30' cessna. I don't know if that is something commonly taught in primary training. I always thought it was dumb.
It's definitely a contributing factor but to me it's a bit of a cop out. I know 99% of pilots won't read it unless they've worked in airport management or in regulatory functions, but ICAO Annex 14 clearly states in their section about runway to parallel taxiway separation standards that "these distances do not guarantee clearance to aircraft holding short of the runway". That intersection often sees a 757 holding short, including the -300. Doesn't matter how close to the hold line they are, there's no way a 350 can clear that. Maybe in their minds they assumed that they should have cleared the CRJ if they were fully pulled up and wouldn't have done the same if they saw a larger aircraft. Or maybe they were so used to departing from the south side where this is never an issue. Add in the distraction from an ECAM message and a strange taxi clearance and the threat level goes up significantly. In all cases if it doesn't feel right, stop and check. That's the message they're pushing in CQ as well. I would add for those that like to go above and beyond: familiarize yourself with Annex 14 and the equivalent FAA AC and have an idea of what clearances the various markings guarantee and what they do not.
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
Nah, you’re driving along and the person in front of you pulls into a parking lot. But they don’t. They stops in the driveway and leave half the car hanging into the street. For absolutely no reason.
You barrel into them because you didn’t expect it. Is it your fault? Yes. It’s also their fault. A insurance company would have a field day putting blame on both parties. But the accident chain started with the driver not pulling all the way up, so they’ll get the majority of the fault.
TLDR, pull up to the damn line.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
If you hit a car that comes to an abrupt stop for no good reason, the insurance companies might negotiate but the cops will give you the ticket.
If you "barrel into" a parked car and try to claim they're partially at fault because they weren't fully in their spot, nobody's got your back on that one.
In this case, while it may be poor form to leave that much space between you and the hold bars (I wouldn't do that), you're entitled to the space you're on. This isn't a highway where people are barreling along making split-second decisions. The CRJ wasn't moving. Presumably it hadn't been moving for a while. The A350 could have simply stopped.
If in doubt, don't. If not in doubt, maybe use caution.
Wardogg
Meat Popsicle
If the 350 is on the taxi line, he's not expecting an aircraft to be in an area where it could interfere with his movement. To blame the A350 crew is inane. 56 feet behind the hold short line is ridiculous if your on an intermediate taxiway with aircraft taxing behind you. That's half the length of the entire aircraft. So essentially you just made yourself 1.5 times larger than you really are.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
The CRJ is a stationary object. It could be a light pole, a jet bridge, a fuel truck, a 757 wingtip, a schoolbus full of nuns, an ARFF vehicle, construction equipment, John King, or literally any other object you find on an airport.
The fact that people are trying to excuse the delta crew hurts my head. Reverse it: A CRJ-700 taxis into a stationary A380 that has wandered astray and stopped in a haze of foreign accents and confusion. Is that the Airbus crew's fault?
Look, I'm as error-prone as any other captain. But if I taxi into a stationary object—any stationary object—while under my own navigation (eg not being marshalled), I will say this right up front: That's on me. There might be a bit of wiggle room if it's on the right side and I'm peppering the FO, and he/she is saying I'm clear, but if I have that much anxiety about the situation it's probably a better idea to just stop and wait.
This reminds me of another phenomenon I've seen lately. Facebook, you see, has finally found my button: Trucker dashcam videos of accidents and motorcycle dashcams. I don't want to watch them, but I too-often fail the willpower check to resist ensorcellment.
But far too often I'll be watching the video, and something insane will happen, and the driver will react instantly with the most appropriate action, and commenters will excoriate the driver because they were speeding/in the left lane/going too slowly/listening to music/shifting/existing. With the motorcycle videos, it doesn't matter if the rider is just minding her own business, going the speed limit, with perfect lane positioning, and someone just comes flying over a hill sideways and tags them, it's always the rider's fault, and usually a launchpad for how evil/selfish(??)/stupid motorcyclists are.
This thread, like those comments, really makes me question whether humanity is worth saving.
Minuteman
I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING!
Handily, the report has a depiction of what ~56 feet would look like.
A curj nine is 119 feet long. Add 56 feet and you’re at 175 feet. Meaning any airplane longer than that would still have been an issue. That includes the 737 MAX 9, 757-300 and p much all wide bodies.
It was unusual for an aircraft to taxi past the turn for the hold short line instead of waiting.
A curj nine is 119 feet long. Add 56 feet and you’re at 175 feet. Meaning any airplane longer than that would still have been an issue. That includes the 737 MAX 9, 757-300 and p much all wide bodies.
It was unusual for an aircraft to taxi past the turn for the hold short line instead of waiting.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Wardogg said:
Not to be an ass, but that's literally the post two above yours.
I'm not sure what else it would be. I wouldn't care if it was me who hit the damned CRJ, my opinion would be the same.
Or like I literally said in the post that you're quoting:
So yeah, there's that.
What are you trying to insinuate here?
The RJ was stationary, and had been for some time, regardless of where it is sitting. Meaning the A350 crew, the aircraft in motion, has the responsibility for not hitting anything while in motion. They were the ones taxiing up to where the RJ was. I would like to think that they’re looking ahead or at least one of them is, are aware of the general wingspan of their own A350, and through that awareness, could see the RJ and think to themselves “this one looks close. Maybe we’d better hold here until the RJ moves”. That would be the reasonable and prudent thing to do, assuming they had the aforementioned SA on their own aircraft.
The old saying of “the only time you’re required to be on the taxiway centerline, is when you hit something”, is just a saying, it has no basis in reality. You’re still responsible for your aircraft, its dimensions, and it’s jet wash, when taxiing.
The old saying of “the only time you’re required to be on the taxiway centerline, is when you hit something”, is just a saying, it has no basis in reality. You’re still responsible for your aircraft, its dimensions, and it’s jet wash, when taxiing.