If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

 Actions

Difference between revisions of "Taxiway Collisions"

From SKYbrary Wiki

m (Occurrences)
m (Occurrences)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
*aircraft-aircraft collisions or near collisions - collisions can result from:
 
*aircraft-aircraft collisions or near collisions - collisions can result from:
 
**failure to follow taxiway centreline guidance
 
**failure to follow taxiway centreline guidance
**failure to stop prior to a stop bar
+
**failure to stop prior to a [[Stopbars (SKYclip)|stopbar]]
 
**taxiing at speeds unsuited to the conditions or level of congestion
 
**taxiing at speeds unsuited to the conditions or level of congestion
 
**taxiway deviation whilst trying to manoeuvre to "squeeze" past another aircraft. Manoeuvring around an aircraft partially blocking a taxiway (as might be the case if the aircraft was approaching, but not yet at the stop point of, a gate) can lead to collision. If misjudged, this could result in a wingtip striking the tail of the stopped aircraft or it could compromise clearance between obstacles or other aircraft and the wingtip opposite the stopped aircraft
 
**taxiway deviation whilst trying to manoeuvre to "squeeze" past another aircraft. Manoeuvring around an aircraft partially blocking a taxiway (as might be the case if the aircraft was approaching, but not yet at the stop point of, a gate) can lead to collision. If misjudged, this could result in a wingtip striking the tail of the stopped aircraft or it could compromise clearance between obstacles or other aircraft and the wingtip opposite the stopped aircraft

Revision as of 15:02, 29 May 2018

Article Information
Category: Ground Operations Ground Operations
Content source: SKYbrary About SKYbrary
Content control: SKYbrary About SKYbrary
Ambox content.png
The present article is under construction.
Reader enquiries are welcome, contact the editor: editor@skybrary.aero.
Ambox content.png

Description

An airport is a complex interface between the air and the ground environments, where access must be controlled and separation between aircraft or between aircraft and vehicular traffic must be maintained and optimised. While most occurrences on airport aprons and taxiways do not have consequences in terms of loss of life, they are often associated with aircraft damage, delays to passengers and avoidable financial costs.

This article examines collisions and near collisions whilst aircraft are on the airport manoeuvring areas inclusive of taxiways and ramp areas. The article On-Gate Collisions provides insight into aircraft collisions occurring whilst on, entering or leaving an assigned gate.

Occurrences

As previously stated, to ensure efficient and safe airport ground operations, separation between aircraft or between aircraft and vehicular traffic must be maintained and optimised. On occasion, however, minimum separation, particularly aircraft/vehicle separation is compromised. Whilst all events do not result in collision with an aircraft, the majority of taxiway occurrences involve vehicle operators deviating from a surface movement controller clearance. These "failure to comply" occurrences most usually involve vehicles:

  • using an incorrect taxiway
  • failing to stop at a taxiway holding point
  • failing to stay on the surface movement control radio frequency or ground frequency as appropriate
  • failing to obtain a clearance before entering an area subject to control.

In all cases, these actions have the potential to put the vehicle in conflict with an aircraft which, in turn, could:

  • lead to collision
  • require aggressive braking by the aircraft which could result in personnel injuries. Cabin crew are especially vulnerable as they might be moving within the cabin preforming pre-departure or post-landing duties


Most of the remaining occurrences are related to one of the following:

  • aircraft-aircraft collisions or near collisions - collisions can result from:
    • failure to follow taxiway centreline guidance
    • failure to stop prior to a stopbar
    • taxiing at speeds unsuited to the conditions or level of congestion
    • taxiway deviation whilst trying to manoeuvre to "squeeze" past another aircraft. Manoeuvring around an aircraft partially blocking a taxiway (as might be the case if the aircraft was approaching, but not yet at the stop point of, a gate) can lead to collision. If misjudged, this could result in a wingtip striking the tail of the stopped aircraft or it could compromise clearance between obstacles or other aircraft and the wingtip opposite the stopped aircraft
    • taxiway configuration - converging taxiways can potentially lead to reduced or compromised clearance, especially where they cross
  • reduced aircraft clearance with ground equipment or obstacles. Reduced clearance accidents or incidents can occur in various ways. These include:
    • inappropriate use of a restricted taxiway - some taxiways are restricted by wingspan. Use by a larger aircraft could compromise obstacle clearance
    • failure to follow taxi lane guidance - deviation from the lane guidance whilst manoeuvring in proximity to light stands, gates or stationary equipment can result in collision
  • jet blast -inappropriate thrust settings or following too closely can result in aircraft damage due to jet blast. Jet blast can also cause unsecured equipment such as Unit Load Devices (ULD) to move and strike other aircraft, equipment or personnel

Prevention

Accidents and Incidents

The following accidents and incidents describe collision or near collision between two aircraft, an aircraft and a vehicle or an aircraft and a stationary object.

Aircraft/Aircraft Conflict

  • MD82 / MD11, Anchorage AK USA, 2002 (On 17 March 2002, at Ted Stevens Anchorage Airport, a McDonnell Douglas MD82 operated by Alaska Airlines, on a night pushback in snow conditions collided with an inbound taxiing McDonnell Douglas MD-11. The MD82 suffered substantial rudder damage although the impacting MD11 winglet was undamaged.)
  • B742 / B741, Tenerife Canary Islands Spain, 1977 (On 27 March 1977, a KLM Boeing 747-200 began its low visibility take-off at Tenerife without requesting or receiving take-off clearance and a collision with a Boeing 747-100 backtracking the same runway subsequently occurred. Both aircraft were destroyed by the impact and consequential fire and 583 people died. The Investigation attributed the crash primarily to the actions and inactions of the KLM Captain, who was the Operator's Chief Flying Instructor. Safety Recommendations made emphasised the importance of standard phraseology in all normal radio communications and avoidance of the phrase "take-off" in ATC Departure Clearances.)
  • A343 / RJ1H, Copenhagen Denmark, 2016 (On 26 December 2016, the wing of an Airbus A340-300 being repositioned by towing at Copenhagen as cleared hit an Avro RJ100 which had stopped short of its stand when taxiing due to the absence of the expected ground crew. The RJ100 had been there for twelve minutes at the time of the collision. The Investigation attributed the collision to differing expectations of the tug driver, the Apron controller and the RJ100 flight crew within an overall context of complacency on the part of the tug driver whilst carrying out what would have been regarded as a routine, non-stressful task.)
  • B752 / CRJ7, San Francisco CA USA, 2008 (On 13 January 2008, a Boeing 757-200 and a Bombardier CL-600 received pushback clearance from two adjacent terminal gates within 41 seconds. The ground controller believed there was room for both aircraft to pushback. During the procedure both aircraft were damaged as their tails collided. The pushback procedure of the Boeing was performed without wing-walkers or tail-walkers.)
  • DC91 / B722, Detroit MI USA, 1990 (On 3 December 1990 a Douglas DC9-10 flight crew taxiing for departure at Detroit in thick fog got lost and ended up stopped to one side of an active runway where, shortly after reporting their position, their aircraft was hit by a departing Boeing 727-200 and destroyed by the impact and subsequent fire. The Investigation concluded that the DC9 crew had failed to communicate positional uncertainty quickly enough but that their difficulties had been compounded by deficiencies in both the standard of air traffic service and airport surface markings, signage and lighting undetected by safety regulator oversight.)
  • B763 / A320, Delhi India, 2017 (On 8 August 2017, a Boeing 767-300 departing Delhi was pushed back into a stationary and out of service Airbus A320 on the adjacent gate rendering both aircraft unfit for flight. The Investigation found that the A320 had been instructed to park on a stand that was supposed to be blocked, a procedural requirement if the adjacent stand is to be used by a wide body aircraft and although this error had been detected by the stand allocation system, the alert was not noticed, in part due to inappropriate configuration. It was also found that the pushback was commenced without wing walkers.)
  • RJ85 / RJ1H, London City Airport, London UK, 2008 (On 21 April 2008, an Avro RJ85 aircraft was parked on Stand 10 at London City Airport, with an Avro RJ100 parked to its left, on the adjacent Stand 11. After being repositioned by a tug, the RJ85 taxied forward and to the right, its tail contacting the tail of the RJ100 and causing minor damage to the RJ100’s right elevator.)
  • B738/B738, Girona Spain, 2010 (On 14 January 2010, two Ryanair Boeing 737-800 aircraft were operating scheduled passenger flights from Girona to Las Palmas and Turin respectively and had taxied from adjacent gates at Girona in normal day visibility in quick succession. The Turin-bound aircraft taxied first but because it was early at the holding point for its CTOT, the other aircraft was designated first for take off and during the overtaking manoeuvre in the holding area, the wing tip of the moving Las Palmas aircraft hit the horizontal stabiliser of the Turin bound aircraft causing minor and substantial damage to the respective aircraft. None of the respective 81 and 77 occupants were injured and both aircraft taxied back to their gates.)

Aircraft/Vehicle Conflict

  • A320, Dublin Ireland, 2017 (On 27 September 2017, an Airbus A320 being manoeuvred off the departure gate at Dublin by tug was being pulled forward when the tow bar shear pin broke and the tug driver lost control. The tug then collided with the right engine causing significant damage. The tug driver and assisting ground crew were not injured. The Investigation concluded that although the shear pin failure was not attributable to any particular cause, the relative severity of the outcome was probably increased by the wet surface, a forward slope on the ramp and fact that an engine start was in progress.)
  • B763, Luton UK, 2005 (On 16 February 2005, at Luton Airport, a Boeing B767-300 collided with the tug pulling it forward when the shear pin of the unserviceable tow bar being used to pull the aircraft broke. The aircraft ran onto the tug when the ground crew stopped the tug suddenly. As result of the collision with the tug the aircraft fuselage and landing gear was damaged.)
  • A320, London Heathrow UK, 2006 (On 26 June 2006, after an uneventful pre-flight pushback of a British Airways Airbus A320-200 at London Heathrow Airport, the aircraft started moving under its own power and, shortly afterwards, collided with the tractor that had just performed the pushback, damaging both the right engine and the tractor.)
  • Vehicle / PA31, Mackay SE Australia, 2008 (On 29 June 2012, a Piper PA31 taking off from runway 05 on a passenger charter flight just missed hitting an inspection vehicle which had entered the take off runway from an intersecting one contrary to ATC clearance. The overflying aircraft was estimated to have cleared the vehicle by approximately 20 feet and the pilot was unaware it had entered the active runway. The driver had been taking a mobile telephone call at the time and attributed the incursion to distraction. The breached clearance had been given and correctly read back approximately two minutes prior to the conflict occurring.)
  • B738, London Stansted UK, 2008 (On 13 November 2008, a Boeing 737-800 with an unserviceable APU was being operated by Ryanair on a passenger flight at night was in collision with a tug after a cross-bleed engine start procedure was initiated prior to the completion of a complex aircraft pushback in rain. As the power was increased on the No 1 engine in preparation for the No 2 engine start, the resulting increase in thrust was greater than the counter-force provided by the tug and the aircraft started to move forwards. The towbar attachment failed and subsequently the aircraft’s No 1 engine impacted the side of the tug, prior to the aircraft brakes being applied.)
  • B737, Gran Canaria Spain, 2016 (On 7 January 2016, a Boeing 737-700 was inadvertently cleared by ATC to take off on a closed runway. The take-off was commenced with a vehicle visible ahead at the runway edge. When ATC realised the situation, a 'stop' instruction was issued and the aircraft did so after travelling approximately 740 metres. Investigation attributed the controller error to "lost situational awareness". It also noted prior pilot and controller awareness that the runway used was closed and that the pilots had, on the basis of the take-off clearance crossed a lit red stop bar to enter the runway without explicit permission.)
  • Vehicle / B752, Dublin Ireland, 2009 (On 29 May 2009, a Boeing 757-200 being operated by UK Airline Thomson Airways on a passenger charter flight from Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt to Dublin and having just landed on runway 10 at destination at night in poor visibility overtook a small ride-on grass mower moving along the right hand side of the runway in approximate line with the aircraft’s right hand wing tip. The driver of the mower was unaware of the arriving aircraft until he heard it on the runway behind him. Prior to the landing, ATC had been informed that all grass-cutting equipment previously working on and around the runway had cleared it.)
  • B742, Stockholm Arlanda Sweden, 2007 (On 25 June 2007, a Boeing 747-200F being operated by Cathay Pacific on a scheduled cargo flight from Stockholm to Dubai had completed push back for departure in normal daylight visibility and the parking brakes had been set. The tow vehicle crew had disconnected the tow bar but before they and their vehicle had cleared the vicinity of the aircraft, it began to taxi and collided with the vehicle. The flight crew were unaware of this and continued taxiing for about 150 metres until the flight engineer noticed that the indications from one if the engines were abnormal and the aircraft was taxied back to the gate. The tow vehicle crew and the dispatcher had been able to run clear and were not injured physically injured although all three were identified as suffering minor injury (shock). The aircraft was “substantially damaged” and the tow vehicle was “damaged”.)

Aircraft/Object Conflict

  • B734, Aberdeen UK, 2005 (Significant damage was caused to the tailplane and elevator of a Boeing 737-400 after the pavement beneath them broke up when take off thrust was applied for a standing start from the full length of the runway at Aberdeen. Although in this case neither outcome applied, the Investigation noted that control difficulties consequent upon such damage could lead to an overrun following a high speed rejected takeoff or to compromised flight path control airborne. Safety Recommendations on appropriate regulatory guidance for marking and construction of blast pads and on aircraft performance, rolling take offs and lead-on line marking were made.)
  • B74S, Stockholm Arlanda Sweden, 1996 (On 14 June 1996, a Boeing 747SP being operated by Air China on a scheduled passenger flight from Beijing to Stockholm was arriving on the designated parking gate at destination in normal daylight visibility when it collided with the airbridge. None of the 130 occupants of the aircraft suffered any injury but the aircraft was “substantially damaged” and the airbridge was “damaged”.)
  • B744, Johannesburg South Africa, 2013 (On 22 December 2013, a Boeing 747-400 taxiing for departure at Johannesburg at night with an augmented crew failed to follow its correctly-acknowledged taxi clearance and one wing hit a building resulting in substantial damage to both aircraft and building and a significant fuel leak. The aircraft occupants were all uninjured but four people in the building sustained minor injuries. The accident was attributed to crew error both in respect of an inadequate briefing and failure to monitor aircraft position using available charts and visual reference. Some minor contributory factors relating to the provision of airport lighting and signage were noted.)
  • DH8D, Hubli India, 2015 (On 8 March 2015, directional control of a Bombardier DHC 8-400 which had just completed a normal approach and landing was lost and the aircraft departed the side of the runway following the collapse of both the left main and nose landing gear assemblies. The Investigation found that after being allowed to drift to the side of the runway without corrective action, the previously airworthy aircraft had hit a non-frangible edge light and the left main gear and then the nose landing gear had collapsed with a complete loss of directional control. The aircraft had then exited the side of the runway sustaining further damage.)
  • B773, Lisbon Portugal, 2016 (On 13 January 2016 ice was found on the upper and lower wing surfaces of a Boeing 777-300ER about to depart in the late morning from Lisbon in CAVOK conditions and 10°C. As Lisbon had no de-ice facilities, it was towed to a location where the sun would melt the ice more quickly but during poorly-planned manoeuvring, one of the wingtips was damaged by contact with an obstruction. The Investigation attributed the ice which led to the problematic re-positioning to the operator’s policy of tankering most of the return fuel on the overnight inbound flight where it had become cold-soaked.)
  • RJ85, Helsinki Finland 2010 (On 12 June 2010, a requested 22R runway inspection at Helsinki in normal daylight visibility carried out after a severe engine failure during the take off roll had led an Avro RJ85 being operated by Finnish Airline Blue1 on a scheduled passenger flight to Copenhagen to reject that take off at high speed. This inspection had not detected significant debris deposited on the runway during the sudden and severe engine failure. Two passenger aircraft, one being operated by Finnair to Dubrovnik, Croatia and the other being operated by Swedish airline TUIfly Nordic to Rhodes, Greece then departed the same runway before a re-inspection disclosed the debris and it was removed. Neither of the aircraft which used the runway prior to debris removal were subsequently found to have suffered any damage but both were advised of the situation en route.)
  • A319, London Heathrow UK, 2007 (On 12 February 2007, an Airbus A319-100 being operated by British Airways on a scheduled passenger flight into London Heathrow made unintended contact in normal daylight visibility with the stationary airbridge at the arrival gate. This followed an emergency stop made after seeing hand signals from ground staff whilst following SEGS indications which appeared to suggest that there was a further 5 metres to run to the correct parking position. There was no damage to the aircraft, only minimal damage to the airbridge and there were no injuries to the aircraft occupants or any other person)
  • A321, Daegu South Korea, 2006 (On 21 February 2006, an Airbus A321-200 being operated by China Eastern on a scheduled passenger flight from Daegu to Shanghai Pudong failed to follow the marked taxiway centreline when taxiing for departure in normal daylight visibility and a wing tip impacted an adjacent building causing minor damage to both building and aircraft. None of the 166 occupants were injured.)

Related Articles

Further Reading

[[Category:Ground Operations [[Category:Operational Issues