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

(Further Reading)
m (Editor1 moved page Work in progress:Taxiway Collisions to Taxiway Collisions without leaving a redirect)
(No difference)

Revision as of 10:01, 28 June 2018

Article Information
Category: Ground Operations Ground Operations
Content source: SKYbrary About SKYbrary
Content control: SKYbrary About SKYbrary

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

Most taxiway accidents and incidents are preventable. This prevention is dependant upon appropriate training and testing, compliance with clearances, published procedures and right-of-way rules, maintaining situational awareness and adapting speed of movement to suit the weather and surface conditions. Some specific accident prevention strategies are as follows:

  • Vehicle operators - It is imperative that vehicle operators be properly trained, tested and authorised for ramp and taxiway operations. Driving infractions should be investigated and additional training provided where appropriate. Multiple infractions should be considered grounds for suspension of airside driving privileges. Operators should:
    • ensure daily inspection for their vehicle is complete and that beacon/hazard lights are operating when the vehicle is airside
    • maintain situational awareness
    • operate their vehicle safely and in accordance with all company and airport rules
    • obey all "rules of the road" inclusive of speed limits, stop signs and right-of-way guidance
    • yield to aircraft at all times
    • obtain and read back any ground movement controller clearance prior to entering an area where clearance is required. If clearance is not understood, ASK!
  • Tug operators - Tug operators have the additional responsibility of moving aircraft on and off gates as well as positioning aircraft from one location on the airfield to another. In addition to the aforementioned items for vehicle operators, the tug operator must:
    • know the size of the aircraft in tow inclusive of the wingspan
    • be conversant with the normal taxi routes from one airfield location to another
    • understand the stopping distances required for a tug with an aircraft in tow
    • comply with all clearances, especially runway crossing clearances
    • use wing and tail walkers when manoeuvring in congested areas
  • Controllers - The ground controller is responsible for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft and vehicle traffic on the taxiways and aprons. They should:
    • provide the appropriate clearance for the requested action
    • ensure that the clearance readback is accurate
    • to the extent possible, monitor the movement visually, via transponder or by use of multilateration equipment to ensure clearance compliance
  • Pilots - In general, pilots are responsible for the ground movement of an aircraft from the runway to the gate and from the gate to the runway although they may also reposition aircraft from one point on the airfield to another. In all cases they should:
    • request, readback and comply with an appropriate clearance
    • maintain situational awareness
    • taxi at a speed appropriate to the conditions and traffic situation
    • maintain the centre of the taxi lane
    • be vigilant for taxi lane compromise by another aircraft, vehicle or object
    • not assume that vehicles will yield right-of-way

Accidents and Incidents

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

Aircraft/Aircraft Conflict

  • B190 / B737, Calgary Canada, 2014 (On 29 March 2014, a Beech 1900D being taxied by maintenance personnel at Calgary entered the active runway without clearance in good visibility at night as a Boeing 737-700 was taking off. The 737 passed safely overhead. The Investigation found that the taxiing aircraft had taken a route completely contrary to the accepted clearance and that the engineer on control of the aircraft had not received any relevant training. Although the airport had ASDE in operation, a transponder code was not issued to the taxiing aircraft as required and stop bar crossing detection was not enabled at the time.)
  • B744 / A321, London Heathrow UK, 2004 (On 23 March 2004, an out of service British Airways Boeing 747-400, under tow passed behind a stationary Airbus A321-200 being operated by Irish Airline Aer Lingus on a departing scheduled passenger service in good daylight visibility and the wing tip of the 747 impacted and seriously damaged the rudder of the A321. The aircraft under tow was cleared for the towing movement and the A321 was holding position in accordance with clearance. The towing team were not aware of the collision and initially, there was some doubt in the A321 flight deck about the cause of a ‘shudder’ felt when the impact occurred but the cabin crew of the A321 had felt the impact shudder and upon noticing the nose of the 747 appearing concluded that it had struck their aircraft. Then the First Officer saw the damaged wing tip of the 747 and informed ATC about the possible impact. Later another aircraft, positioned behind the A321, confirmed the rudder damage. At the time of the collision, the two aircraft involved were on different ATC frequencies.)
  • SH33 / MD83, Paris CDG France, 2000 (On the 25th of May, 2000 a UK-operated Shorts SD330 waiting for take-off at Paris CDG in normal visibility at night on a taxiway angled in the take-off direction due to its primary function as an exit for opposite direction landings was given a conditional line up clearance by a controller who had erroneously assumed without checking that it was at the runway threshold. After an aircraft which had just landed had passed, the SD330 began to line up unaware that an MD83 had just been cleared in French to take off from the full length and a collision occurred.)
  • A343 / B763, Barcelona Spain, 2014 (On 5 July 2014, an Airbus A340-300 taxiing for departure at Barcelona was cleared across an active runway in front of an approaching Boeing 767 with landing clearance on the same runway by a Ground Controller unaware that the runway was active. Sighting by both aircraft resulted in an accelerated crossing and a very low go around. The Investigation noted the twice-daily runway configuration change made due to noise abatement reasons was imminent. It was also noted that airport procedure involved use of stop bars even on inactive runways and that their operation was then the responsibility of ground controllers.)
  • 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.)
  • 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.)
  • B732, vicinity Washington National DC USA, 1982 (On 13 January 1982, an Air Florida Boeing 737-200 took off in daylight from runway 36 at Washington National in moderate snow but then stalled before hitting a bridge and vehicles and continuing into the river below after just one minute of flight killing most of the occupants and some people on the ground. The accident was attributed entirely to a combination of the actions and inactions of the crew in relation to the prevailing adverse weather conditions and, crucially, to the failure to select engine anti ice on which led to over reading of actual engine thrust.)
  • B738/A321, Prague Czech Republic, 2010 (On 18 June 2010 a Sun Express Boeing 737-800 taxiing for a full length daylight departure from runway 06 at Prague was in collision with an Airbus 321 which was waiting on a link taxiway leading to an intermediate take off position on the same runway. The aircraft sustained damage to their right winglet and left horizontal stabiliser respectively and both needed subsequent repair before being released to service.)

Aircraft/Vehicle Conflict

  • 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.)
  • 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.)
  • 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.)
  • 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”.)
  • SB20, Stockholm Arlanda, 2001 (On 18 December 2001, a Saab 2000 being operated by Air Botnia on scheduled passenger flight from Stockholm to Oulu was taxiing out at night in normal visibility in accordance with its ATC clearance when a car appeared from the left on a roadway and drove at speed on a collision course with the aircraft. In order to avoid a collision, the aircraft had to brake sharply and the aircraft commander saw the car pass under the nose of the aircraft and judged the vehicle’s closest distance to the aircraft to be four to five metres. The car did not stop, could not subsequently be identified and no report was made by the driver or other witnesses. The diagram below taken from the official report shows the site of the conflict - the aircraft was emerging from Ramp ‘G’ to turn left on taxiway ‘Z’ and the broken line shows the roadway which is crossed just before the left turn is commenced.)
  • 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.)
  • 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.)
  • B744, Paris CDG France, 2003 (On 18 January 2003, a Boeing 747-400F being operated by Singapore Airlines Cargo on a scheduled cargo flight from Paris CDG to Dubai taxied for departure in darkness and fog with visibility less than 100 metres in places and the right wing was in collision with a stationary and unoccupied ground de/anti icing vehicle without the awareness of either the flight crew or anybody else at the time. Significant damage occurred to the de icing vehicle and the aircraft was slightly damaged. The vehicle damage was not discovered until almost two hours later and the aircraft involved was not identified until it arrived in Dubai where the damage was observed and the authorities at Paris CDG advised.)

Aircraft/Object Conflict

  • B74S, Stockholm Arlanda Sweden, 2006 (On 11 December 2006, a Boeing 747SP being operated by Syrian Air on a scheduled passenger flight from Damascus to Stockholm was arriving on the designated parking gate at destination in normal visibility at night when it collided with the airbridge. None of the 116 occupants of the aircraft suffered any injury but the aircraft was “substantially damaged” and the airbridge was “damaged”.)
  • 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.)
  • AT72, Shannon Ireland, 2014 (On 26 February 2014, an ATR 72-202 which had been substituted for the ATR42 which usually operated a series of night cargo flights was being marshalled out of its parking position with a new flight crew on board when the left wing was in collision with the structure of an adjacent hangar. The Investigation found that the aircraft type had not been changed on the applicable flight plan and ATC were consequently unaware that the aircraft had previously been parked in a position only approved for the use by the usual smaller aircraft type.)
  • A342, Perth Australia, 2005 (On 24 April 2005, an Airbus A340-200 landed short of the temporarily displaced runway threshold at Perth in good daylight visibility despite their prior awareness that there was such a displacement. The Investigation concluded that the crew had failed to correctly identify the applicable threshold markings because the markings provided were insufficiently clear to them and probably also because of the inappropriately low intensity setting of the temporary PAPI. No other Serious Incidents were reported during the same period of runway works.)
  • B772, Singapore, 2013 (On 19 December 2013, the left engine of a Boeing 777-200 taxiing onto its assigned parking gate after arrival at Singapore ingested an empty cargo container resulting in damage to the engine which was serious enough to require its subsequent removal and replacement. The Investigation found that the aircraft docking guidance system had been in use despite the presence of the ingested container and other obstructions within the clearly marked 'equipment restraint area' of the gate involved. The corresponding ground handling procedures were found to be deficient as were those for ensuring general ramp awareness of a 'live' gate.)
  • 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.)
  • A320, Lisbon Portugal, 2015 (On 19 May 2015, an Airbus A319 crew attempted to taxi into a nose-in parking position at Lisbon despite the fact that the APIS, although switched on, was clearly malfunctioning whilst not displaying an unequivocal ‘STOP’. The aircraft continued 6 metres past the applicable apron ground marking by which time it had hit the airbridge. The marshaller in attendance to oversee the arrival did not signal the aircraft or manually select the APIS ‘STOP’ instruction. The APIS had failed to detect the dark-liveried aircraft and the non-display of a steady ‘STOP’ indication was independently attributed to a pre-existing system fault.)

Related Articles

Further Reading