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

 Actions

Taxiway Collisions

From SKYbrary Wiki

Revision as of 10:01, 28 June 2018 by Editor1 (talk | contribs) (Editor1 moved page Work in progress:Taxiway Collisions to Taxiway Collisions without leaving a redirect)
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

  • 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.)
  • 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.)
  • 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.)
  • A319 / UNKN, Stockholm Arlanda Sweden, 2011 (On 5 February 2011, an Airbus A319-100 being operated by Air Berlin on a passenger flight departing Stockholm inadvertently proceeded beyond the given clearance limit for runway 19R and although it subsequently stopped before runway entry had occurred, it was by then closer to high speed departing traffic than it should have been. There was no abrupt stop and none of the 103 occupants were injured.)
  • 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.)
  • B738 / B738, Toronto Canada, 2018 (On 5 January 2018, an out of service Boeing 737-800 was pushed back at night into collision with an in-service Boeing 737-800 waiting on the taxiway for a marshaller to arrive and direct it onto the adjacent terminal gate. The first aircraft’s tail collided with the second aircraft’s right wing and a fire started. The evacuation of the second aircraft was delayed by non-availability of cabin emergency lighting. The Investigation attributed the collision to failure of the apron controller and pushback crew to follow documented procedures or take reasonable care to ensure that it was safe to begin the pushback.)
  • B738/B763, Barcelona Spain, 2011 (On 14 April 2011, a Ryanair Boeing 737-800 failed to leave sufficient clearance when taxiing behind a stationary Boeing 767-300 at Barcelona and the 737 wingtip was in collision with the horizontal stabiliser of the 767, damaging both. The 767 crew were completely unaware of any impact but the 737 crew realised the ‘close proximity’ but dismissed a cabin crew report that a passenger had observed a collision. Both aircraft completed their intended flights without incident after which the damage was discovered, that to the 767 requiring that the aircraft be repaired before further flight.)
  • 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.)

Aircraft/Vehicle Conflict

  • 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.)
  • 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”.)
  • 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.)
  • FA50 / Vehicle, Moscow Vnukovo Russia, 2014 (On 20 October 2014 a Dassault Falcon 50 taking off at night from Moscow Vnukovo collided with a snow plough which had entered the same runway without clearance shortly after rotation. Control was lost and all occupants died when it was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. The uninjured snow plough driver was subsequently discovered to be under the influence of alcohol. The Investigation found that the A-SMGCS effective for over a year prior to the collision had not been properly configured nor had controllers been adequately trained on its use, especially its conflict alerting functions.)
  • ATP, Jersey Channel Islands, 1998 (On 9 May 1998, a British Regional Airlines ATP was being pushed back for departure at Jersey in daylight whilst the engines were being started when an excessive engine power setting applied by the flight crew led to the failure of the towbar connection and then to one of the aircraft's carbon fibre propellers striking the tug. A non standard emergency evacuation followed. All aircraft occupants and ground crew were uninjured.)
  • 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.)
  • E190 / Vehicle, Paris CDG France, 2014 (On 19 April 2014, an Embraer 190 collided with the tug which was attempting to begin a pull forward after departure pushback which, exceptionally for the terminal concerned, was prohibited for the gate involved. As a result, severe damage was caused to the lower fuselage. The Investigation found that the relevant instructions were properly documented but ignored when apron services requested a 'push-pull' to minimise departure delay for an adjacent aircraft. Previous similar events had occurred on the same gate and it was suspected that a lack of appreciation of the reasons why the manoeuvre used was prohibited may have been relevant.)
  • 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.)

Aircraft/Object Conflict

  • 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.)
  • 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.)
  • 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.)
  • B722, Cotonou Benin, 2003 (On 25 December 2003, a Boeing 727-200 being operated by UTA (Guinea) on a scheduled passenger flight from Cotonou to Beirut with a planned stopover at Kufra, Libya, failed to get properly airborne in day VMC from the 2400 metre departure runway and hit a small building 2.45 metres high situated on the extended centreline 118 metres beyond the end of the runway. The right main landing gear broke off and ripped off a part of the trailing edge flaps on the right wing. The airplane then banked slightly to the right and crashed onto the beach where it broke into several pieces and ended up in the sea where the depth of water varied between three and ten metres. Of the estimated 163 occupants, 141 were killed and the remainder seriously injured.)
  • A319, Ibiza Spain, 2016 (On 19 June 2016, an Airbus A320 failed to follow the clearly-specified and ground-marked self-positioning exit from a regularly used gate at Ibiza and its right wing tip collided with the airbridge, damaging both it and the aircraft. The Investigation found that the crew had attempted the necessary left turn using the Operator’s ‘One Engine Taxi Departure’ procedure using the left engine but then failed to follow the marked taxi guideline by a significant margin. It was noted that there had been no other such difficulties with the same departure in the previous four years it had been in use.)
  • B738, Barcelona Spain, 2015 (On 12 December 2015, whilst a Boeing 737-800 was beginning disembarkation of passengers via an air bridge which had just been attached on arrival at Barcelona, the bridge malfunctioned, raising the aircraft nose gear approximately 2 metres off the ground. The door attached to the bridge then failed and the aircraft dropped abruptly. Prompt cabin crew intervention prevented all but two minor injuries. The Investigation found that the occurrence had been made possible by the failure to recognise new functional risks created by a programme of partial renovation being carried out on the air bridges at the Terminal involved.)
  • 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)

Related Articles

Further Reading