Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Planes Collide at JFK

Posted by on Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Luckily they were both on the ground...

 

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Danger 1
NYT said this morning that 'they clipped each other'. A little more than that it would seem.
Posted by Danger on April 12, 2011 at 7:11 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 2
It's kinda nice having you on Eastern time. It gives us early birds something to read in the morning.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on April 12, 2011 at 7:13 AM
Fnarf 3
At today's overcrowded airports the real congestion is always on the ground. That's where most of the accidents and near-misses take place. These superjumbo A380s don't make it any easier.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on April 12, 2011 at 7:38 AM
gttim 4
"Luckily they were both on the ground..."

Well, if one were in the air and the other on the ground, they probably wouldn't have hit! ;-)
Posted by gttim on April 12, 2011 at 7:42 AM
Rach3l 5
Did the air traffic controller lose a z-coordinate somewhere? Or maybe he was worried about having to work WITH NO FUCKING PAY during the government shutdown.
Posted by Rach3l on April 12, 2011 at 8:20 AM
6
@1: Really? I think "clipped" is far more accurate than Slog's "Planes Collide at JFK."
Posted by bigyaz on April 12, 2011 at 8:27 AM
7
Like a good Slogger, I blame Reagan.
Posted by It's always reagan's fault on April 12, 2011 at 8:33 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 8
"Clipped" would, indeed, seem to be more accurate. But why be mundane when you can be sensationalist? Goldy, I hope you're taking notes here.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on April 12, 2011 at 8:38 AM
9
almost... enough clearance to go over the top of the tail of the RJ!

Given that the pilot of the 380 (who would be one of the highest rated and paid at AF) drove right past the unmoving RJ and then snagged him it will be interesting to hear how this plays out, discipline wise.
Posted by myr on April 12, 2011 at 9:05 AM
Fnarf 10
I was at Heathrow once, on a bus clusterfucking its way from one part of that hell hole to another, with a bunch of other buses that had been similarly directed right out onto the edge of the taxiway, where a jet was trying to turn around in a suddenly confined space. The wing tip cleared our window by some feet but when it's coming right at you it sure as hell looks like it's going to slice you in half. I wasn't the only person who ducked down as it went past.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on April 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM
BEG 11
Years ago, my sister and I were trying to drive our rental car back to the Charles de Gaul airport and somehow wound up RIGHT UP AT A RUNWAY with a plane taking off, in our direction! We got the **** out of there ASAP and I sure hope that's been more secured since, but it's a heartstopper for sure. Those planes are f'ing huge. I, like @9 will be interested to see how this plays out since one plane was parked when it got sideswiped.
Posted by BEG http://twitter.com/#!/browneyedgirl65 on April 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM
Reverse Polarity 12
myr @9,

I worked at an airfield once upon a time. The pilot will probably have very little responsibility for this. It isn't like driving a car. You can't see much of the ground from the cockpit, and you don't have much of a sense of distances and the space around you. Pilots rely almost entirely on the tower instructions and the ground crew flaggers to make sure they are clear.

Most likely the pilot went exactly where he/she was instructed to go, and the fuckup will fall on a bad instruction from the tower, or a ground crew mistake. The only way the pilot will get in trouble is if he/she didn't follow the instructions from the tower.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on April 12, 2011 at 9:35 AM
aardvark 13
excuse me, pardon me, excuse me
Posted by aardvark on April 12, 2011 at 9:46 AM
14
I've flown on one of those French Hummers. It's so gigantic and ungainly, you really have to hold zealot-grade faith in modern aerospace engineering to travel on one. The 380 pilot probably could have rolled right over that tiny little Bombardier and not even notice.
Posted by Mr. Happy Sunshine on April 12, 2011 at 10:19 AM
15
@12 - aha - that makes sense... I remember now when I got to sit in the pilot's seat once on a 747 (parked) and I recall now being amazed at how little of the actual plane itself you could see (though I do recall being able to see the tips of the wings) so I suppose it's "go where I tell you when I tell you: when you're driving around the airport - but looking at the video you gotta wonder as he went sailing by if he (AF pilot)wasn't saying to himself "this doesn't look right" - then again the copilot might have been "driving" in which case the left wing would have been completely out of sight!

What really strikes (!) me about the video is just how close the wing came to just going over the entire RJ.
Posted by myr on April 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM
16
If you've ever seen the French in ski lift lines, you'll recognize the behaviour.
Posted by Pardon moi on April 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM
17
Funny thing about non-fatal aircraft accidents: they make the news when similar MVAs don't.

Mind you, I suspect the insurance company is far less happy with this one.
Posted by gromm on April 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM
18
It's also possible that the little plane wasn't parked in the right spot.If it was supposed to be 2-5m forward form where it was, the whole thing never happens.
Posted by clashfan on April 13, 2011 at 6:55 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy