11 ms·
JetBlue A320 tail strike on takeoff, B350 in opposite direction
- breckenedge 5y agoNot good. Less than 3nm separation and headed straight for each other, Beech pilots at 900ft AGL and descending. This was about as close to disaster as it gets. Nice of the Beech pilots to relay the tail strike to Center, that would have been quite the fireworks show.
- jdavis703 5y agoHow does this happen? Shouldn’t the pilots see the approaching aircraft on radar (and assuming 3nm visibility) also see the approaching aircraft. This feels like a situation where a lot of things went wrong with multiple crews.
- version_five 5y agoFrom one of the videos posted, it's an uncontrolled airport, so it seems like it was just an error that resulted due to the missing coordination
- jonas21 5y agoI had no idea commercial airliners took off from or landed at uncontrolled airports. Sounds scary!
- geoffeg 5y agoIt's quite common, at least in the US (where I have most of my experience). It's generally not scary, pilots coordinate with each other on the radio, announcing their intentions. There are, however, some pilots who seem to not make more than the bare minimum number of calls or don't seem interested in listening to the other pilots near the airport. Additionally, there are guidelines for how to enter the airspace of an uncontrolled airport to reduce congestion and the chance of a collision. There are a few exceptions, one of them being an approach during poor weather, which appears to have been the case in the incident mentioned here. In those situations, the approach controller usually coordinates arriving and departing aircraft to use appropriate runways. I'm not sure why that didn't happen in this case, but I haven't gone and looked for the ATC archives.
- gambiting 5y agoBoeing used to sell a protection kit for a 773 to allow it to land and take off from unpaved airports: http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm
- mlyle 5y agoNon-tactical aircraft don't really have radars like this to spot other planes. TCAS exists and can provide collision warnings and some degree of information on where other aircraft are using secondary radar data, but it's very much a last line of defense. Both planes are expected to see each other, and they're also expected to hear each other on the radio.
- jdavis703 5y agoI was just on a 12-seater Cessna Caravan that had some sort of collision warning system, because I heard it alarm. It also had a graphic of the approaching aircraft’s relative position. Would an A320 not have a similar system? Likewise, both pilots physically moved their heads to scan both directions of the runway for hazards. I’m just confused why the big boys wouldn’t be more sophisticated than this.
- mlyle 5y ago> I was just on a 12-seater Cessna Caravan that had some sort of collision warning system, because I heard it alarm. It also had a graphic of the approaching aircraft’s relative position. Yes, it's called TCAS / TCAS II (mentioned). Or portable systems called PCAS for the smallest planes. Alerts are generally disabled on the ground, and .. there's a lot of technical factors that limit its usefulness in this scenario. > Likewise, both pilots physically moved their heads to scan both directions of the runway for hazards. I’m just confused why the big boys wouldn’t be more sophisticated than this. A careful, visual scan is essential. But when you have oncoming fast aircraft, convergence rates are fast. They were 8-9nm apart, at night, when the A320 started its takeoff roll. There's basically 3 defenses against this scenario at an untowered airport: - Weakest: hopefully both aircraft pick the same runway direction. There's a "calm wind" runway for this reason. But when winds are 0 and not quite calm, do they agree? - Stronger, but problematic-- unicom: aircraft are supposed to announce their intents and listen on a common frequency. If someone has the wrong frequency tuned, that won't work. - Strongest: visual avoidance. That happened late here, and triggered an overreaction in this case.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
- smdyc1 5y agoI think ATC has a big question to answer here. Why the hell would you vector a plane to land in the opposite direction of a departing aircraft on the same runway? At any rate, TCAS also has a big part to play in collision avoidance. It's not just up to the pilots scanning visually or manually looking at a radar screen. I wonder if the A350 got an RA or something and pulled up a bit too much in response. EDIT Just read it was an uncontrolled airport as i posted this, so i guess ATC is out of the picture.
- raverbashing 5y agoIt does not have TWR it doesn't mean the rest of ATC is unaware, and as the Avherald mentions they have a UNICOM. An interesting tidbit from wikipedia: "Straight-in approaches are discouraged at non-towered airports in the United States"
- breckenedge 5y agoYes they definitely should have seen and heard each other, but then again when the Airbus started it’s takeoff roll, they would have been maybe 6 miles apart? I would have expected both to have their anti-collision lights on. My bet is one of these aircraft was on the wrong frequency. I’ve done that once before and nearly had the same result.
- thetinguy 5y agoCommercial airplanes have weather radar not for seeing planes.
- chinathrow 5y agoBut commercial airplanes also have TCAS [1]. If both transponders are working fine, this gives a simulated radar view on who is where. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...
- FL410 5y agoIt was almost definitely on their TCAS but that’s not usually something you’re looking at when barreling down the runway about to take off
- GekkePrutser 5y agoDoes TCAS work on the ground? At least the alerts wouldn't I guess as most of them ask the pilot to ascend or descend
- FL410 5y agotbh I don't know on transport class planes. The GA aircraft I fly won't STFU about traffic on the ground though, quite annoying. I still would have missed it in this case as I'm used to tuning it out on the ground.
- GekkePrutser 5y agoWow I didn't even know GA aircraft had it! I've never seen it on a Single engine piston one (which is all I've flown).
- mlyle 5y agoAlso not good is the fact that they climbed to altitude (before knowing about the tailstrike?). There's been a few accidents from tailstrike damage causing rear bulkhead failure and catastrophic depressurization.
- hugh-avherald 5y agoI don't think there have been any where the tailstrike and decompression occurred on the same flight.
- mlyle 5y agoAll the ones I'm aware of were on subsequent flights after improper repair. But, still, the QRH says to avoid altitude and not pressurize the plane for a reason...
- TylerE 5y agoDid they? This is Colorado...the runway is at ~6600ft ASL, and there are mountains above 12k in close proximity.
- mlyle 5y agoThey reached FL300. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N760JB https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N760JB
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- joe-collins 5y agoBecause I was at a loss, nm is this context is nautical mile, not the obviously absurd nanometer.
- justsomehnguy 5y agoOr a frightening small nautical meter.
- FabHK 5y agoThe use of imperial units in aviation is lamentable. AFAIK, Russia and China use metric, the rest of the world uses a wild mix (feet for altitude, nautical miles for horizontal distance, statute miles for visibility, metres for runway visible range, etc.) Quite obviously, switching units is complicated, but the current patchwork is a nightmare, and has lead to accidents (like the famous Gimli glider, where kg/pound confusion lead to insufficient fuel). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
- worewood 5y agoWell on most molecules a 3nm separation is not a separation anymore =D
- geocrasher 5y agoTo put it in perspective: The A320 rotates at about 150kts, the B350 approaches at about 140kts. Their combined speed was around 290kts, or 333mph. With 3nm separation, that's about 30 seconds before impact. They were half a minute from absolute disaster. Scary stuff.
- mulmen 5y agoThe always-excellent Juan Browne covered this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0wh2pZHSjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0wh2pZHSjc.
- aidenn0 5y agoThat was amazing; thanks for sharing
- geocrasher 5y agoCame here to say this. At first I was skeptical of his channel for some reason. But I was wrong. It is one of the most down to earth aviation channels on YT.
- 23B1 5y agoI think it's cool how we occasionally get posts like this on HN
- mfkp 5y agoVideo of tailstrike and discussion on reddit last week: https://old.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/sdzymt/video_of_jetblue_a320_tailstrike_at_hayden/ https://old.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/sdzymt/video_of_jet... And a good visual representation of the evasive action performed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQLOwje4U9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQLOwje4U9Y
- GekkePrutser 5y agoI find it amazing that scheduled flights with an A320 would happen at an airport without control tower. I don't think this happens in Europe, I trained at a tiny airport that only had some small 40pax regional turbojets and the local tower and CTR (only 10 miles!) was always in operation when they were active. There was ILS as well, though only CAT 1.
- hugh-avherald 5y agoFWIW it happens in Australia. Here's a very similar incident, same aircraft, (even the airline has a similar name!): https://avherald.com/h?article=4e3be6f0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4e3be6f0
- thetinguy 5y agoThere are non towered airports in Europe as well.
- rafale 5y agoWhere airliners with passengers land and take off? I doubt Europeans are that irresponsible.
- dghlsakjg 5y agoThe island of St. Barths, an EU member in the Carribean, has a famously difficult airport that operates scheduled passenger flights with no tower. Technically part of Europe. There’s nothing inherently dangerous about an untowered airport, or anything inherently safer about towered ones. In the US and Canada, untowered airports account for a majority of takeoffs and landings. Also keep in mind that untowered doesn’t mean not talking to ATC. Someone here fucked up severely, but keep in mind that the deadliest aviation incident ever happened in Europe at a towered field (Tenerife).
- fulafel 5y agoUsing "technically" is a license to nitpick! So, Europe by default means the continent. It doesn't include territories elsewhere and includes eg most of Russia, but not Caribbean or African islands (St Barths / Tenerife).
- mrpippy 5y agoVideo from a passenger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKAPAo602w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKAPAo602w
- sillysaurusx 5y agoIs there a longer video anywhere? I’m curious what it’s like from a passenger POV immediately following such an event. EDIT: Ohh. Never mind. The tail strike wasn’t the issue. The issue was the gigantic plane coming at them from the other end of the runway. So the passengers had no idea they all almost died. Kudos to the pilots for getting the plane airborne with nothing more than a tail strike. Something is off, though: the other plane was landing, not taking off. This plane was taking off. Why was there a tail strike to avoid the other plane? It would make sense if the other plane was already on the runway. Then you’d have to pull up as hard as possible, resulting in a tail strike. But in this case… Hmm. Maybe I’m thinking of it the wrong way. If the other plane is landing, your goal is still to “get above it”, as if it were on the runway. So maybe they realized what was happening and immediately made the plane go boing out of surprise. Also the debate is fascinating in the linked article’s comment section. Someone claimed that the photo was of a different aircraft, and somehow that kicked off a multi day discussion of paint patterns.
- mikeyouse 5y agoNah, a Beech 350 is a 10-passenger prop plane. The video is from onboard the Jet Blue A320 which is a 150+ passenger commercial plane. The Jet Blue got into the air and out of the path of the Beech to avoid a mid-air collision (the Beech was on approach to land on the same runway).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jazzyjackson 5y ago> your goal is still to “get above it” Or just to get off the ground so you can get out of the way, can’t really turn until you’re airborne
- iam-TJ 5y ago"Due to internet piracy we needed to close access to proxies. If you have to use the proxy of your company, contact us. We'll check the IP address and possibly reenable access." For the entire site. Not using a proxy, VPN service, Tor, etc!
- PNWChris 5y agoI’ve had this kind of trouble in the past, a site I was paying for even blocked me from accessing it at home! My ISP is running a big CG NAT and appears to have my whole building on one (or very few) IPs, so it looks like a VPN/proxy or something. I saw someone mention https://mullvad.net/en/check/ https://mullvad.net/en/check/ here on HN. It was helpful, I found the IP my ISP had me using was on some block lists. There wasn’t much I could do but it’s good info to have. Browsing blocked sites from cellular or by tethering works. Ironically, a VPN or a service like iCloud private relay (the kind of services that you’d think would cause these issues) can help, too. I guess contacting lists or site operators can help, though idk how effective it is.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y agoWhy does it seem like this kind of thing always happen with Airbus aircrafts?
- fooqux 5y agoAccording to some random site I just looked at when searching for this info, Airbus has a 65% market share. They're by far the dominant player, and thus have more aircraft to have such things happen to. There could indeed be other factors, but I'm guessing this is the main one.
- __m 5y agohttps://youtu.be/3RMr5RiFJTI https://youtu.be/3RMr5RiFJTI
- ApolloFortyNine 5y agoWatching the video someone else linked [1], the tail strike seems incredibly obvious. Why did the crew have to be notified at all? I know in some cases a tail strike can be slight, but here you can both hear it and see that it clearly affected the plane in some way as the cameraman dropped the phone. Also, that the B350 crew was able to report it is also suspect. I'm guessing they thought they had right away as they were descending (I'm not a pilot, but someone here definitely had priority I'd assume) but if you can see a plane taking off at you well enough to see the tail hit the ground, surely you should go around? Seems like the classic 'both parties were in the wrong' situation. Not reporting such a harsh tailstrike does seem rather wild though. Mistakes happen, ignoring them on the other hand is something else. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKAPAo602w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKAPAo602w
- mulmen 5y agoThe pilots of the A320 may not have known there was a tail strike.
- ddoolin 5y agoI don't know the rules but the aircraft on the ground should have the right of way since they're nowhere near as maneuverable as the airborne plane? At least it seems that way to me. That said, I wouldn't want to approach, land, or go around with a much larger plane departing in my direction. Maybe if you offset by a ton but a whole different direction (90 deg if possible?) would be my preference.
- 1123581321 5y agoLanding aircraft have right of way over planes on the ground at non-controlled airports, but you're right, they were also in a better position to change their course. I'm not sure how a safety investigation would rule fault.
- thatswrong0 5y agoTail in back, pilots in front, 120ft away. I have no idea why the crew in the back didn't let the pilots know.. you'd think there would be a culture of overcommunication when it comes to airline safety. Esp. as the pilots kept ascending..
- bpodgursky 5y agoThat'll buff out.
- kylehotchkiss 5y agoWhy didn’t the radar in the A320 see an airplane that was coming towards it?
- dharmab 5y agoCivil aircraft generally do not carry their own radars capable of seeing other aircraft. They rely on communication with ground radar, air traffic controllers and other aircraft. Even aircraft that do carry radar may not have a clear picture when low to the ground due to terrain or for safety reasons.
- na85 5y agoMost airliners have TCAS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...
- bogantech 5y agoAFAIK civilian jets don't have radar. They do have TCAS which uses radio transponders but both aircraft must be using such a system and it isn't required in aircraft that carry less than 10 passengers apparently.
- cesarb 5y ago> AFAIK civilian jets don't have radar. AFAIK, they do, but it's weather radar (to detect things like precipitation and clouds).
- a-dub 5y agokind of surprised that tail strikes are even possible on airbus, tbh. i thought the whole idea was that the computer maintains safety margins and clamps pilot input if it would result in a stall, collision, etc
- thehappypm 5y agoSoftware overriding manual pilot behavior is how we got into trouble with the 737 MAX
- a-dub 5y agolong before boeing tried and failed to paper over a singularity in the flight dynamics of a retrofit airframe with software and computers, there was the classic airbus vs. boeing debate. regardless of whether fly by wire was implemented (which eventually came for boeing) there were two competing philosophies. boeing believed that when in manual control, the pilot has the final say. airbus built something new that looked more like a modern drone. if the pilot issued a control input and the aircraft thought it was dangerous, it would override it. similar to how it ranges from impossible to hard to flip a drone. in the early 80s, a demonstration flight of the new airbus system at an airshow in toulouse ended in a fireball when a pilot attempted a low fly by and the plane switched into landing mode, ignoring his inputs to ascend and landing the aircraft in trees. of course, official story was that the computer (and the multi billion dollar bet behind it) was fine and the pilot and crew were declared responsible. (i think they survived, only to be jailed)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- thatswrong0 5y agoThe landing mode theory doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I'd recommend reading this article about it: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/fly-by-wire-the-crash-of-air-france-flight-296-55f8ec38375b https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/fly-by-wire-the-crash-of... : > This camp believed that the A320’s computers had detected that it was in a landing configuration at low speed approaching the ground and had entered landing mode, preventing Asseline from going around. This wasn’t how the landing mode worked, (landing mode is not a flight envelope protection and can be easily overridden by the pilots using the TOGA switches) and investigators had conducted live flight tests to show that the computers wouldn’t go into landing mode anyway The pilot was flying low and slow, over a different runway than they had originally planned, at 30ft instead of 100ft, without knowledge of the trees at the end of the runway, with a flight full of passengers, right at the edge of the flight envelope. It was incredibly irresponsible and dangerous, and that's why they crashed. Another choice quote: > the A320 went on to be the second most popular airliner ever built, and not one has crashed due to a failure of the fly-by-wire system or an erroneous activation of the flight envelope protections
- thematrixturtle 5y agoNote that "B350" here is a Beechcraft King Air 10-seater turboprop, not to be confused with the far larger Airbus A350, which is a 300 to 450 seater commercial twinjet mainly aimed at long-haul flights.
- rado 5y agoThanks, I was confused by the B350 model
- mayormcmatt 5y agoI recently watched the reenactment video of a King Air flight in Florida where the pilot died mid-flight and the passenger had to land the plane (with his family aboard). Pretty gripping. Something aesthetically pleasing about the King Air body, too. https://youtu.be/aqPvVxxIDr0 https://youtu.be/aqPvVxxIDr0
- throwaway_SiX2N 5y agoSome thoughts from a commercial, instrument rated pilot who works in tech now but is still a current pilots and has flow aircraft similar to the Beech 350 commercially in the past, with lots of flying in the US West into many similar airports to Hayden (although I haven’t ever flown into Hayden). This is mostly facts to help spread aviation knowledge, with just a few speculations at the end. While it’s true that the Hayden airport is uncontrolled, it is in an area in which there is class “E” airspace all the way down to the surface. This means that aircraft must be able to fly at least 500 feet below the lowest cloud to use the airport under “figure it out yourself” visual flight rules (VFR). Just one minute before the accident, the airport reported an overcast ceiling at 500 feet above the ground, so there was not sufficient weather to operate VFR, and therefore all flights would have been Instrument flight rules (IFR). At an uncontrolled airfield in IFR conditions, it’s true that aircraft have to coordinate with one another for ground operations (who’s taking which taxiway, etc), but must have an IFR clearance from ATC to approach and depart. Since the class E airspace goes all the way to the ground around Hayden, this means that the airport is effectively controlled, except for driving around the surface. What this means is that every arriving aircraft needs an ATC clearance before flying the approach and must inform ATC that they’ve arrived before ATC can clear another aircraft. Similarly, every departing aircraft needs a clearance before they leave and ATC should not issue a conflicting clearance until after the aircraft is inflight and has checked in. Of course, a takeoff may not be possible, so a departure clearance is issued with a “valid time” and a “void if not off by” time. What this means is that you will receive a clearance which has a start and end time, if you cannot take off within that time window then you need to call ATC back and get another clearance. At many remote airports, ATC would be contacted literally via cell phone (by pay phone if that doesn’t work – better run back to the plane through the snow and get your engines started real fast before your clearance expires if you only have the pay phone option – I’ve been there). At Hayden, however, there is a remote transmitter (RCAG). This means that Denver Center, the overlying air traffic control facility that controls a huge swath of the Rockies, has a transmitter located nearby so pilots can talk directly to them on the radio. As a result, taking off from an airport like Hayden in IFR is very similar to taking off from a controlled airport, the only real difference is that the actual movement around the taxiways is at the pilots own recognizance. At airports like this without a local tower, ATC generally has to operate with a “one in, one out” procedure, meaning, essentially, that only one airplane can use the airspace at a time under IFR flight rules. If you’re on the approach, no one else can fly an approach or departure, and vice versa. You typically talk to ATC until they “cut you loose” to talk on the local advisory frequency. In terms of runways, Hayden is in high, mountainous terrain overall, and although departure procedures are published to avoid terrain, they are very simple, and indeed, I will summarize them as climb to a specified altitude and then off you go. In addition, there is no specified runway to use in calm conditions and the weather report at the time of the incident reported no wind. This means there is no particular reason to prefer one runway over another, and in fact it would have be perfectly reasonable to select either runway on this day. One interesting feature of Hayden is that the only approach to Runway 28 that was suitable for the weather (RNAV (GPS) 28) has a nearly 20 degree offset from the runway. This means that as the Beech was approaching the runway, it would have been coming from the South and making a final course correction just moment before touchdown, after breaking out of the clouds at 500 feet. In fact, the minimum altitude on this approach is a fairly high ~400 feet above the ground. This means that except for a short window while the Beech made it’s last 500 feet of descent (and a low 20 degree turn to line up with the runway), it would have been been in the clouds, and thus it is unlikely either aircraft could possibly have been in visual contact until very close together. In terms of the weather, the weather report indicates it was cold, with a 500 foot ceiling. This was indicated as an overcast ceiling, meaning it fully covered the sky. In addition, the weather reported that snow ceased to fall just 5 minutes before the incident. Thus, the cloud cover has to be fairly dense to have just generate falling snow. As a result, these clouds would likely have fully obscured the aircraft from one another. Hayden has two interesting notes in the airport directory: first, it indicates that all aircraft should announce their departure or arrival intentions on the advisory frequency 10 minutes before takeoff or landing. It also notes that departing on Runway 28 (that is to say, departing in the same direction as the Beech was flying) requires aircraft to make a turnout as “soon as safety permits” to avoid noise over the town of Hayden. Here cease facts and begin commentary. Based on weather, their flight patterns and operating rules for the JetBlue flight as well as where the Beech had been flying, both aircraft should have been (and presumably were) on IFR flight plans. As the Beech was arriving from the East and the weather allowed it, it was perfectly reasonable to request the approach to runway 28 (facing to the West) in order save time circling around. Similarly, the JetBlue flight wanted to head East, so a takeoff on runway 10 was reasonable. Furthermore, I would tend to see a note requesting a turn “as soon as safety permits” as shorthand for “there’s a nosy neighbor who will call the FAA and complain about your tail unless you make a very low altitude turnout”, something I would prefer not to do in the clouds while going through all the rest of the rigamarole of an IFR departure in the snow. No thanks, I’ll take 10, please. My personal expectation flying into this type of airport is that the controller would not cut me loose to talk to the advisory frequency until just a few minutes before landing. Of course both of these airplanes had multiple radios and it should have been possible to listen and talk on the advisory frequency while still talking to center. Nonetheless, especially in certain IFR conditions like this where everyone should be on an IFR clearance, communications on the advisory frequency can often be deprioritized to focus on communications with ATC. In any case, while talking on the advisory frequency should have been a way for these aircraft to become aware of one another on their own, they were both operating in an IFR environment, meaning that only one of them should have been in a position to be flying through that airspace at once. This is a very scary event because it was a very near miss that should not have happened and suggests a real breakdown in the system of IFR flying at that time and place. One small speculation: I wonder if the fact that the Beech was on the approach with a 20 degree course offset saved things? Although 20 degrees is not a huge angle, it may have been just enough to prevent disaster.
- baron816 5y agoSeems like tailstrikes aren’t as dangerous as one might expect: “A minor tailstrike incident may not be dangerous in itself, but the aircraft may still be weakened and must be thoroughly inspected and repaired if a more disastrous accident is to be avoided later in its operating life.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailstrike?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailstrike?wprov=sfti1 If you do a Google image search, you’ll see lots of cases of them happening.
- _yoqn 5y agoI have heard of a plane crashing because of the tail exploding after an improperly repaired tail strike.
- silisili 5y agoJapan Air Flight 123? It's listed in the wiki link given.
- mannykannot 5y agoA tailstrike might only scratch the paint, and it would have to be extremely hard to put an airplane in immediate danger, but it can cause non-obvious structural damage that leads to catastrophic failure later.