Several weeks ago, we saw a bizarre incident in Atlanta, whereby one aircraft collided with another, and sliced off its tail. While we had a general sense of what unfolded, we didn’t know what the cause was.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has now released its preliminary report about this incident, and I figured it’s worth covering. I don’t know what those Delta wide body pilots were thinking…
In this post:
Basics of Delta’s bizarre A350 & CRJ-900 incident in Atlanta
For some background, this incident happened around 10AM on Tuesday, September 10, 2024. It involves two jets operating on behalf of Delta, which had a serious incident at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL). Specifically, this involves:
- A six-year-old Delta Airbus A350-900 with the registration code N503DN, which was scheduled to operate to Tokyo Haneda Airport (HND) as flight DL295, with 221 passengers onboard
- A 10-year-old Delta Connection Bombardier CRJ-900 (operated by Endeavor Air) with registration code N302PQ, which was scheduled to operate to Lafayette Airport (LFT) as flight DL5526, with 56 passengers onboard
Both jets were taxiing at the airport, when the Delta A350 literally sliced the tail off the CRJ-900 with its right wing. As you’d expect, both aircraft sustained damage, and flights ended up being canceled. The pictures of the damage to the CRJ-900 are kind of wild. Fortunately there were no serious injuries, though a flight attendant on the regional jet sustained a minor injury.
Shortly after the incident, the air traffic control audio circulated widely, and it made it clear that the Delta A350 pilots didn’t realize what had just happened, and they had no clue what they hit. Here’s what the communication was like following impact:
ATC: “Delta 295 heavy, hold short of V, advise me when you’re ready.”
DL295 pilot: “All right, we just hit something on the taxiway. Could you tell us what it was?”
ATC: “You know, I just noticed that the tail on the RJ is missing. So Endeavor 5526, hold your position, and do you require any immediate assistance?”
DL5526 pilot: “We’ll hold our position, and standby on the… no immediate assistance. We’ll need a tow, though.”
Unknown voice: “The whole tail of that CRJ is off.”
ATC: “Delta 295, hold short of V. It does appear that you struck the RJ that’s holding short of 8R.”
DL295 pilot: “Okay, that’s that we hit then. Yeah, we were on the centerline. Instructions were E, short of V. We’re holding short of V and understand, thank you.”
DL5526: “Yeah, we’re expecting there to be a hydraulic leak behind us. We’re showing dual hydraulic failure and system warning 3.”
ATC: “Endeavor 5526, roger, we’re going to go ahead and have the emergency vehicles come out and check you guys out. There is an operations vehicle behind you there. They’ll check out the taxiway, and if you need anything else, just let me know.”
The strangest part of that interaction is how the Delta A350 pilot’s defense is that they were taxiing on the centerline, and had been given clearance to go in that direction, as if they did nothing wrong. Right, but when you’re given taxi clearance, that doesn’t mean you can just smash through other planes. If there are planes in the way, or you don’t have enough clearance, you’re supposed to stop to prevent an accident.
The NTSB’s preliminary report into this incident
While the NTSB’s investigation into this incident is ongoing, a preliminary report has just been published, and it makes it pretty clear how this unfolded. Both planes were following taxi instructions, in the sense that they were going in the directions they were supposed to.
While not the root cause of the accident, the CRJ-900 definitely could’ve been a bit closer to the hold short line for the runway. The CRJ-900 was cleared to hold short of the runway, but there were around 56 feet between the nose of the aircraft and the line.
Ideally the plane would’ve been closer, but of course that doesn’t excuse another aircraft running into it. It’s up to the pilot of each aircraft to make sure they have sufficient clearance for where they need to go.
So, how did the A350 pilots end up striking this jet with their wing? After all, there were four pilots in the cockpit of the A350, including a captain, a first officer, and then a whole additional relief crew.
Shortly before the incident, the A350 crew received a navigational alert message, which required coordinating with maintenance. The captain was the one taxiing the plane, and in an interview, he indicated that as the plane approached the intersection where the CRJ-900 was parked, “he was looking straight ahead and to the left to avoid the left wingtip from impinging on opposite direction traffic coming off taxiway V.”
So he was looking left and straight ahead, and somehow no one was looking to the right, to see if there was clearance on the right side. Was the first officer just distracted trying to deal with the maintenance issue, rather than focusing on the immediate task at hand? This is quite an embarrassing rookie mistake, especially when you have four pilots up there.
The A350 was taxiing at 12 knots when it impacted the other jet. The CRJ-900 sustained lateral accelerations of 0.5 G left, followed by 0.55 G right, and the heading was rotated by nine degrees clockwise.
Bottom line
Several weeks ago, a Delta A350 and Delta Connection CRJ-900 had a pretty dramatic ground collision in Atlanta, as the A350 sliced the tail off the CRJ-900. While dents and dings happen every so often, it’s rare to see something this serious on the ground.
The NTSB has now released its preliminary findings from the incident. It would appear that the A350 pilots just weren’t being as careful as they should’ve been when taxiing the aircraft. The captain stated he was looking left and straight ahead, and it appears that nobody was keeping an eye on the right side of the aircraft, despite there being four people in the cockpit.
Meanwhile the CRJ-900 should’ve ideally been a few dozen feet closer to the runway, but that of course doesn’t justify another aircraft striking it.
What do you make of this incident, and the NTSB findings?
A & P Mechanic here. I have taxied all sizes of commercial aircraft at ATL airport and the driver of the aircraft is supposed to have a sense of his/her's wing span and taxi accordingly. Now, the controller is partly to blame but the tower is far from the incident point. The pilot and copilot are right there. So I'm calling the pilot is the one that caused this. The runway hold line is not...
A & P Mechanic here. I have taxied all sizes of commercial aircraft at ATL airport and the driver of the aircraft is supposed to have a sense of his/her's wing span and taxi accordingly. Now, the controller is partly to blame but the tower is far from the incident point. The pilot and copilot are right there. So I'm calling the pilot is the one that caused this. The runway hold line is not the issue. The FAA does not dictate where you stop, just that you don't cross it.
Pilot here. A lot of misinformed comments. Unfortunately experience from driving on roads can’t be transposed to taxiing at airports. The CRJ is at fault here.
Great care is put into designing airport taxiways to ensure they can accommodate the required aircraft. The yellow taxi lines are specifically designed to allow clearance between aircraft and other obstacles. It’s very poor practice to taxi off those lines, as they have already been pre-measured to ensure...
Pilot here. A lot of misinformed comments. Unfortunately experience from driving on roads can’t be transposed to taxiing at airports. The CRJ is at fault here.
Great care is put into designing airport taxiways to ensure they can accommodate the required aircraft. The yellow taxi lines are specifically designed to allow clearance between aircraft and other obstacles. It’s very poor practice to taxi off those lines, as they have already been pre-measured to ensure clearance. An aircraft on a centreline on a taxiway approved for their aircraft can be confident that they will fit, and not collide with anything. Again, this is all carefully planned and measured in advance for every aircraft type approved for a given taxiway. It’s not at all like driving. If aircraft taxi’d on the assumption that they may hit something this would dramatically slow operations. At an international airport like ATL, on a main taxiway, aircraft can taxi up to 30mph.
Aircraft are expected to hold at or very close to hold short bars. By not taxiing up to the bars, the CRJ basically threw all the careful planning and measurements made when certifying the taxiways out the window.
Depending on the aircraft it is very difficult to monitor the wingtips when taxiing, and it isn’t usually required when on an centreline on an approved taxiway.
There are occasions where aircraft have to taxi on part of the airport not approved for their aircraft type. In these instances wing walkers are required to ensure there are no collisions. This isn’t one of those cases.
I hope this helps informs anyone who isn’t familiar with airport design, layout and standard operations at a busy airport like ATL.
JB ... with all due respect ...to state "CRJ at fault here" is flat out wrong. A contributing factor ...YES, but ultimately, in airline operations, the First Officer in the right seat is resposible for ensuring the way is clear on the right. The Captain is responsible for ensuring this as well, since the Captain is actually taxiing the aircraft. when in doubt, STOP. Both pilots failed to ensure the way was clear. Apparently no...
JB ... with all due respect ...to state "CRJ at fault here" is flat out wrong. A contributing factor ...YES, but ultimately, in airline operations, the First Officer in the right seat is resposible for ensuring the way is clear on the right. The Captain is responsible for ensuring this as well, since the Captain is actually taxiing the aircraft. when in doubt, STOP. Both pilots failed to ensure the way was clear. Apparently no talk on the CVR related to the presence of the CRJ at all,... will be interesting to hear if there was ever a "clear left" call-out made. Painted taxi lines DO NOT guarantee clearance from movable vehicles, aircraft or objects ... only guarantees clearance from fixed airport infrastructure or in the case of ramp operations fully parked and chocked aircraft.
An Airline Captain
It's interesting to read how two different aviation bloggers interpret this incident, and where the fault lies. https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2024/10/09/was-dramatic-accident-at-atlanta-airport-that-resulted-in-tail-being-sliced-off-delta-air-jet-caused-by-pilots-stopping-too-short-of-runway/
The comments that the Ground controller should have prevented this are incorrect.
Firstly the CRJ holding short of the runway,would undoubtedly have been on a tower frequency & so the ground controller, if & its a big if ,they noticed visually that the CRJ was not close enough to the hold bars ,they would have notified the tower controller,or cautioned the A350 crew,that the CRJ's position could impact the wingtip clearance of the Delta...
The comments that the Ground controller should have prevented this are incorrect.
Firstly the CRJ holding short of the runway,would undoubtedly have been on a tower frequency & so the ground controller, if & its a big if ,they noticed visually that the CRJ was not close enough to the hold bars ,they would have notified the tower controller,or cautioned the A350 crew,that the CRJ's position could impact the wingtip clearance of the Delta jet.However be aware that visibility from control towers doesn't necessarily allow a controller to see an aircraft stopped, 56 feet short of the hold line.
The statement that they were on the centreline,doesn't absolve the crew,because whilst taxiing,at an intersection of taxiways/ runways,the call should be " clear Left,clear right",from each pilot. If someone was looking out,on the right sideof the cockpit,they would clearly see that the CRJ was not right up to the hold line & that in itself,should have triggered extra caution.
I suspect that this is a case of just following Taxi instructions,staying on the centre line & thinking,that you won't hit anything. We'll that works 99% of the time,unfortunately that day the 1% kicked in & an aircraft didn't pull up fully to the hold line & a large wide body,that ordinarily would have passed the CRJ safely-as had happened,thousands of times- didn't!!!
A trip to the Chief Pilot's office,was next.
The rest of the crew were checking their investments on the phone given all the money they are making now as Intl crew. Ya know, gotta make that money work before take off!
Ground controller should have caught this one. Why in the heck is the CRJ stopped short ~56 feet before the hold short line ? That's a huge contributor to this accident. How about the ATC ground controller instructing "Endeavor 5526, taxi up to and hold short of 8R" ? ATL is the busiest airport in the world. No time for BS...these aviation professionals need to be on their game.
You realize the Airbus pilots can't see anything other than out in front of aircraft, so thats why they can only follow the taxi way lines to ensure they are where they are supposed to be. The comment that "they just can't runover things" is foolish. That is exactly what the ground control is responsible for. Be better.
I'll raise your bet.
That's exactly what removing humans can do. Be better.
the entire premise is false.
A pilot from the cockpit of an A350 may not be able to see their own wingtip (maybe they can) but the CRJ was stopped BEFORE the A350 passed their position.
The A350 pilots replied to ATC that they were on the centerline. The issue is that the CRJ was far enough back that being on the centerline was not enough. The CRJ wasn't moving.
Yeah but since Delta pilots couldn't see the stopped and position of RJ, its up to ground control to be every pilots eyes
remove humans .... a great idea :/ .... I'm guessing you are not an airline pilot
I thought that the 1500hr minimum for pilots was supposed to resolve issues like this.
Maybe 1500hrs isn't enough. Perhaps 2500hrs would be better?
Surely there’s a test in the A350 sim that makes pilots aware of how wide the wings are?
I just heard the audio, the CRJ captain was female, thus she was 56 feet from the line she was supposed to pull up to…..♂️
Maybe a maximum hours rule is needed too. Retire after 27,000 hours like a high-mileage car. :-)
Maybe it could be reverse? Hit high hours and go down to the sister brand kind of like National and Alamo?
lol absolute gold!
I have to be honest, going in depth on pilots and longshoremen labor negotiations recently has made me anti union just from a consumer perspective.
@JP, Unions are usually very strong advocates for the safety of their members, and that certainly includes pilots' unions. I don't think that's anti-consumer: as a consumer, I'm going to be a passenger, and I want the pilots flying the plane I'm in to be protected from labor practices that endanger my safety as well as theirs. As for longshoremen, well, it's easy to say that their high wages and protections from job losses due...
@JP, Unions are usually very strong advocates for the safety of their members, and that certainly includes pilots' unions. I don't think that's anti-consumer: as a consumer, I'm going to be a passenger, and I want the pilots flying the plane I'm in to be protected from labor practices that endanger my safety as well as theirs. As for longshoremen, well, it's easy to say that their high wages and protections from job losses due to automation are "anti-consumer" until you realize that they're not only workers, but consumers as well. If more people were unionized, wages would be higher, standard of living would generally be higher, and working conditions would generally be better. A short look at the economic history of the US since the late 1900s bears this out.
After 1500 hours, do you think Tim Dunn would end his fluff?
There have been several taxiway “bumps” in the last few years. Most involving med sized twin jets and smaller regional jets. A detailed study would be needed, but I suspect the pilots have an inherent mind set from prior B767 or A330 duty and fail to appreciate or recognize the wider wingspan of B787 or A350 jets.
This was the ground version of Eastern flight 401 - the pilots distracted by something other than operating the jet.
Given that Delta is receiving a boatload of A350s this year, they can afford to wait for the right parts from Airbus. The regional airlines are better able to staff regional aircraft so DL is not short of capacity because of this accident.
It does and will provide a reminder that full attention has...
This was the ground version of Eastern flight 401 - the pilots distracted by something other than operating the jet.
Given that Delta is receiving a boatload of A350s this year, they can afford to wait for the right parts from Airbus. The regional airlines are better able to staff regional aircraft so DL is not short of capacity because of this accident.
It does and will provide a reminder that full attention has to be paid when the aircraft is moving no matter how many pilots are in the cockpit.
101 people died on Eastern 401, not the same. Do better.
That's Tim Dunn for you.
For all he can think, let it be Eastern 401, Apollo 13, or 9/11, he can always fluff his way to relevance.
With chatGPTim, you'll always get at least 3-8 paragraphs of WTF!?!.
I realize that.... the cause was similar... pilot distraction.
The fact that the A350 was on the ground eliminated injuries but not damage.
There were FOUR pilots in the cockpit. Noticing wing clearance could and should have been done regardless of what was going on.
and let's also not forget that there have been some spectacular ground mistakes by pilots on other airlines including taxiing in the wrong place - - so the issue is hardly unique to A350s and CRJs
Delta is getting so many A350s they can afford to bang up the ones they have. Interesting logic.
no, didn't say they can afford to bang up what they have....just that this will not have an impact on their operations until next year.
Unfortunately (fortunately?) sounds like just an everyday occurrence in the A350 flight deck. Dealing with some outside party like MX control. Probably should have done that when stopped, but who knows if it was something that required movement to replicate or fix. I'm sure the final report will address.
they asked ATC to stop to address the issue and ATC said they could not stop there. They did not apparently wait to address the issue until the aircraft stopped moving.
Assuming that airplane accidents are treated similar to car accidents, it would show the A350 crew at fault. The CRJ crew were stationary whereas the A350 was moving and had the responsibility of making sure they were clear