Advance
Post #145 correctly states the A380 is an ICAO Cat F aircraft. It is also only 3/4" less than the maximum permitted wingspan for that category.
Does JFK airport meet the ICAO standards for operations of Cat F aircraft?
If not, why does the FAA and the Port Authority permit Cat F operations?
Published procedures are a work-around to mitigate risk from a known safety problem; they do not eliminate risk nor do they reduce risk to that contemplated by the standards internationally agreed.
If JFK does not meet ICAO standards for the type why are operators of Cat F aircraft permitted by their State of Registry to use JFK?
Whilst we are at it, does any runway at JFK meet the ICAO standards for the aircraft? (Or at LHR or CDG or SYD or anyplace else?). If the runways do not meet the standards why would anyone believe the taxiways do? But do they?
Questions about who was moving and who was stopped - and where - and why should all be covered in the investigation and the objective evidence published in the report. We do not need to demean ourselves by guessing.
First action should be to prevent recurrence. How will that be done until international standards are complied with? (and if they need amending do that too.)
And whilst we all remember the travesty of justice that the CDG Concorde blame game was, perhaps this is an opportunity to (a) Teach the french a hard lesson, or (b) Show them how justice is best served?
I like your clarity of thoughts and recommendations
as it points the way to prevention rather than joining in the "blame game" , well almost, except for the last paragraph
