Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport

[Glonass]

Air France jet clips smaller plane at New York's JFK airport - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/11/new.york.plane.incident/)

(CNN) -- An Airbus 380 clipped a smaller plane while taxiing to the runway for takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, according to CNN's Jim Bittermann, who was on the Air France flight headed to Paris.
Bitterman said that he felt a slight rumble -- akin to hitting a pothole -- as his plane was moving on the ground Monday at about 8:15 p.m. The pilot then stopped the plane, and eventually fire department crews surrounded it and the other aircraft.
Looking out the window, Bitterman could see that the last foot or so of the Airbus 380's left wing had been damaged. The other plane also suffered some damage.
There were no injuries, said a spokeswoman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, who declined to give her name.
The Federal Aviation Administration has been notified, and Port Authority police detectives were interviewing the pilots of both aircraft, the spokeswoman said.
:ouch:

[sevenstrokeroll]

an airbus 380 clipped a smaller plane

well, gee, even a 747 is a smaller plane...so what kind of plane did it clip?

and

what won't CNN do for a piece.?

[Ejector]

Maybe the "smaller plane" take your pick at every other plane out there clipped Air France A380.

[filejw]

Half way down the page of this news link is video of the collision. Looks like AF was moving out smartly. A bit lucky here I think

Two Planes Collide on Ground at JFK | NBC New York (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Two-Planes-Collide-on-Ground-at-JFK-119666334.html).

[grumpyoldgeek]

Looking at the video, I'd say "clipped" is an understatement. More like "hooked and dragged".

[blueirishPDX]

The video looks a bit sped up (unclear if it was intentional or not). Look at the guy walking around in the high-visibility vest. When he scoots out of the way, you can tell his cadence is odd.

In any case, AF looked to be a bit eager to get out of dodge.

[monkeytennis]

YT link here:

YouTube - Airbus A380 Jumbo Jet Clips Tail Of Another Plane While Taxiing At JFK Airport NO SOUND

loads a bit quicker.

:eek:

[CargoMatatu]

I wouldn't like to have been sitting up front in the parked aircraft!

Looks like kids' toys! :sad:

[nitpicker330]

Well my first response is......stupid bloody idiots. Why in the hell were they taxiing so damn fast down a narrow taxiway at night in JFK?? They are damn lucky no one was hurt.

No excuses I'm afraid....

[Daysleeper]

And that folks is why you should keep your seatbelt on until the aircraft is parked at the gate!

[Tarq57]

Rather impressed that the tail of the CRJ held together. Must have been under a heck of a load.
(Wonders how an A-300 tail-fin might have reacted.)

[deSitter]

RJ PIC - "Get off me you big galoot!"

AF PIC - "Ooh that'll leave a mark.."

I don't think we can blame the captain - he was probably running down the centerline as he should have been, and somebody on the ground miscalculated where to put the little Comair.

-drl

[Basil]

Yes, recollect not being happy with wingtip clearance when taxying in at Baku.
ATC started shouting to move, follow me was driving in circles to show the stupid pilot how to do it and our own idiot station manager, whom I'd made the mistake of permitting to sit in the flight deck, was loudly telling us that it was OK to proceed.
So, in the face of all this what did we do? NOTHING - until the FO and I were sure in OUR minds that it was safe to go.

[FullWings]

Ouch! :ouch:

I feel very vulnerable in the 777 when taxiing round JFK... With the A380 this sort of thing seems inevitable, unfortunately.

From the video clip, it seems that the anti-coll. was active on the RJ, even though no taxi lights were on. Maybe being marshalled by someone out-of-shot?

If it was occupied, must have been quite a shock (and lateral acceleration)...

Edit: It looks like it had just arrived and wasn't quite parked, hence a probable reason for the collision...

[arawac]

Here`s the audio...
YouTube - Air Traffic Control Audio: Air France Airbus A380 Hits Delta CRJ-700

[nitpicker330]

desitter

You most certainly can blame the Captain. Doesn't matter who is in control he has responsibility at all times. They were quite obviously taxiing way way too fast down a taxiway at night in JFK. Even If the CRJ was stopped with his tail infringing the taxiway it is still no excuse not to stop and ENSURE wing tip clearance.
He was taxiing way to fast and didn't give himself a chance.

I'd even suggest it was a big surprise when he hit it as I'll bet he didn't even notice it beforehand. Either that or he has very bad judgement as to how long his wing is.:D

TUT TUT.

[pacific blues]

It's possible the Air France crew didn't even notice the jet parked there. I'd be surprised if they sailed on by with the "she'll be right" attitude.

[The Green Goblin]

Theres going to be some paperwork to fill out for both those Captains (and SMC)

Watch the anti Airbus brigade jump on the anti airbus podium :cool:

[glad rag]

Holy cow did you see the smaller aircraft swing round :eek:


Still Airbus have got these left hand wing changes off to a "T" now......

[foxcharliep2]

grumpyoldgeekLooking at the video, I'd say "clipped" is an understatement. More like "hooked and dragged".
You sum it up best :ok:

[Ian Brooks]

will be interesting to hear the cvr on the CRJ few expletives I would guess
cockpit crew must have wondered what an earth was going on as would not have been able to see A380

[DesiPilot]

Forget,

It was a 380 and ComAir CRJ. A friend of mine was sitting two planes down waiting for his push back.

Here are two pics that he took, looks like CRJ's tail is bent and it wont be flying for long time.

http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee418/desipilot/AF380.jpg


http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee418/desipilot/comaircrj.jpg

[hetfield]

Oh, pictures and videos and all outside BEA Jurisdiction.

Not good for AF.

[DesiPilot]

YouTube - Air France A380 clips ComAir CRJ at JFK

[Exascot]

I thought that there was a camera on the tail. Guess you can't see the wing tips with it. If not why not?

[orbit22]

My 8 year old mini van has sensors in the rear bumper that audio alert to things getting too close. Perhaps A380 needs such or vid cams in wingtips or maybe Airbus just needs to develop taxi by wire. Running down the center line doesn't give you the right to whack into things standing about. There's flying and then there's driving.

[udachi moya]

Looking at the vid, the first sequence is definately real-time, the second is slow-mo, so in my humble opinion, the AF is motoring way above a safe night time confined space taxi-speed.

So, the AF PIC is at fault for taxing at a higher than normal speed in a confined ramp area, but, the Comair PIC must hold some responsibility for not calling "not on stand" or "not yet parked" to ATC. Surely in a confined area such as JFK ramps, when you know someone is going behind you (possibly knowing the AF was holding down the taxiway) you have a duty of care to other traffic and ATC, to inform them your butt is sticking out on the taxiway.

Scary event for the CM pax and crew.

[irishpilot1990]

Clipped:confused: the A380 crashed into that thing!!Smashed into it! To all those discussing speed in video, use your brains please. Look at the distance the CRJ was spun around! :eek: If your Cpt of the worlds biggest airliner you should know better, you should expect aircraft may not be parked correct and know you are its only threat!
That CRJ a write-off?? pretty severage damage to tail-plane and its rootings.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Regarding the CRJs tail strength - compare what happened here - the tail stayed on and the aircraft span - with what happened during the ground collision a few years ago between a Thai 747 and AF EMB-145 (IIRC) the 747 took similar damage to the AB here, but the entire EMB empannage was taken off! Either the CRJ tail is over designed or the EMB under designed? (Or the impacts were different, but that's a boring conclusion)

[tatin]

To all putnuckers: The video has been clearly sped up, also seen by the A380 stopping in less than a quarter of it's length.

Blame the Air France! Nice to play the blame game already after a few amateurs have seen a an unclear video in a different format on You Tube.

What about the CRJ infringing taxiway A? That's a blame.
what about JFK's infamous ground and ramp control with bored and fast speaking ground controllers. blame.
What about ground support or the lack of it, 'don't know, don't care attitude'.

An accident is never caused by one person alone.

[A4]

Ouch.........

I think the video may be sped up but only very slightly - look at the speed the truck is driving away at the very start. When you look at the SloMo - that's the speed I would expect the A380 to be taxi-ing at in realtime, so IMHO he was going a bit too fast - the FDR will reveal all.

I suspect the CRJ was waiting for either the stand to clear (truck?) or guidance/marshaller and hence held short. In my company we are FORBIDDEN to enter stand without guidance or a marshaller - and we tell ATC we are holding short. The apron looks pretty well lit ......

The earlier comment about reporting on stand is only really applicable in LVP's or if requested by ATC (i.e. if you've told them you're holding short) it is not a routine requirement for everyday operations.

Thankfully, no-one seriously hurt (amazingly) but not looking good for the AF PIC :\

A4

[flynerd]

@ tatin

what about JFK's infamous ground and ramp control with bored and fast speaking ground controllers. blame.

Err, no, Listening to the ATC the controller sounds very _Polish_ to me.

He cleared AF for taxiway A but did alert him to look out for other traffic, and to hold short at ....

Applying blame here I would say 50% AF PIC, 50% ATC.

All in all, this should NOT have happened.

FN.

[Ovation]

The AF A380 could not have been taxying at the speed shown in the incident video.

Take a look at the video in Post #34 at about 7 seconds, and you can see both aircraft are in fairly close proximity to each other. Had the A380 been taxying as fast as the video suggests it would have travelled another 100 metres before coming to a complete stop. :ok:

[JCviggen]

I think the video may be sped up but only very slightly - look at the speed the truck is driving away at the very start

Just look at the guy in the high-vis vest. A human's walking is much more accurate to judge than the speed a car might be going.
Looking at him the video is around double realtime speed.

[forget]

Anyone with time on their hands? An A380 is 238 feet long. Take a look at the video clock. Now time how long it takes from radome to tail cone passing any reference point. Chinagraph on your screen will do. I'd guess you'll come up with something well over 20 Knots/23 MPH if you prefer. No one in their right mind, JFK at night, would taxi an A380 at that speed - and nor did they.

[mixture]

Daysleeper,

And that folks is why you should keep your seatbelt on until the aircraft is parked at the gate!

Whilst it's obviously imperative to agree with your statement, it should be noted that the simple lap belts given to self loading freight are also equally capable of doing more harm than good.

A quote from a Swedish researcher in 1961 :
"does not comply with minimum performance requirements because it does not maintain the occupant in an upright position, does not protect the head and thorax, and does not hold the vital parts of the body together within the car during an accident - so it has not been considered a safety belt in Sweden."

So not disagreeing with your statement (as obviously the chances of PAX being given anything other than a lap belt is distinctly remote) ..... just saying it's worth remembering their limitations, that's all.

[golfyankeesierra]

Edit: Removed question about exterior ights of he RJ, now clearly visible in the video.

[GarageYears]

Regarding the speed of the video... I think the majority here are wrong.

The anti-collision lights on the CRJ (upper and lower fuselage) are Goodrich 2LA 002 760-70 with 8ES 002 769-03 power supply. This has a flash rate of 45 fpm (alternating top bottom, so each lamp is effectively 22.5 fpm).

The first flash I clearly see on the top occurs at 0.05 secs, the second top flash at 0.08, or roughly 20 fpm... given the inaccuracy of the timing (lack of precision), that puts it very close to the stated 22.5 fpm for each beacon.

I think you will find this is real time.

[Sygyzy]

From my first day as a student pilot I remember my instructor telling me that 'there's no excuse for a taxying accident'.

Either you weren't looking where you were going, were going too fast, should've stopped and got a wingwalker etc, etc.

You can't blame ATC, he wasn't driving. You can't blame CJ he wasn't moving. Man in the driving seat (literally) was AF PIC, and he ran into someone else. Too dark, too rainy, taxyway too narrow, can't see the signage, too much other traffic. Then stop and complain-at least it keeps your pension and no claims bonus intact.

40 years on and those harsh rules still apply

I rest my case:hmm:.

[Graybeard]

This talk of taxi speed reminds me of the new Capt getting qualified on the DC-10. It was after landing, approaching a 150 degree turn onto a taxiway. The IP said, "You better slow down. The nav shows our groundspeed at 30 knots."

"Ooh, it seems like 5 knots from so high up."

Makes you wonder.

[Jimmah]

Seems to me that the CRJ was waiting for a marshaller, in fact the person walking out may be him. So why then was the CRJ presumed to be clear of the TWY? Can the controller in charge of that patch see? Did the CRJ report he was waiting? Was any kind of local traffic passed? So many questions!

In my patch there are a few unsighted areas of the terminal area. And pilots often do fail to mention they're just sitting off the gate waiting. Hopefully a positive, in the form of tightened procedures, will come out of this.

[Bigmouth]

You may find that any number of individuals, groups, procedures, pieces of infrastructure, what have you, caused a situation that lead to this collision.
However in the end you are left with this: A moving aircraft hits a non-moving aircraft. When playing the blame game, it doesn´t get any more clear cut than that.

[Jetjock330]

We were in an A340 the other night, number 2 to AF A380 in JFK recently, when AF was taxing past us at a rate of knots. They are pushy guys wanting their way all the time.

No doubt the tail light of CRJ would hard to see at night, and the wing span is huge on the A380 and possibly wing tip is not as high as expected, but, at the end of the day, the moving party is going to be doing the explaining.

Had this been daytime, AF would've have stopped or slowed down and the CRJ may have told to move forward. It would go to show that AF would've had to yield and not just blunder thru.
ATC is not responsible for wingtip clearance, but can advise. The sole responsibility lies with the AF PIC. The CRJ had his back to the AF A380 completely so I am surprised he even knew who bumped him.

Many aircraft stop before entering the ramp area and it is understood why, change of frequency, congested area and congested frequency. The CRJ is lucky all are ok. How many of us undo the shoulder straps when taxing in and now, we know why to keep seat belts fastened until the seat belt sign is turned off.

Judging from the picture/movie, I think the movie ends before AF stops completely.

[Mark in CA]

Anyone with time on their hands? An A380 is 238 feet long. Take a look at the video clock. Now time how long it takes from radome to tail cone passing any reference point. Chinagraph on your screen will do. I'd guess you'll come up with something well over 20 Knots/23 MPH if you prefer. No one in their right mind, JFK at night, would taxi an A380 at that speed - and nor did they.
Looked like 6 seconds by my rough estimate using the frame clock. That translates to 23.7 knots or 27.27 mph.

[Suzeman]

It could have been prevented using the tail camera (provided they have one and the PF was actually looking at it, and not at the nose wheel cam screen, provided they have one too).

If this is the same one that SLF can use, from memory from my trip on an EK one, you still can't see the wing tips

He cleared AF for taxiway A but did alert him to look out for other traffic, and to hold short at ....

Applying blame here I would say 50% AF PIC, 50% ATC.


I did listen to the audio and went to the trouble of finding a chart for JFK. AF was cleared to taxy along A and hold short at E for a 22R departure. Next call was to hold at KD for opposite direction traffic. Accident actually happened at the junction of A and M, well before that, so there was no call from ATC to warn about the CRJ. I would assume that is because ATC had not been informed that there was a problem

Taxiway chart here to help
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1104/00610AD.PDF

Weather around the time

KJFK 120051Z 19013KT 9SM BKN250 12/10 A2958=
KJFK 112351Z VRB03KT 7SM CLR BKN250 12/10 A2957=
KJFK 112351Z COR VRB03KT 7SM FEW100 BKN250 12/10 A2957=
KJFK 112251Z 20013KT 7SM FEW045 SCT130 BKN250 12/10 A2957=
KJFK 112151Z 19011G18KT 7SM FEW045 SCT130 BKN250 14/11 A2958=

Suzeman

[lambert]

Yes, he is told to hold short at Echo, AF says for information he can accept Foxtrot - so he is quite prepared to take off from the intersection and certainly not dawdling. "Plan for the full length", is the terse reply.

[clunckdriver]

As one who has spent a fair portion of my life at JFK I just cant belive that anyone would expect the Ground Controllers to warn crews about every potential collision posibility, {they cant even see some gates} dear God they would never stop talking or come up for air! Its real simple, the buck stops in the left seat, period!

[deSitter]

One thing to consider here - the pilots may have seen the RJ and had no worries, as there is no way to judge where one's airplane is at that scale, one would not rely on eyeballing, particularly at night, when sitting at the wheel of a rolling auditorium - one would have a reasonable expectation that the ground crew had done their jobs properly and that "the RJ I see there to my left, is out of my superjumbo's path..."

-drl

[ToiletDucky]

I don't care how you cut it the AF guys should still be making sure aircraft are clear. Common sense.

[Hatzerim]

Hi all!

From the video made at the ramp, after the "touch" :\, I could swear that the CRJ was out of the stand. If that is true it'll be a key information to know why.

I honestlly don't believe the speed of the A380 was a factor for this mishap. It would clip the CRJ anyway :ouch: if the smaller plane was in fact out of it's stand.

If on the other hand, this was Air France's fault....it is becoming a dangerous airline to fly... :ooh:

Saúde! :)

[aterpster]

deSitter:

One thing to consider here - the pilots may have seen the RJ and had no worries, as there is no way to judge where one's airplane is at that scale, one would not rely on eyeballing, particularly at night, when sitting at the wheel of a rolling auditorium - one would have a reasonable expectation that the ground crew had done their jobs properly and that "the RJ I see there to my left, is out of my superjumbo's path..."

I'm amazed that the A380 doesn't have cameras for just this purpose. Lacking that, if there is an iota of doubt, the safe course of action is to stop the aircraft and request confirmation of clearance.

[deSitter]

Common sense is great, but the human visual system has limitations. I doubt anyone could judge to within say 10 feet the distance of something 120 feet distant directly ahead, not to say, to one side, particularly when sitting high up with attention focused on taxiing an ocean liner.

-drl

[Hatzerim]

I think cameras are not always good for taxi. They can fool you, due to distortion...

[rod_1986]

Genuine question: are the wingtips of an A380 visible from the LHS on the flightdeck?

Would have thought it easily possible that they might not be.

Seeing as everybody is throwing their two pence in, I think ATC should have spotted the threat here. "Caution the CRJ parking on stand xx, when he's on stand, continue taxi..." From the audio, the AF gets a number of contradictory taxi instructions for taxiways further on, meaning one of the pilots could have been 'heads in' checking the taxi chart at the time of collision.

I believe that a number of airfields make follow-me cars mandatory for A380 ops.

[sevenstrokeroll]

let's face it boys and girls, if a plane is stopped and another plane is moving, who is really at fault? every rule requires us to visually avoid collision...visiblity was obviously OK and low vis procedures were not in effect.

AS the air france is likely to record it speeds, even on the ground, it will be interesting to see the exact speed.

grumpyold geeks analysis is right on.

if I may add...I would think that the captain on the AF probably was more comfortable with flying the concorde...joke...due to its super fast speed...ha.

I do offer this serious suggestion...that ALL super jumbo planes be escorted with pilot cars at all four points...nose, wing tips left and right, and tail...that the escort cars be in radio contact with ATC and Captain of escorted aircraft.
That a speed limit of 5 knots on the IRS be enforced with a bitcy woman's voice...You are going too fast you dumb ass.

[Hatzerim]

Even with the F-ME car in front of the A380 it would be dificult to see it there was clerance. The F-ME goes ahead of the plane and far from the wingtip...and worse, at night!!! The key for this, is in the reason why the CRJ was not INside its parking stand... :(

[Sub Orbital]

Sevenstrokeroll,
Of course. And all cars should have a man with a red flag walking in front of it!
Get real.

[deSitter]

Maybe this will be a wakeup call to the dangers of mixing large transports with swarms of pestilential RJs manned by inexperienced crews. At Atlanta, the RJ pest is confined mostly to one concourse, where they can get in each others' ways without impacting real aviation at all :)

-drl

[deSitter]

"..man with a red flag.."

..being dragged by the leash behind a bomb-sniffing dog!

I seem to remember they make the A380 at LAX park in the boonies. But you know how strict they are in LA regarding parking.

-drl

[Mikehotel152]

You cannot ignore the basic fact that when two aircraft collide and one of those aircraft is stationary, the moving aircraft is prima facie at fault. There's no need for a debate about speed - even if the latest footage shows they were taxying too quickly - and there's no scope for arguing contributory negligence by ATC or the RJ. The AF pilot made an error of judgment.

[deSitter]

Looking over the design of JFK - it looks like 5 local airports have been fused by a matter transporter into some sort of board game for Titans. All that's missing is START HERE and a "CandyLand" arch over the JFK Expressway. It's a wonder this doesn't happen all the time.

-drl

[Airbrake]

These guys hit a stationary aircraft, end of story. If you are taxying the biggest airliner in the world, you look where you are going and would watch your tip clearances like a hawk.

Regardless of whether the video is actual speed, the velocity of the CRJ is exactly the same....

AirFrance are getting a bit of a reputation for incidents and accidents.

[ROSUN]

If the ground controller had been speaking in French at the time then this would not have happened. ;)

[pattern_is_full]

IMHO responsibility lies with the moving aircraft. Someone in the cockpit needs to have their head up (no, not there!) and looking around. If the Comair wasn't parked yet - why didn't someone in the A380 notice it was sticking out more than the parked craft? They can't see their wing tips - but they can see what is ahead of them on the flight line.

A pilot who is not constantly and vigilantly aware that the "World's biggest passenger plane" is going to have more clearance problems than the average plane (up to 30 feet per side more than a 747) - probably should not be crewing the "World's biggest passenger plane."

I notice ATC had to remind the AF crew to shut down their engines so the emergency trucks could move in - but I cut them some slack on that - they were no doubt a bit shaken emotionally after the collision.

[clunckdriver]

deSitter, the reason that JFK is the way it is goes back a few years. At the time of the original build most aircraft were piston {DC6/Connie/ DC4/ DC4M/plus all the twins} these aircraft were OK on 6000ft strips, so JFK was built with a whole bunch of runways radiating out like spokes from the centeral terminal, one end being tangental to the terminal , the theory being that wind permiting ,flights could land straight in no matter which direction they were coming from.THEN somone introduced the early four engine jet transports which required a lot of blacktop to get of and on the ground, so those runways became taxiways , thats why its the way it is today. At Heathrow it a bit different, they lost the plans in 1955 and have just been making it up as they go along ever since!

[JW411]

I was in the congo line at JFK one night waiting my turn to take-off on 13R. One of the local commuter airlines was flying a fleet of modified Nord 262 twin turboprops (I think the Americans called them Mohawk 298s). They were forever calling for "intersection take-offs" and were darting in and out of the congo line like ferrets up a drainpipe.

Anyway, there was a PanAm 747 about five aircraft ahead of me and he moved forward. The chap driving the Nord 262 had not moved forward far enough for his "intersection take-off" and the 747 took the entire fin and rudder off the Nord.

"God dammit" said our commuter friend "somebody has taken my tail off".

He then evacuated his aircraft so we had passengers running around in the dark in a congo line of 30 or so wide-body aircraft. How no one got killed was a miracle.

The 747 crew did not feel a thing.

[Bolli]

I've just seen the BBC tv report on it - with aerial photos of the aircraft - there looks like a bit more damage than just the winglet taken off - the whole nav light area is missing :eek:

[bugg smasher]

This is the second time this has happened at JFK, a Saudia 747 clipped a BAE 146 tail, in the early nineties if memory serves.

I'm going to hazard a guess here. The A380 was certainly taxiing down the centerline, and I'm also assuming the CRJ was stopped at his usual spot on the Comair ramp awaiting a marshaller.

JFK is an old airport with narrow taxiways, and incredibly busy around trans-Atlantic departure time. Whoever was responsible for ensuring Taxiway Alpha was suitable for the A380's wingspan, the FAA is my guess, may have dropped the ball on this one.

I'm sure they're already out there with rulers, pencils and measuring tapes, fine-tooth combing for any other spots they've missed.

[suninmyeyes]

I'm not arguing that the fault is with the moving aircraft and the responsibility rests with the Captain whether he or the copilot was doing the taxiing.

However having taxied widebodied planes where one cannot see the wingtips and having taxied at JFK I do have some sympathy with the Air France pilot.

If one has been assigned a tight parking spot it is common to have wingmen assigned to assist with parking but it does not happen for routine taxiing. At holding points short of the runway where several taxiways merge into a large pan one has to take particular care.

If someone is correctly following an ATC taxiing instruction and is taxiing in the middle of the taxiway and clonks a wingtip it is highly likely the aircraft he has hit should not be there. The taxiways at JFK are not that wide and there is little scope for going right of the centreline to avoid an obstacle on the left. Indeed turning to the right merely makes the left wing stick out a bit more.There will doubtless be questions as to was the regional jet in the correct place and if he was then it may have been an incorrect ATC instruction to use a taxiway that had inadequate wingtip clearance for an A380. If the Air France had realised and come to a stop in time before impact he would have had to be pushed back which is a major cock up on someone's part.

So although the responsibility for the accident is ultimately that of the Air France Captain it is likely that one or more other errors have been made first by others that led to this accident. The outcome of the investigation will be interesting.
　

[Cacophonix]

Does anybody know whether the A380 crew has visibility (via video camera) of their wing tips?

With a wing span of 261 feet it must be a fairly daunting task manoeuvring the aircraft without some sort of visual perspective reference wing clearances.

[Fargoo]

Does anybody know whether the A380 crew has visibility (via video camera) of their wing tips?

With a wing span of 261 feet it must be a fairly daunting task manoeuvring the aircraft without some sort of visual perspective reference wing clearances.

It does have a camera system called ETACS, unfortunately the camera in the tail doesn't give a view of the wingtips. It only shows the wings up to just inboard of each outboard engine (it has markers on screen to show where the wing gear is so the crew can more easily judge on tight turns).

The smaller view on the upper part of the screen just shows the nose gear from a belly mounted camera.

[Fargoo]

Image found of ETACS, it's standard fit on the A380 but the display has to be manually selected by the crew - don't know what their company procedure is but it would have been no help in this situation anyway.

Air France A380 Taxi Camera display (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Airbus-A380-861/1823064/L/)

[aflyer100]

Just commenting on deSitter's observation a page ago making an assumption about the RJ's crew experience level. While the Airbus crew no doubt has more total time, I have to wonder if they are likely less experienced in type than the RJ pilots. For this type of accident, time in type may be the more important metric (having a feel for your dimensions, etc.)

A lot of airports that I fly to have wingspan limitations on selected taxiways. It will be interesting to see if considering such limitations is part of the response to this incident.

[misd-agin]

"You break it you bought it." One plane is stopped, one is moving. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the fault lies.

I've had aircraft try to 'sneak' by in tight spots. I set the parking brake. Makes the investigation that much quicker to solve. :ok:

"When in doubt stop the airplane." :D

[BreezyDC]

Several daylight, close-up damage photos available at Closeup Damage Photos of Air France A380 and Delta CRJ Bumper Planes | NYCAviation (http://nycaviation.com/2011/04/damage-photos-of-smashed-up-air-france-a380/)

My first impression is the wingtip clipped the rudder trailing edge under the horizontal stab. If so, just a couple feet might have made a difference.

(Gotta laugh, just noticed photos credited to "Bart Crashley")

[Rananim]

Wow,one little slip up(not so little for Comair obviously) and its on the www for everyone to see.How embarassing.Taxiing one of these things is an art.You just cant be too cautious in something this big.If he's on the centreline then ATC or airport management must take at least some of the blame.

[A4]

If so, just a couple feet might have made a difference.

I don't think so (unless you mean vertically!) - the leading edge is damaged as far as the slats which has to be a reasonable distance on a 380 wing.

[barit1]

Maybe someone knows the answer - It looks to me like the A380 cockpit is a mite lower (a meter perhaps) than the 747 cockpit.

[arc-en-ciel]

At least there will be an FAA investigation on this one...

...a few month ago an A330 of AF has cut the tail of another AF A380 in CDG...no BEA investigation !!!!

I am surprised after this recent AF A380 incident/accident in CDG, that the AF A380 pilots are still taxiing like their A330 "cowboys" colleagues !!
(the A380 of AF was holding short of the stand without passing any info of this to ATC, A330 PIC , captain, thought it would it "ok".... and boum !!!)

may be FAA will ask info about this A380/A330 incient in CDG a few month ago... to learn a bit about the "Air France safety culture"........!!!!!!!!:ugh:

[HotelT]

Every 747-driver flying into JFK knows the dangers of taxiing at JFK (even worse during low visibility and snow/blizard conditions). Quite a few times I have stopped during taxi, suspecting insufficient clearance (which, BTW, is really hard to see from 30 feet up, with a wingspan of –only- 213 feet, just being able to see your wingtip), or mix-up in the routing. Most of the time there was no problem, but twice I was right in stopping the aircraft (to improve flight safety: you should hear the comments of the JFK ground/apron controllers). Now, I only visit JFK about twice a year, but if I have already experienced this twice, then (potential) ground incidents must be (at least) a daily occurrence. Which brings me to the question of whether taxiing at JFK with the supers (and even heavies) is an accident waiting to happen.

Also, remember the A380 BKK mishap in sep 2007 .. and those guys were (home turf)Thai pilots and Airbus testpilots. Why are there no (legal requirements for) pilot aids to detect/avoid taxi mishaps for these aircraft and why don’t companies insist on installing them? Every two bit car is equipped with such a system, why not a $300 mln aircraft (with a similar system)?

Perhaps it is up to the (international) pilot community to start writing safety reports each time ground clearance was (potentially) compromised. Incidents and accidents are piling up (even with follow me cars and marshallers). Just blaming the pilot:ouch: is not only very convenient but also highly ineffective in preventing future accidents.

[Jimmah]

As one who has spent a fair portion of my life at JFK I just cant belive that anyone would expect the Ground Controllers to warn crews about every potential collision posibility, {they cant even see some gates} dear God they would never stop talking or come up for air! Its real simple, the buck stops in the left seat, period!

I'm not sure what the FAA's take is, but under ICAO preventing planes from hitting one another on the ground is a controller's second overarching responsibility (after stopping them from doing so mid-air). It may not be practical to do so verbally at JFK, but procedures (especially for 380's) & aerodrome design should contribute to making it possible for them to effectively prevent collisions. If it's not their job they just become "Ground Movement Enablers" or some other HR concoction. Yes the AF crew failed to operate the aircraft safely, but the buck certainly does not stop there.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Colleagues (if you will permit me that)

I drive helicopters.

Once upon a time, I was tasked to explore the envelope for night operations in close proximity to cliffs in a Bell 412 (rotor diameter, IIRC, 42 ft). Our minimum clearance was 10 ft, our normal clearance was 15 ft. I spent a day with a tape measure putting markers next to the hangar, and having got a colleague to check independently that my marks were correct, we got airborne in daylight for a first go.

I was really scared getting to 15 ft in daylight, 10 ft was truly horrible. Then we did it again in the dark. Our conclusion was that nobody would ever get that close in an unrecced situation - the pucker factor was far too much - we would have stopped at about 25 ft but for our well-calculated marks.

The point applied to this is that it is near impossible to judge lateral distances in the dark. We could not do it in the 20-40 ft range in a highly controlled situation. AF didn't have a hope.

Sven

[Northbeach]

The most stressful part of my job is getting to my left front seat of the jet, immediately followed by getting the jet off the gate and to the correct runway. I feel like this is the most threat packed portion of my duty day. Then there is the task of getting the jet off the runway and to the gate following the subsequent landing which is another rich environment for bad things to take place.

Most of the time the portion in-between, actual fight time, is relatively easy.

Being in the left front seat of a “super” 380 is arguably the pinnacle of the commercial piloting career. What a lousy night for everybody involved.

[forget]

How about this from a baffled ambulance chaser.

:confused: I'll say. :hmm:

Runway Incursion At JFK - Will The FAA’s Waiver For Super Sized Jets Increase Incursion Incidents?

James T. Crouse. Attorney. Personal Injury Lawyers.

On April 12, the world’s largest commercial passenger jet, an A380, was involved in a runway incursion when it clipped the tail of a much smaller regional jet at John F. Kennedy’s International Airport. Fortunately, there were no injuries to the unknown number of passengers on Air France Flight 7 or to the 62 passengers and four crew members on the Comair CRJ701 Regional Jet.

Runway Incursion At JFK - Will The FAA (http://durham.injuryboard.com/mass-transit-accidents/runway-incursion-at-jfk-will-the-faas-waiver-for-super-sized-jets-increase-incursion-incidents.aspx?googleid=289968)

[Mikehotel152]

Yes the AF crew failed to operate the aircraft safely

Fullstop.

I am surprised that some people are still suggesting that the 'buck doesn't stop with the AF crew'! Are you having a giraffe? :ugh:

[sevenstrokeroll]

some have dismissed my idea of pilot/escort/follow me vehicles with radio comm to the plane in question.

When the A380 was coming along, we knew clearances were going to be tough on the ground...after all they designed a 4 engine plane with only inboard thrust reversers, thinking the outboards would hang out over the grass.

well, it would have been cheap insurance last night to have those pilot cars.

Just thinking about the turn the comair did, I can imagine , faster than can be read, that the horizontal stab was pushed down perhaps raising the nose gear off the ground, making the next step, pushing the plane about with about as much ease as some of you remember while pushing down on the stab and shifting that C150 around.

I hope that all those nice folks on the regional jet have a neck exam by a doctor, and then talk to a lawyer anyway.

There seems to be a rush to embrace the concept of ''assumed action'''perhaps air france assumed that comair would continue straight ahead instead of stopping.

Many ATC facilities clear you for takeoff before the preceeding plane has broken ground...with assumed action (or whatever atc calls it now).

[surplus1]

If the ground controller had been speaking in French at the time then this would not have happened. ;)

You are quite correct, of course. It is also true that it may not have happened had the controller been speaking English but, in New York that language hasn't been used in years. :rolleyes:

[Tommy Tilt]

As we all know; ATC taxi instructions include taxiway designator, stop and hold short instructions, give way to, follow, cross runway, to runway, etc.

The dumbest thing the AF Captain did was to taxi that fast.

The smartest thing the AF Captain did was to immediately stop the aircraft. If it is on the taxiway center line, AND if he is not in violation of taxi instructions, he is NOT entirely responsible for the accident.

Below_______________

Mikehotel152:
Try telling that to a court of law.
IF the A380 Captain followed taxi instructions AND is on the yellow line, it is implausible to assume that any official investigation or court, would conclude the A380 Captain entirely responsible for the accident.

Mixture:
Just what else was he going to do
You are obviously not aware of the accident in PEK last year when a SIA 777 hit an AC 737 in similar circumstances. The SIA Captain taxied for several hundred feet after he had clipped the 737 wing and eventually stopped in a holding area off the yellow line. Had he stopped the aircraft immediately, officials would have seen he was on the yellow line.
Try evaluating these posts a little more before you start with your childish icons!

[Mikehotel152]

If it is on the taxiway center line, AND if he is not in violation of taxi instructions, he is NOT wholly responsible for the accident.

Try telling that to a court of law.

[mixture]

The smartest thing the AF Captain did was to stop the aircraft.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Just what else was he going to do ?

(a) He's now got a structurally unsound airframe
(b) ATC were not exactly going to give him departure clearance were they ?

[Uncle Fred]

Ah it makes one pine for the days of a Soviet show trial does it not? At least there was the pretense of an investigation and trial before passing the verdict.

As a former safety officer I will never forget a Colonel briefing the entire wing on a recent accident and fatality. He was almost taunting in his description of the events leading to the mishap. I thought his performance was puerile at best for I did not need to think too hard that the mishap crew certainly did not start the flight with the intent of bending metal, and in this case, not coming home from the sortie. Yet it happened and the investigator’s job was to find out why—a very detailed process that needed to plough a significant field of data. How many times have things come out in investigations that no one would have expected? Should we not grant a pretense of fairness?

My point is that every professional aviator realizes the chain (and in some case multiple parallel chains) involved in such an incident and steers his/her thinking to investigating, weighing, and learning. Sure the A380 hit the regional that is clear to see and someone was at the controls of the aforementioned craft so it does not look good. Yet the professional holds his opinion until those pesky little facts have been gathered. For those of you who have not taxied large aircraft around large and busy airports I would ask that you hold your fire. A fellow aviator is in the hot seat at the moment and I owe him what I would expect for myself—a fair hearing.

Indeed there are many who love this forum for no other reason than to broadcast their lack of intellectual curiosity and, even more unfortunately, a disregard for how a mishap should be addressed. For those however, who strive to master this craft of aviation (a never ending process btw whether 20 or 80 years old) I would think that we shiould fix the problem before we fix the blame.

[sevenstrokeroll]

certainly there will be extenuating circumstances. but every experienced pilot I know , knows that just being on the centerline doesn't promise anything.

What may just come out of this is that the JFK airport isn't really suited for the super jumbo

[wiggy]

sevenstroke/Uncle Fred

Agreed. Narrow taxiways, high sight line, night and (alledgedly) no ability to see the wing tips - and the A380s not the only one where you can't see the tips (the 777's for certainly another - you want me to assure wingtip clearance, rather than guess/rely on taxiway markings? Sure, just give me a minute to walk back to the cabin, then I'll get back to you, then maybe I'll proceed - how you reckon that'll go down with JFK ground?), just maybe this once we shouldn't rush to judgement.

The AF captain will be hung out to dry of course but what's that I hear? "there but for the grace of god....."?

[surplus1]

Just commenting on deSitter's observation a page ago making an assumption about the RJ's crew experience level.

I would venture a guess that Mr. deSitter's references to pestilential aircraft and their inexperienced crews is more related to his politics and inflated ego than it is to the pilots he chooses to disparage.

While the Airbus crew no doubt has more total time, I have to wonder if they are likely less experienced in type than the RJ pilots. For this type of accident, time in type may be the more important metric (having a feel for your dimensions, etc.)

While one might asssume the AF crew to be very "experienced" merely because that aircrft type is the company's largest and thus requies greater seniority for command, there is in fact no direct relationship between "experience" and the size of one's aircraft. In fact it is quite possible that this particular RJ's crew may have more total time as well as more time "in type". One should not assume otherwise based on the physical size of the aircraft.

Be that as it may, flying time would not appear to be in any way related to this accident.

[fr8tmastr]

I think the AF pilots will be the ones with the explaining to do. However, as a mitigating factor, I have seen so many pilots hold short at ridiculously long distances from the actual hold short point. I don't know if this is the case here or not, I am just making a point to those of you that stop 150 feet from the hold short point. In the future with these monsters taxiing around, you might consider being in the spot instructed, not a plane length or more from it.

[hetfield]

@polax52

Very nice said, but......
La Grande Nation isn't Korea.

[1.6vs]

My thoughts go out to the A.F. captain right now. He must feel awful after what happened. He was obviously distracted for a split second but thankfully nobody was hurt. I hope the investigators examine the chain of events that led up to what seems to be an all too common occurence these days.Those of you who have hung,drawn and quartered him, should remember , there are two kinds of pilots; those that have had a taxying incident and those that haven't had one yet.

[mrdeux]

and (alledgedly) no ability to see the wing tips

You definitely cannot see the wing tips from the cockpit.

[givemewings]

THis is a bit of a 'what if' here, but... I have noticed that when disembarking a full A380, that once the pax & baggage is off, that the jetway is usually now lower by perhaps a foot or more.

Would a not so fully loaded flight have made any difference as to whether the collision would have happened? Looks from the video like they hit the CRJ quite close to the top of the tail fin...

I know it's not really important as they shouldn't be passing that close but it did make me wonder, what is the height difference between an empty A380 parked at the gate & one fully fuelled, bums on every seat & cargo holds full.. is there a given figure for this for different ranges of weights (I know it would vary depending on all of these items), is it something that you consider as well as all the other factors in load control etc??

I guess how high you're sitting is not so important but the comment about the height of the 380 cockpit made me wonder if being fully loaded would change the perspective at all, even if only a little bit. Could be a factor also? (I recall reading they kept it a common height with other Airbus family widebodies, is that true?)

(For those who will ask what is my exp, CC with a background in aviation ground ops, 5yrs flying & have worked on the 380)

[aviatorhi]

Wondering how people are arriving at the conclusion that AF was taxiing too fast and this contributed to the collision. Seems that the CRJ was back too far. That being said the AF captain should have known where his wingtips were and stopped based on that.

[J.O.]

Five pages of drivel and really only one intelligent posting, that being from Uncle Fred. Contrary to the "hang 'em high" crowd, the root cause in this accident is anything but a sure thing.

The RJ700 was not pushed back. They had just arrived from Boston and were headed to their gate. It appears that they stopped short due to a lack of ground crew. It's standard procedure for most airlines to have their pilots stop when there's no ground crew. The question will be if they stopped so that they were encroaching with the taxiway.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

...a few month ago an A330 of AF has cut the tail of another AF A380 in CDG...
Of the same AF A380, in fact. ;)
Maybe it's the fault of the plane. She may be resentful. :E

[sevenstrokeroll]

root cause...ha! the darn plane is big and you better be ready for such things to happen.

encroaching on a taxiway...hey, if you stop, you are entitled to be there unless you hear something like: get out of the way comair, air france is doing warp seven towards you.

many changes will be made I'm sure. But it will all be ''back to basics"...taxi no faster than a man can walk (sure, add ten minutes to scheduled block time!). If you are unsure of wingtip clearance, STOP and make sure.

At some point, airplanes get too big or airports get too small. Which is easier to change?

[aviatorhi]

Well they could always let pilots think for themselves, but many don't want to. I'm referring to what seems to be the RJ stopping short because of no ground personell available to accept the flight.

Also, sure, you may have every 'right' to be there, you also have all the responsibility (assuming they still let people use common sense) to advise ground you were unable to clear the taxiway, after all JFK is busy and based on the audio it seems the ground controller wasn't even able to see the collision and the RJ didn't advise him he was unable to clear.

[AlexanderH]

Lol, this is slightly reminiscent of how the French drive their cars. Anyone who has driven or lived in France will understand.

[sevenstrokeroll]

unless there was a specific clearance requiring comair to clear the taxiway, comair didn't have to do anything! Its not like comair was on a runway, unable to clear the runway.

Air France was on a different taxiway

[aviatorhi]

Situational awareness or lack thereof causes things like this. I'm always surprised to see people preach 'professionalism', 'intergrity' and other buzzwords and then say that it's ok to not advise a change of plans that may not be as odvious to others as it is to you.

I've heard many, many pilots advise ground they would have to hold short of the ramp area, 2 or 3 seconds of (non essential, but intelligent) radio communication can save millions in damage.

[sevenstrokeroll]

aviatorhi

yes, advising things is really a good thing to do. but it may not be required...situational awareness is fine, but that goes both ways.

[peuce]

The cause:

Once again ... a chain of events
Once again ... all the holes in the swiss(french?) cheese lined up

Once again ... it would have only taken one of those holes not to have lined up
Once again ... murphy prevailed

The Cure:

We have to ensure that we take care of our own "holes" ... and that we don't rely on others to break the chain.

[AlexanderH]

For anyone who has flown to, from or within China, this video should be shown to all Chinese passengers who start to jumping around the aircraft as soon (and in many cases before) the aircaft has landed.

[sevenstrokeroll]

NBC had some nice video tonight. There is sort of a pickup truck driving in front of the regional jet.

we all know that there are LOTS of things going on at an airport...tugs pulling baggage carts, pickup trucks, boxes blowing along the taxiway...a myriad of things.

Some nice animation showing how much A380 wing hangs over the standard 75 foot wide taxiway.

The truth is that this plane requi res multiple taxiways (clear) to get where its going.

I don't think ATC will ever take responsibility for wingtip clearance of one plane with another.

[fatminou]

So if the RJ was arriving, why was it not on the centerline (which is well illuminated) and way off to the side?

Sounds like they were hanging off on the side waiting for ground crew, but we're clearly leaving their tail too close to Alpha.

[Hedge36]

What difference does it make whether or not the RJ was rightly on or off the taxiway? Do you suppose the AF captain's argument of "I proceeded because I had the right-of-way" will carry much weight with his bosses when the repair bills come in?

No.

One need only review the nose camera footage of the Apache trying to squeeze in between the trees to be reminded that if you're not sure you can fit, it's likely a good idea to wait. Especially if you're driving the world's largest commercial passenger aircraft.

[Huck]

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l165/Hvck/jfk.jpg


"Traveling from Shanghai Airport to JFK is like going from the Jetsons to the Flintstones...." - T. Freidman

[Mark Meeker]

This is the second time in a short while that an A380 has hit another airplane on the ground. From what I saw in the video, the AF jet was moving pretty fast when it hit the Comair.. Maybe they should tug the airplanes out to a clear spot for start up and taxi. Or if they can put remote cameras in the bumper of a car, then why not wing tips that sound an alarm if something is too close..Good thing no one was hurt (except the CRJ)

[thcrozier]

Collision was at Alpha Mike, correct?

[Nice One]

Don't forget the old law......

If you're off the yellow line and you hit something....... you're stuffed, and if you're on the yellow line and you hit something you're stuffed !!!!

[Huck]

Intersection of alpha and mike.

You can see the tail of the RJ parked at spot P in the right side of the video.

Looks like the accident RJ was sitting somewhere behind spot T. It'd be interesting to know if there's a hold short line for the ramp there, and if so, was he past it.

[Echo-Charlie]

The C-5 Galaxy has retractable wing tip landing lights that can be adjusted to any angle. When positioned to 45 degrees it can point to the taxiway parallel to the pilots/co-pilots positions and illuminate possible clearance issues. If an object is in the spotlight... it's a possible threat.

[crwjerk]

In addition to all of the above, why does an RJ need to be marshalled in? If these guys fly in and out of JFK everyday many times, in such a small aircraft surely you know where your nosewheel is. Was it necessary to hold so far out from the gate??? ( if you say it wasn't " so far out ", have a look at its rear end...!)

[lederhosen]

The A380 captain obviously shoulders part of the blame. But the CRJ was clearly not where the controller thought it was. Did the captain of that aircraft report that his stand was blocked or that he was waiting for a marshaller? If not then he must also accept some of the blame. If he did then the controller should have passed it on.

[Jonty]

I disagree. You cannot run into people just because they didn't tell you they were in the way.

Looking at the video, I don't think the AF pilot saw the RJ. However the onus is on him to ensure the safety of his aircraft.

[mary meagher]

Seven Stroke Roll opines that "airplanes get too big, or airports get too small, which is easier to change?"....... The answer is not necessarily obvious.

I recollect from reading aviation history that a British Aircraft manufacturer, shortly after WWII, decided to go with making planes (for those who could afford this luxury way of travel) that were capable of landing on the existing short runways. But other companies went for long haul capacity craft that could carry a lot of bums on seats. And guess what happened?

Every major city built a bigger airport.

[cwatters]

Parking sensors have been an option on cars for a long time. I would have thought something could have been added to the A380 wing tip to warn of obstructions. Especially as the increased span was know to be an issue for airports at the design stage. It seemed to stop quite quickly so not much warning needed?

[Sygyzy]

Earlier in this thread there was much speculation that ATC has some role/responibility in avoiding ground collisions. 'After all that's what they do in the air'.

If you have a traffic cop regulating the flow of cars at a busy intersection and you collide with a parked car fifty feet from the intersection-who's fault is it?

The buck must eventually stop with AF PIC.

S

[Wellington Bomber]

Lets not forget that the regional jet is not a small plane, it was either a CRJ700 or 900 not much smaller than a 737.

Everybody is talking as if this was a cessna 152

[nitpicker330]

What is wrong with some of you guys?

For goodness sake he was taxiing the worlds biggest commercial jet down a dark narrow taxiway at high speed and he hits another aircraft he should have seen was too close to safely pass and you blame the CRJ crew!!!

I suppose if he'd run his Peugot into the back of another car at the lights you'd blame the other car too!! :mad:

All he had to do was taxi in a straight line at a sensible speed with his EYES OPEN and NOT RUN INTO ANYTHING.......

[HalloweenJack]

i have to ask , why are people actually blaming the smaller aircraft? waiting for someone in hi-vis to bring them to the gate surely is the correct way to operate? and as they were not actually moving at the time and being whacked by the great big A380 ; well the lawyers will earn from this (as seen in this very thread) by saying ` well although he was moving the smaller aircraft is to blame` or ` the taxi ways are too small , as has been reported many times`.

[forget]

... taxiing the worlds biggest commercial jet down a dark narrow taxiway at high speed

nitpicker, you know this? And how?

[nitpicker330]

The blame lies squarely in the flight deck of the A380.

Either the Captain didn't follow AF training or SOP's in this regard. Or he didn't follow plain common sense.

Or the blame lies with AF training (or lack thereof) as in the QF Bangkok over run incident.

Or the blame lies with AF rostering patterns that don't afford adequate rest for the crew in JFK.

I don't know what caused this, but whatever reasons they find, the blame most certainly lies in the AF flight deck for one reason or maybe another.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Say, Gents...

For those who affirm the blame is only on the AF crew : So, case closed ? Nothing to learn from this accident apart that AF is bad bad bad ? Whoa...
Perhaps that idea pleases you, but what's the point, regarding safer operations :confused:

I have no idea of the difficulty of taxiing a liner, let alone a super. I rely on suninmyeyes' post (#67) here, which seems balanced to my untrained eyes.

Surely there are ideas to challenge.
What about a "don't leave the taxiway if you're not going to make it to the gate" rule, for example ?
What about aids for the crew of the A380, adressing the need to see your own wingtips in a crowded environnement ?

Cheers :)
AZR

[nitpicker330]

Look, let me try to once again put it into words anyone who has driven a car could understand.

Lets say you're driving along in a large car at night and you come across a vehicle sitting off to the left side of your path, you are unable to move to the right and now you're not quite sure if you can fit through. Instead of stopping and waiting a few minutes you push on through at high speed HOPING to fit through BUT lo and behold you knock off your wing mirrors and damage the other car.......

Now who do you think the Police/insurance assessors will blame?

You cannot assign blame to someone sitting on the side of the road minding their own business because you lack clear vision, judgement or indeed common sense ( in this case Airmanship )


And don't try to say "the A380 crew may not have seen the CRJ" That is no excuse and I don't believe for 1 second they didn't see the CRJ.

[valvanuz]

In many countries, if you are not properly parked off the road, insurance will not fully cover.:=

If a lorry has its ass stuck on a railway crossing because there is not enough space ahead, are you going to blame the train engineer for not stopping on time?

Many transportation rules require that one has to stay clear of intersections, crossings, channels and main ways.

If you cannot fit, do not go in. True for big, true for the small.

[rondun]

Just wondering about the T2 map posted by Huck in post #111 which states "A=Inner perimeter taxi clockwise" (AF was going the opposite way)
Is that something they've changed around at JFK, and would it have required any extra signage?

[hoppy906]

A few observations:

1. When trying to calculate taxi speed by using an anti-collision light that flashes, it is pretty essential to know the shutter speed of the camera in relation to the duration of the flash of the anti-coll. For example, you may have a frame rate of 25 frames per second, but your shutter speed may be 1/1000th of a second and the flash duration could be 1/100th of a second. Thus, it is quite possible that your resultant footage will be missing flashes altogether. During each 1/25th of a second, you are only capturing an image for 1/1000th of second. Of course at night it is likely that the shutter speed will be less than 1/1000th of a second, but hopefully you get my point.

2. It may well be that the PIC of the A380 is "to blame" both in principle and in law. But that doesn't mean he will be the sole cause. Blame = who will pay? Cause = what do we fix? In this case, I would be most surprised to find that there are not other contributory factors. Simply blaming the PIC will not prevent this kind of accident from happening again. Let's be clear, it's not just A380s that are involved in this kind of accident. They happen all the time with smaller aircraft too. Many big airports have procedures in place in an attempt to prevent accidents like this. That being the case at JFK, then any investigation will also look at what went wrong there. I'm pretty sure that a decent investigation won't simply blame the PIC and be done with it. You can compare driving a car to taxying an A380 if you like, but let's be honest, it really isn't as simply as that. They worked this out on railways ages ago and as a result you have signalling systems and interlocking to protect trains from one another. You could easily do something similar on taxiways, dividing them up into "block sections" and only allowing one aircraft per block. ATC wouldn't like that. Much easier to blame the PIC I suppose.

3. As a single example, here's a report from a recent collision at Heathrow. You may find it interesting, you may not.

Air Accidents Investigation: Airbus A340-311 Boeing 747-436, 4R-ADC G-BNLL (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_2010/airbus_a340_311_boeing_747_436__4r_adc_g_bnll.cfm)

Have fun!

[lambert]

Rondun has picked up on something that everybody else seems to have missed - why were they instructed to taxi counter clockwise on the clockwise taxiway (A) - not that it would have made any difference because they could have been taxiing (clockwise) on A to their gate and would still have had the same wingspan from the center line of Alpha.

I wonder if two A380s taxiing in opposite directions on A and B have enough room to pass each other?

Reminds me of the freeway around Paris (peripherique). When driving clockwise around Paris (or Toulouse, they always follow Paris) you take the peripherique intérieur (closest to Paris) and anti clockwise you take the peripherique extérieur!

[flynerd]

@AlphaRomeoZulu

I have no idea of the difficulty of taxiing a liner, let alone a super. I rely on suninmyeyes' post (#67) here, which seems balanced to my untrained eyes.Perhaps A380s should have another level of PIC for taxi, as ships do in port. That would create a LOT of new jobs
.
What about a "don't leave the taxiway if you're not going to make it to the gate" rule, for example ?Well, at JFK you NEED to get in line for TO as soon as possible. Lots of AC and fewer slots. The trend at JFK is to hurry up and get in line. I know, I once experienced a TO delayed by 50+ minutes cause we had to return to gate to add fuel (Alitalia) after waiting in line too long.


What about aids for the crew of the A380, adressing the need to see your own wingtips in a crowded environnement ?Valid comment. In todays hi-tech environment, some basic collision avoidance warning would have paid dividends.

And I now agree with several other posters that we need to skip looking for a blame target(s) and get back to preventing any re-occurence. Those A380s are big MFs. This could have happened almost anywhere.

FN

[lambert]

Hey, Flynerd,

What a great idea "Perhaps A380s should have another level of PIC for taxi, as ships do in port."

He's called a pilot!

[flynerd]

What a great idea "Perhaps A380s should have another level of PIC for taxi, as ships do in port."

He's called a pilot!

EXACTLY :) But with lots of local knowledge. Just think of all the new jobs!

FN

[High 6]

Unfortunately there will be more such incidents until the ground facilities at some major US and European airports are upgraded. These taxiways, aprons and parking bays were designed for B707's and the like, and although they can be strengthened for big aircraft, there is usually very little that can be done to widen or make more lateral space due to lack of real estate.

With this limitation and some of the ground control procedures in these places where very often the right hand (ground) doesn't know what the left hand (apron) is doing, the holes on the swiss cheese quickly line up. What to do??

[parabellum]

A few more observations; Not until post #67 does anyone talk any sense at all, then to post #97 and 98 for a bit more sense.

If the RJ was stationary, as in parked, then the speed of AF is totally irrelevant. Speed would only be relevant if AF had been cleared to taxi subject to the RJ being clear.

AF and the RJ would have been on different frequencies, AF on ground and the RJ on the frequency of the company controlling that part of that terminal area, that is the American way. The controller talking to AF would not have known the actual position of the RJ, as far as he was concerned it was on stand.

It is common practice to park two aircraft on one stand, side by side, if they are small enough, which may be why the RJ shows to be to one side of the centre line for the stand. If the RJ had stopped short of the stand stop point it is his duty to advise this to GMC as he may be an obstruction to taxing traffic.

If the AF has been cleared to taxi along taxi way A then it is not an unreasonable assumption that the taxiway is clear of parked aircraft.

Posters such as Sevenstrokeroll and Nitpicker330 may not get the blood they are baying for.

[KiloB]

However the blame is finally apportioned for this incident, AF does seem to have had a lot of 'holes in their Cheese' over the last few years. There must be some level of cultural problem in Training / Management.

[Helen49]

Seem to remember that when the B767 clipped the B735 at MAN some years ago, there was inferred criticism (by the AAIB) of the B767 Captain on the grounds that, as posted above, the ANO confers responsibility for an aircraft on the commander.

[hoppy906]

Hoppy906....... Yeah all good but read the top right paragraph of page 7 again please.

"when taxiing responsibility for avoiding other aircraft lies with the flight crew of an Aircraft"


Trust me, we all hear you blaming the PIC. It's great that you know who caused the accident, and thanks for telling us, time and time again, but I doubt this information will be, on it's own, of any use in preventing the next ground collision. No matter how many times you repeat it.

Instead, there will be a body of people who are more interested in discovering and learning from all the mistakes in this incident and trying to prevent future accidents. They are the same people, who over the years have developed the safety of air transport to it's current level.

Not one of these people will say: "The pilot is to blame. End of story". Not one of them will compare taxying an A380 to driving a car!

Thank goodness.

It seems to me, that if you want to prevent ground collisions, then you cannot rely on a single person, sitting up front, with limited visibility to do it on his own. He's human, he's under pressure, and he's fallible. He always will be fallible. And so will you. And so will I.

If you read the report I linked to, which relates to an incident at Heathrow, you'll see that they operate a "block" system similar to the way railways protect sections of line. However, unlike, railways, there is no guaranteed protection at the rear.

Why not?

There is so much scope here for a solution. Aircraft know their position in space, and indeed they have the ability to transmit it - Mode S for example. Given that Mode S is used in ACAS, it shouldn't really be that much more of a step forward to implement something that would work on the ground too.

It'll happen eventually. I'm sure.

Then we won't be able to shout "It's your fault" at the PIC so often.

[lambert]

Actually, Parabellum, Comair563 does call pretty quickly on the ground frequency and says "send the trucks, they have just hit us". Good job they weren't in a non-American speaking country, nobody would have known what the trucks are!

[is that it]

A few points:

1. I don't think comparisons to road accidents have any relevance here, the people, procedures, equipment and environment are all totally different.

2. A lot of posts mention holes in the Swiss cheese, but there seem to be relatively few holes needed to line up to cause this accident: the AF crew didn't realise the proximity of the CRJ; the controller wasn't aware of the CRJ's position - anything else?

I guess the granularity of these can be broken down but I think that in the most part it would point to a lack of equipment on the A380 and on the ground. Oh, and the lack of a healthy paranoia of unseen 'threats' when taxiing at a busy airport at night.

3. Should the A-SMGCS / ASDE-X have helped to avoid this? I understand the resolution may not be high enough to show a possible conflict, but it should show that the CRJ was not parked on the stand?

ITI

[valvanuz]

JFK airport was not designed for the A380 :O and they had to make quite a few adjustments to make it fit.

There are a bunch of restrictions for circulating the A380 around. Apparently, the plane was using the proper taxiway.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering ... 080723.pdf (http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/nla_mos/media/JFK_A380_opplan_20080723.pdf)

[TurboDAWG]

Folks,

Not putting the blame on either party. Let the investigation board do that.


The A-380 is an ICAO Annex Code F aircraft. There are only few aircraft that fit that classification.... The A-380, B-747-8, C-5 and the Antonov AN-124- and AN-225 and the Spruce Goose.


When we Taxi on Non code F Taxiways we have restrictions and limitation to what other aircraft or vehichles can be on adjacent/parallel surfaces (Runways, Taxiways Gates and Ramp Areas)

In the case of JFK, Taxiways Alpha and Bravo certainly have limitations due to their close nature.

To be more precise, documentation says when a Code F aircraft is on Alpha, then Bravo is restricted to Code E or smaller. Code E= wing span of 170' to 213'. That will cover everything from a 787 and an A-330 to a B-747-400. and visa versa when a code F is on Bravo, then A is restricted to E.

These conditions and limitations are documented in the Jepp taxi charts or what ever other publication is used onboard.

In general there is no documentation stating any limitation between any taxiway and any ramp area in JFK. Certainly NO limitation between A and the Delta regional aircraft ramp.

With those 2 bits of info, it may not been thought as any reason of concern by the AF crew, since there was nothing bigger than a Code E on Bravo to worry about and there was no documented limitation as Far as Taxiway A and the ramp are concerned.

On another note, it is impossible to see the wing tips from either pilot seats on the 380's flight deck. I always wondered why Airbus did not use a wide lens to enable the Tail Cam to show the wing tips.

There is no replacement to vigilance.

The good thing is that no one got seriously hurt. Metal can always be fixed or replaced... but not people.

[hoppy906]

JFK airport was not designed for the A380

Very few airports were...... :)

[Feathered]

Couple of points--

1.) The CRJ was very lucky in one respect, that the collision occurred while taxiing inbound and not out. The flight attendants were all likely seated with their belts on which likely prevented some serious injuries. During taxi out, flight attendants are typically standing and moving about around the cabin until just prior to entering the active runway. A collision then would have been much more serious to anyone standing.

2.) I'm going to guess that nobody on the CRJ was holding an infant on their lap.

3.) The accident A380 was released for flight and flew home to CDG/LFPG last night, 24 hrs after the incident. That seems awfully quick for an NTSB investigation involving substantial damage by an air carrier. Was there a rush to get the paint marks and investigation complete, as well as the airframe repairs? I'm sure another day's delay for the plane would lead to even more passenger disruptions and economic loss for AF.

[lambert]

Valvanuz - what a great document, really shows the thought that went into the planning for the A380 ops at JFK.

Interesting to see that taxi speeds are limited to 15mph (approx 13 knots).

[Mikehotel152]

@parabellum

A few more observations; Not until post #67 does anyone talk any sense at all, then to post #97 and 98 for a bit more sense.

With respect, those who have posted criticism of the AF crew and laid responsibility for the incident at their flight deck door, have an unassailable legal point. There may be contributory factors - or holes in the proverbial swiss cheese - that can be filled following an investigation. That much is not in dispute.

If the AF has been cleared to taxi along taxi way A then it is not an unreasonable assumption that the taxiway is clear of parked aircraft.

It is completely unreasonable to make any assumptions in the aviation business. The primary reason why have humans on the flight deck, rather than automated taxying, is because sometimes RJs, vehicles, deer, FOD or confused pax don't quite clear the taxyway. No crew can blindly follow instructions from ATC, a marshaller or their own SOPs without looking out the window.

[Quagmeyer]

Somebody was where they were not supposed to be or the JFK Port Authority just saw their last A380 operation. Bottom line though, the Management of US airlines have become transfixed with outsourcing of jobs and routes to the Replacement Jets (RJ's) and it must stop. JFK is an International airport meant for International airplanes not RJ'S. They will likely find fault with the RJ for not proceeding to his gate or for not completely clearing the taxiway. This will be done because of politics and not facts. Just like Air France blamed a part off a CAL DC-10 caused their ill fated Concorde to crash. They didn't follow their own procedures but in cases like this facts don't matter when deep pockets are involved. Just sayin

[glad rag]

Did the "small aircraft" call clear of the taxiway when it was [for A380 operations] NOT??;)

[Super VC-10]

That is something that will come out in the NTSB investigation. Until evidence is presented to the contrary, assume the CRJ was not anywhere it was not authorised to be.

[lambert]

Just been reading Valvanuz' document again. Either it is not the latest version or the A380 was going the wrong way around the Central Terminal Area (although he did follow the ATC instructions). According to the document, even departing from Terminal 4 for R/W 22R, they should turn right onto A and completely cirumnavigate (clockwise) the CTA and turn left at E - seems a hellavu a long way round! (OK there is an alternative in this case, the second option is to turn left on A and right on E, but this option is not available for departing from Terminal 1)

[oceancrosser]

Just wondering about the T2 map posted by Huck in post #111 which states "A=Inner perimeter taxi clockwise" (AF was going the opposite way)
Is that something they've changed around at JFK, and would it have required any extra signage?

Done all the time at JFK.

[BreezyDC]

Lambert, Valvanuz: Also interesting to read the reasoning for the taxiing speed maximum of 15 mph in the A380 JFK Ops Document. "Research from the sites evaluating Boeing 747 taxiway centerline wander rates demonstrated comparable taxiing speeds."

[Biggles78]

Post #22, 2nd photo. Is that le winglet from the Aircrush embedded in the port side tailplane of the CRJ? :eek:

On another note, at least they are not clipping trees anymore. (Apologies, couldn't resist) :E

[visibility3miles]

In terms of how fast the A380 was taxiing... I'm sure people who filmed the video know exactly how fast it was speeded up, or whether it was in real time speed, or slow-motion.

The other thing is that the A380 seems to come to a complete stop very soon after hitting the other plane, so did notice the incident and were going slow enough to stop in a reasonable distance (given the weight and momentum of such a large plane.)

Neck injuries and whiplash are a concern for passengers in the smaller plane whether or not they hire lawyers. You can't get whipped around like that without some risk of injury, as the seat belts securely fastened wont stop your head and neck from getting rapidly tossed sideways.

This will be my only comment, as I am by no means an expert.

[repariit]

It looks like the CRJ700 stopped for a truck crossing in front of it based on a video on TV here.

[itsmepaul57]

Bare in mind that aircraft have to follow the green taxi lines which are also illuminated by green lights at night.

So either they were not following that line,running off the line,or the parked aircraft was parked too far back (not likely) or its a simple matter of the A380 just being too big for this taxiway . It all depends if it can be proved that the 380 was off track and too far to the left of the taxi lin


a sign seen airside on most airports uk

' Pilots and tug drivers are responsible for wingtip clearance!

[mumbo jumbo]

Oh puleeeeze! :ugh:

[surplus1]

]Bottom line though, the Management of US airlines have become transfixed with outsourcing of jobs and routes to the Replacement Jets (RJ's) and it must stop. JFK is an International airport meant for International airplanes not RJ'S.

That's an interesting observation. Given that the CRJ700/900 series involved in this incident is as long as or longer than the A318/319 and the B737-200/300/400/500/600/700 and only 1.4m shorter than the B717 - can I presume that you would also ban those types from JFK or is it just your politics that's showing? Prejudice should not play any role in accident avoidance/prevention.

Preliminary data would seem to indicate that the ONLY passenger airliner that would NOT have cleared the RJ in this incident happens to be the A380. That would appear to indicate that the A380 is "too big" as opposed to the CRJ being "too small".

[SKS777FLYER]

I haven't read thru this whole cackling hens thread, but notice much mention that a 380 Captain or copilot can NOT see the wingtips when seated in the cockpit. I could not see the wingtips either as I recall from the left or right seat of a 777, 767, 757 and I don't think I could from a DC10 a 727 or Super 80.
If any of you pilots would like a simple (but takes a little time/effort) method of learning where your invisible wingtips are...... go out on the ramp and grab a few of those orange plastic traffic cones that are all over ramps. Put a cone directly under the left wingtip. Walk forward parallel to the fuselage and place another cone abeam the cockpit. Move forward, again paralell to the fuselage perhaps 1/2 aircraft length and place another cone on the tarmac. Climb aboard your aircraft, get in the left seat an adjust the seat exactly as you would for flight. Now turn your head left (don't lean or bend body just swivel head) and note where the orange cone is in your left window. MEMORIZE THAT SPOT mark it with a grease pencil or use an identifiable part of a window frame whatever. Look ahead and to the left at the cone placed ahead of the aircraft. Where does that cone appear on your glareshield??? You now KNOW where your left wingtip is going to be in the future when the aircraft moves straight ahead. You can, and should do the same for the right wingtip using "landmarks" on the windows of the right side of the cockpit. Have your co-pilots do this same exercise, because they are also on scene when metal is bent and probably would like to know where the wingtips are as well.

I liked to move the cone ahead of the aircraft on the left to the spot where the cone was in the left corner of the glareshield and the left windshield vertical post of the 77, 75 and 76.

This method will give you an inner peace (just try it)); knowing where your wingtips are while taxiing about various airports on the planet; at least during those times you are going straight.
You can also look ahead of you when directly behind like aircraft on a taxiway and see where their wingtips are in "landmarks" on your windows.

The technique was very helpful as a CKA when riding around with a new Captain who had no clue about his/her wingtip location. Showed 'em the cone technique during the first walk around check.

[mumbo jumbo]

Oh puhleeeze!

Bare (sic) in mind that aircraft have to follow the green taxi lines which are also illuminated by green lights at night.

Obviously never been to JFK! They don't have "green" taxiway lines and they don't have green centreline lights on most of them. Just blue edge lights. The faded yellow centrelines are extremely difficult to see at night and nigh on impossible in the wet.

...or the parked aircraft was parked too far back (not likely)

Why is it not likely? You should know if you're an airside worker at LGW that if a stand is not fully ready, the a/c will hold short until it is. In the video of this incident, it is quite obvious that the CRJ is holding short of the stand for whatever reason, as is his prerogative.

Those wishing to offer "expert opinion" without the experience or qualification to do so should avail themselves of a parallel thread in Jet Blast where they can shmooze with fellow raconteurs and pretend they are all pals whilst moaning about the "sky-gods" on this thread who, where it is obvious, are offering opinion based on fact and experience. Here, I'll help you. Just follow this link: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/448523-airbus-a380-mishap-jfk.html

[Rengineer]

It seems the discussion is all about whether or not the AF captain is to blame, but shouldn't it be re-centered a bit? The real point should be, why did it happen? That's obviously not the same thing.

There have been some posts, e.g. #163, #143, #145 and others, emphasizing that JFK at night is a hard place to taxi in. Obviously both the ground controllers and A380 PIC knew this, as did other people who might have helped prevent the accident. So it looks to me like, whether from overconfidence, routine, tiredness, plain bad luck (AKA combination of unfortunate circumstances) or whatever, people weren't being careful enough - possibly not following the rules either (about going clockwise). So there must be a lesson for improved operations here. No offence to mumbo, but that seems obvious even to a non-expert.

Also, just possibly, this may be a reason for Airbus to add zoom to those taxiing cameras - although, mind, it'd have been hard to judge the available space even if you could see the wingtip from the cam, due to the angle involved. It's a question of practice I think.

[kappa]

In the earlier posts on this thread, many opined that the video seemed to be faster than normal citing the walking pace of the ground crew prior to the collision and the taxiing speed of the AF plane.

I just saw a version of the collision video from AP and it seems to my eye and senses that everything is moving slightly slower.

Looking at this link (http://bcove.me/o6by2hrm), the A380 does not appear to be moving quite as fast (I make no judgment whether it is the appropriate speed). I believe the ground crew begin running toward planes after they collide. The sequence with truck crossing in front of the RJ is missing.

[misd-agin]

SKS777flyer - I've done the same without cones. Observe markings on the ground in line with the wing tips and abeam the cockpit. Observe the locations after sitting in the seat.

Another method is while taxiing behind the same aircraft type observe what their wingtips pass over (laterally). As you pass the same spot observe where those marks/signs/man hole covers/grass spot, etc are on your side windows.

It's fairly simple from the seat position I favor(lower than 'official'). If I can see it in the FO's side window(R2) it's outside of the wingtip. On my side the extended wingtip line is about 1/3 of the distance above the lower screw (757/767) on the aft side of the on the L2 window.

Any doubt....stop. Come anywhere near my 'marks'...stop.

[misd-agin]

Oh, the world was a very safe place yesterday. Why? The AF A380 incident was the lead (#1) story on U.S. national news(NBC 6:30 PM).

War? Debt? Riots? Political infighting? Nope. AF A380 hits CRJ.

[Turbine D]

There was a story on ABC World News last night. It points out some things which may have contributed to this event. Here is the video (after the pet commercial)...

World News with Diane Sawyer - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/)

[MPN11]

It looks like the CRJ700 stopped for a truck crossing in front of it based on a video on TV here.

Yes, I've tried to post that observation for the last 24h, but [as a full-career ATCO] I seemed unable to post. Perhaps this time it will work?

There seemed a lot of activity at the CRJ's intended ramp, which led it to be obstructing the taxiway.

[Loose rivets]

Throughout this thread there has been consistent discussion about the PIC being able to see his wingtip. Not for one moment do I think this is the issue.

The truth hinges on what that captain saw, say, 150M prior to the collision, and how he interpreted it.

The worst scenario would be that he made the assumption the CRJ was progressing normally and therefore going to 'clear'.


Did he simply not see it? Remember, he may have been really straining to see the poor markings, and concentrating on keeping dead-center on the narrow and damp taxiway.

Only an in-depth analysis of this poor guy's visual clues and thought process leading up to the collision, will be of help to finding the cause.


Lastly, I found the communications bewildering. Is there a prize for being laconic on American RT? Converting from ATPL to ATP years ago, the radio was my only difficulty. It doesn't seem to have got much better.

[deSitter]

Parabellum above makes the most interesting point of all, which is the practice of parking two RJs at the same stand. You can see the resulting chaos in this Google Maps view of Concourse C and D at ATL:

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.642263,-84.431021&spn=0.003546,0.006968&t=k&z=18)

Jigsaw puzzle parking!

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.643499,-84.432588&spn=0.000886,0.001742&z=20)

Although all the little sparrows' tail feathers may be inside the line, it's clearly chaos on the ground here. In one place it seems as if as many as 4 RJs are parked at the same stand once used by Delta's L1011s. Throw in baggage trams and utility trucks in a tight squeeze airport like JFK and you are asking for trouble.

The real issue here is the choking of hub airports with RJ traffic.

Here's JFK's brand of jigsaw parking:

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.648541,-73.778418&spn=0.003232,0.006968&z=18)

No birds in this nest though - must have been a large owl perched on the terminal scared'em off :)

[sevenstrokeroll]

I guess you actually have to know something to appreciate what happened. On TV this morning, a captain tilton spoke out on the subject of : NOSEWHEEL ON THE YELLOW LINE.

IF I am on the centerline with my nosewheel, whatever happens ISN'T MY FAULT.

I chuckled. Tilton is a nice guy...flew at American I think...mad dogs...or bigger, not sure.

BUT, we learned a long time ago at my airline that one particular gate at chicago midway, if you put your nosewheel on the line, your starboard wing would hit the fence.

So much for the : Nosewheel on the centerline theory.

There are lots of things to consider in how to avoid this type of accident in the future. One poster even insisted I was out for blood...how CRAZY is that? I don't want blood. But I do know that it seems that a plane that was at a halt, was struck by a plane moving. I cannot fathom any other physical reality. IF both planes were moving...well, we would have to take a good long look. IF both planes were at a halt, there would not have been a collision. But one was moving and that plane is at fault.

The airbus 380 captain knew when he bid the aircraft that certain problems would require unique solutions. Wingspan was part of the equation.

Certainly a case can be made against certifying an airplane that is too big for existing taxiways and airports. TV cameras or other anti collision tools should have been mandated.

Does anyone remember when Boeing considered having folding wing tips ( like on aircraft carrier based planes) for its B777? This was to avoid problems caused by a long wing span.

I saw one poster mention that JFK was an international airport and that regional jets shouldn't be there. Heck, I know of international airports that have grass runways/taxiways...its just a designation for customs or immigration staffing.

Some speak of insufficent lighting on the regional jet...I could plainly see it in the video, and assuming that the camera was not infrared or such, the same lighting would have allowed another airplane's crew to see the RJ.

We all know that during taxi, we do the pre takeoff or taxi checklist. Sadly, that can be distracting. In a perfect world, we would set the parking brake and do the checks and then release the brake and go about getting into the wild blue.

Well, it could have been worse folks...there will be lots to learn, and reconsider. Maybe a very pistol should be fired whenever an A380 moves? (kidding).

[pit_cock]

http://i52.tinypic.com/2vls038.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/10po6iv.jpg

[parabellum]

Anyone know if the captain or the FO was actually taxying?

[petermcleland]

Preliminary data would seem to indicate that the ONLY passenger airliner that would NOT have cleared the RJ in this incident happens to be the A380. That would appear to indicate that the A380 is "too big" as opposed to the CRJ being "too small".

Indeed...and I would blame Airbus Industries for building such a ridiculously large aircraft that causes so much trouble for the world's "too small for it" airports. The entire infrastructure of any airport is totally upset by the arrival and departure of just one of these monsters...Customs, Immigration, Baggage handling etc., etc. I would just ban all A380 aircraft from ANY airport that was not specifically designed and built to cope with it. :rolleyes:

[bubbers44]

In Guatemala City if a wide body is taxiing out you can't land because of the proximity to the taxiway. I think all the blame will go on the Air France pilot because he was taxiing too fast and not making sure his wingtips were clear of other aircraft. Who is to blame if you crash into another airplane, the centerline?

[kazzie]

Has a french judge blamed AA, UA or the british engineer's that actually worked on that very wing yet? ;)

[hetfield]

I would blame Airbus Industries for building such a ridiculously large aircraftAB AND BOEING will build everything they are asked and payed for.

[Huck]

Nice first post, Pit Cock.

The RJ captain was certainly not planning to sit there long - he was blocking the road, and that road is busy. Maybe he was concerned about HIS wingtip proximity to something on the ramp and was waiting for the marshaller we see approaching in the foreground.

[aviatorhi]

To all those assisning "blame already: who is to blame if ATC sends 2 aircraft too wide for each other down opposite taxiways?

1) PIC of aircraft one for not keeping track of his wingtips.
2) PIC of aircraft two for not keeping track of his wingtips.
3) ATC for not assigning appropriate taxiways.

The point is that you can find multiple causes of each accident, it's not solely the AF crews fault, it's not solely the Comair crews faul, it's not solely ATC etc. etc. It's a combination.

This isn't the first time a plane taxiing out hit the tail of another plane. Just the first time it got caught on tape really, really well. Speed was not an issue, and usually never is, unlike some people would like you to think. What was an issue was the failure of the Comair crew to clear a taxiway when entering the ramp holding area and the AF captain to keep track of where his wingtips were. I've read some incredible nonsense here the last few days of people talking about hiring special personell to taxi aircraft in, collision monitoring and so on. The reality is that given enough opportunity Murphy will prevail and make the best laid plans (complete with every so called safety system in place) fall apart. I've had to park myself plenty of times without ramp crews available and/or missing. The fact that Comair appears to have a policy of restraining flight crews and handcuffing them to nonsense like this hold on arrival while waiting for ramp personell is absolutley crazy to me.

[Willoz269]

Oh for goodness sakes, what a lot of drivel!!

If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions. Before the A380 was cleared to fly into JFK, the Port Authority would have done its research into wingtip clearance and what was required for the safe operation of the aircraft.

The AF crew got clearance to taxy and they did...the CRJ was NOT at its stand and was holding short of it, at a spot that obviously was not clear to the controller and not visible enough for the AF pilot (who would have been safely assuming the CRJ would be holding with enough clearance).

This is a lesson for the JFK airport operator as well as ATC and new regulations will come out regarding ramp operations.

A couple of years back, a 747 clipped the tail of a 767 at YMML..since then, there has finally been proper documentation of aircraft type to hold at the particular taxiway.

[Turbine D]

aviatorhi

I am with you on your post. Plus, add the fact the airport authority asked for a variance (let's not make it wider) on taxiway width and received the same.

[HarryMann]

Speed was not an issue, and usually never is, unlike some people would like you to think. I'd say it is when a collison actually occurs... lady luck was operative here, anything could have happened with that sort of momentum at work.

In fact, if that video really is anywhere near true speed, then:

a) there's almost certainly hidden inertial damage to the CRJ airframe
b) there's almost certainly a few on board with pulled muscles in neck or back, at the least

That was a good few degrees/second... oldies onboard could have suffered, and a strike elsewhere could have produced a fire.

Not something to minimise, quite enough danger when airborne :ugh:

[aterpster]

Willoz269:

If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions.

You must not be either a pilot or a controller.

[FlightPathOBN]

You must not be either a pilot or a controller.

Concur!

Note that the Comair did not completely pull in due to ground crew issues...


(if I was driving a 380...I would be going like 5km, just because I know that nothing is set up for me)

[iskyfly]

Air France will be holding a criminal trial in French court about this matter. They are charging JFK ground controllers, the CRJ crew, JFK ground crew and the designers of JFK airport with criminal negligence.

[Loose rivets]

I'm starting to have second thoughts about this. Just wondering what a civil court might think about the case.

Someone might suggest that any airport that accepts an aircraft as different as the 380, should raise their standards, much to the same extent they raise the fees. Their expertise perhaps should encompass some awareness of the captain's difficulties in getting the aircraft safely to the end of the runway.

I don't know, but I wonder if the airport authority can absolve themselves of all responsibility.

[Snail Dave]

Willoz269:


Quote: If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions

I disagree. You can give a taxi clearance from the apron to the runway which can be a very, very long way at some airports (kilometres). It is not an assertion to the Captain that the taxiway to the runway is clear of obstructions and it does not imply that the situation will not change throughout his taxi to the runway either. It does not remove the Captains responsibility to exercise the appropriate judgement or care. This is why he's getting 350K a year (well, that's what some are getting to operate these beasts).

If a controller tells him to taxi into a ditch or into a hangar, will he do it unreservedly? No. Regardless of what the conditions etc were, he's responsible for not running it into anything - it's his jet.

[Fez International]

Doesn't KJFK require aircrafts which are not or could not fully docked in to report to ground control of their status? For e.g at KLAX at gate 101 at TBIT, pilots are required to report that they are fully gated in on the ground frquency.

[Willoz269]

Snail Dave...


I agree partially...obstructions is a broad term...I should have specified fixed obstructions....which in this case, the lack of clearance to the beginning of the ramp would be.

I just cannot believe all the garbage about the taxy speed of the A380 being a factor...if an aircraft is certified for operations on a particular runway or taxiway, it is the airport operator's duty to ensure the operators are aware of the necessary margins....if the Comair operator had been advised that stopping where they did would encrouch on the wing clearance for the Super weight class, I am sure they would have done something else...as it is, and with every accident, you cannot put 100% blame anywhere.

I see the NY Airport operator with the biggest responsibility here, ATC procedures second , Comair third and Air France last.

As for my experience...ATC and Pilot for many years...now retired.

[Willoz269]

A very good article...

JKF Airport Accident: Planes Bump (http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/jkf-airport-accident-planes-bump-24890632#video=24890632)

[Feathered]

aviatorhi wrote:
What was an issue was the failure of the Comair crew to clear a taxiway when entering the ramp holding area and the AF captain to keep track of where his wingtips were.

Willoz269 wrote:
I see the NY Airport operator with the biggest responsibility here, ATC procedures second , Comair third and Air France last.

The Comair CL-600 had apparently stopped to avoid hitting a ground vehicle in front of it. I'm not sure how that can be described as a "failure to clear a taxiway." If you were exiting a taxiway and something stopped in front of you, wouldn't you stop as well to avoid hitting their tail? I don't think maneuvering left or right was an option in this case. If you are hit while stopped, it is pretty difficult to blame you, IMHO.

[[Steve]]

MEMORIZE THAT SPOT mark it with a grease pencil or use an identifiable part of a window frame whatever. Look ahead and to the left at the cone placed ahead of the aircraft. Where does that cone appear on your glareshield??? You now KNOW where your left wingtip is going to be in the future when the aircraft moves straight ahead.

Excuse the SLF question, but could someone explain how that would apply in this case.

It seems to me that this may identify a position in the ground where the wing tip would pass over, but it would also require the pilot to estimate the relative position of the tail of the other jet compared to an imaginary line extending from that point upward.

Perhaps it's a lot simpler than I imagine (I'm imagining that you're still seeing this from an angle, and that night/wet isn't going to improve things).

I'll shut up now.

[KKoran]

If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions.
Using that logic, I suppose you would believe you were in the right if you plowed into the back of a line of aircraft on the taxiway you were cleared to taxi on.

[misd-agin]

post 193 -

Excuse the SLF question, but could someone explain how that would apply in this case.

It seems to me that this may identify a position in the ground where the wing tip would pass over, but it would also require the pilot to estimate the relative position of the tail of the other jet compared to an imaginary line extending from that point upward.

Perhaps it's a lot simpler than I imagine (I'm imagining that you're still seeing this from an angle, and that night/wet isn't going to improve things).

I'll shut up now.
*******************

Steve,

Passing your wingtip over an object is not a good idea unless you know for a fact that it will clear the object. Obviously that is not the case in this incident.

When you use this technique you'll know, while sitting in the Captain's seat, where your wingtip will be. Imagine putting a grease pencil line parallel to the ground where your wingtip will extend. As you approach an object it will be above, or below, the grease mark as you view it. If it's above the line it's outside of your wingspan. If it's below the line it's inside of your wingspan.

Approaching the CRJ tail it would have appeared below, or at least near, any 'mark' the pilot would use as a guideline. When an object is abeam the pilot it will not be in contact with the wingtip.

Another factor that helps using this technique is the side window is not that close to you as compared to an automobile. So any head movement doesn't not move your imaginary wingtip in or out as much as it would if the side window was very close.

You can demonstrate this by sitting upright, or slouching, with your hand near your face or with your arm fully extended, and comparing it against a fixed object in the distance. The closer your hand is to you the more vertical movement it appears to have when you shift your eye height.

[olegius]

4.) Who performed the A380 repairs? Would AF have a local carrier do it (e.g. Delta) who has no experience with A380 or would they fly in their own maintenance on one of their four other daily flights?
Airbus has tech personnel in JFK with A380 certification. You can notice people in "Airbus" wests going inspecting A380's at the gates.

[aviatorhi]

The Comair CL-600 had apparently stopped to avoid hitting a ground vehicle in front of it. I'm not sure how that can be described as a "failure to clear a taxiway." If you were exiting a taxiway and something stopped in front of you, wouldn't you stop as well to avoid hitting their tail? I don't think maneuvering left or right was an option in this case. If you are hit while stopped, it is pretty difficult to blame you, IMHO.
There's a lot of information going around as to why the COMAIR stopped. Point being that if I was forced to stop short due to a ground vehicle not giving way to taxiing aircraft I would advise ground:

"Kennedy Ground, Comair 123, we're unable to enter the ramp at this time, ground vehicle blocking our way" (or some variation thereof).

If it was due to lack of ground personell I'd probably just park myself. Not sure of Kennedy's policy but around here it's no big deal (:mad: happens). If Kennedy doesn't allow an aircraft to park itself I'd get as far in as I can to be sure that I'm clear of the ground controller's area of responsibility.

Furthermore, I didn't assign blame to anybody but made the point that anytime something like this happens it is a combination of things going on. For all we know the driver of the ground vehicle wasn't paying attention to the roadway because he was busy talking with his girlfriend on the phone (I AM NOT SAYING HE WAS, JUST PROVIDING AN EXMAPLE). Little would he think that answering a call from her would start a chain reaction that leads to several million dollars of damage. Situational awareness is key and the absolute most important thing in aviation. Flying and operating by the book will get you nowhere if you don't know where you are and what you're doing. We can argue semantics about procedures all day and all night, but the reality of the situation is AF did not keep appropriate track of his footprint (where his wingtips were), COMAIR encountered something out of the ordinary and it doesn't appear that flight did everything it could have to alert those in its immediate vicinity.

I most often see a similar thing happen with 747 drivers, who happily move the forward part of the aircraft off the runway and stop to wait for directions with their tail sticking out onto the runway as I'm on final, hasn't actually caused any incursions or occurences since they move forward in time. But it does show a clear lack of knowing what the position of their aircraft is.

[Old and Horrified]

A lot of absolute nonsense in this thread about speed. When I last flew to JKF (a long time ago -its probably even busier now) the taxiways were so busy that it was all eyes outside (three pairs in those days) and very slow taxi. Its obvious - the slower you go, the more time you have to see something amiss and the faster you go (20 knots as postulated is about 4 times as fast as we ever used to go) the less time you have.

[PENKO]

I think this could have happened in any aircraft. I'm sure many of us have been surprised by aircraft taxying well ahead of us which we thought we would clear once they turned away. Once an aircraft turns away from you it is very easy to 'forget' about it, especially if you have been taxying behind it for quite a while at constant speed. If however, that aircraft slows down in the turn, as many aircraft do, then suddenly you are seconds away from contact.

I am not saying that's what happened here though, just an observation.

[TurboDAWG]

For those suggesting Comair should have advised ground that they are not at the stand... keep the following in mind...

Once an Aircraft enters the ramp (Termial 2 in this case) the aircraft will switch to RAMP Control (131.375), They are No longer talking to ground control. The aircraft is in the Judistriction of Ramp control, not JFK Ground Control.

At most of the airports around the US, RAMP control is managed, staffed and run by the airlines them self, it is not an FAA facility... not sure how JFK is run but don't see why it would be any different than anywhere else.

No substitute to Vigillance.

[aviatorhi]

TurboDAWG, I understand that and that's great; Why was the aircraft not completley within the ramp area? I return to my previous points, there were multiple causes and the A380s speed was not a factor in the "cause" itself, it only contributed to the severity of the hit to the CRJ.

Also, I just got a good laugh out of somebody saying that 20 knots is 4x faster than people ever taxied...

Really? I never recall taking 30 minutes to taxi from one of a runway to the other, then or now (unless it was due to the volume of traffic). Imagine just how slow things would go if everyone was taxiing at 5-10 knots, at most major airports this would be a 1/2 hour to 45 minute taxi without anyone in front of you.

[arc-en-ciel]

For sure everyone is involved in an aircraft accident/incicent, ATC , the ground car, the Comair, AF PIC, JFK airport authority, etc...

However you can be sure, that if the AF crew was not be be blamed at all, Air France would have communicated already on this, as this event is making the buzz also in France, and they can't hide it like the AF330/380 incident in CDG a few months ago).

Only the AF A380 CVR will give a good answer, did they actually see the comair aircraft ? and/or discussed would it be clear or not ?!?

IF on the CVR there is something like FO saying " çà passe avec le petit jet à gauche ?" (it is ok with the small jet on the left) and Captain answers : c'est bon çà passe (it's Ok it will fit)... then deep **** for AF....

[malcolmf]

I've tried to make sure no one else has said this, so forgive me!
On the assumption that the ATC tape is in real time, what might have happened is this:
If the RHS was taxying the aircraft, then the Captain is doing the RT. He was given a "Give way opposite direction at KD" he then looks at his charts to try and find out where KD is. FO cannot see across and down to where the Comair is. Crunch.
Still not excusable, but understandable.
I have almost had a ground collision at Chicago where we had the 3rd runway change in as many minutes, I'm entering the data into ACARS and an MD11 appears from behind my screen pillar and goes right across the front. We were at a ground frequency change over point and he had been cleared by the other controller, but obviously expected us to be giving way to him.
The big surprise really is that there aren't many more collisions at JFK.

[Mikehotel152]

IF on the CVR there is something like FO saying " çà passe avec le petit jet à gauche ?" (it is ok with the small jet on the left) and Captain answers : c'est bon çà passe (it's Ok it will fit)... then deep **** for AF....
(My italics and underline)

No. It's deep **** whether they talked about it or not. Talking about it beforehand probably shifts it from negligence to gross negligence!:ugh:

[L337]

The French can try and blame who they want, but the fact remains that it is the Captain who is responsible for the safety of his aeroplane. On the ground, and in the air.

The Captain hit another aircraft on the ground, it is the Captains fault.

There may be mitigating circumstances, and lots of holes in cheese, but the buck stops on his lap.

[CDRW]

L337 - might your comments apply to the Commair crew as well?

[arc-en-ciel]

from the ATC tape released, sounds very much like the FO was doing the radio.. (very shy and rather young voice), so Captain was PF I suppose. Just guessing anyway.

[nilcostoptionmyass]

Tosh,

from the pax mobile phone cam you can make an assumption that the 380 was speeding ? No, he may have been but the difference in relative sizes also makes it difficult to tell.

Did the comy tell ground they were holding way off stand ? did ground tell 'super' to stop ? with such inertia, did 380 know what happened at once ?

Uncle Freds right, the system seems more at fault here.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I can't believe people are blaming the Comair crew and the ATC, just imagine the RJ had just suffered a NWS fault, and was just to communicate to ATC about it. Does that give a right for the AF crew to just plow through the back of it?

Fact is this is 100% the AF crews fault, if ever the "see and avoid" rule were to be followed, this is it.

[L337]

L337 - might your comments apply to the Commair crew as well?

I don't believe so. The Commair crew were parked, and hit from behind at night. However they failed to clear the active taxiway.....The crucial thing from the Commair crew perspective is, did they own up to it on the RT?

JFK is bedlum at the best of time. It is a place in a big aeroplane you need to be super cautious. I know "there but for the grace of God etc.." but if I hit a parked aeroplane, it is my fault. Even if it is parked in the wrong place, it is still my fault. It is my fault because it is my job to make sure that I am safe. That's what I am paid for.

[misd-agin]

nilcostoptionmyass - the length of the A380 is known. Measure the amount of time it takes to pass a known spot and you can figure out it's speed. It appears to be 20 kts (+/-). Using a stopwatch, instead of the timer on the video, will give a more accurate estimate of the speed.

Did AF know what happened at once? Well they surely suspected something because they came to an abrupt halt, way outside braking techniques used during normal ops.

[lambert]

Why does everybody keep talking about taxi clearances? They are actually taxi instructions. You can get a clearance to take off, land, climb, descend, taxi across a runway, etc. You can also get a taxi clearance which includes crossing runways, but the clearance if for the runway crossing, not the taxi.

In this case the instruction was to taxi A hold at E (ie don't cross 13L/31R)

[pilotmike]

It is a pity that [Steve]'s concerns about the potentially dangerous use of a grease pencil mark on a window to assess collision risk has been so lightly dismissed, particularly by misd-agin, who confidently states When you use this technique you'll know, while sitting in the Captain's seat, where your wingtip will be..
Sorry, but you simply can't KNOW that.

Steve's point was that the alignment gives a slant sight down to a point on the ground, so any object above said slant line, whether closer to you or not, will appear to be safe using this flawed technique.

misd-agin then goes on to misinterpret Steve's argument as suggesting it is safe to pass a wingtip over an object, which he patently was NOT suggesting.

This technique is flawed in many ways, and thankfully the original contributor has either removed his suggestion, or it has been done for him. Any error of just 1 cm in eye position, being 30cm or so from the window, will be magnified around 100 times at wingtip distance, giving a potential error in the order of metres. Sadly that was all it took in this unfortunate circumstance.

Anyway, for this method of sighting to work effectively, it pre-supposes the use of a head-clamp when seated, and that all obstructions (including aircraft tails and wings) conveniently be built vertically, with no overhangs. Sadly, in the real word, they are not, as in the design of the Comair's tail!

So to clarify, after placing our cone on the ramp, as we run back up to the flightdeck - no small journey on an A380 - how can we be certain that nobody has moved our cone? Then we must run back down to remove the cone after making our mark. Are you guys serious? Frankly, I have better ways to use my time on arrival at the aircraft.

Then there is the issue that we generally fly different aircraft each day, and we all sit slightly differently, so nobody else's grease pencil mark is any use to the next pilot. So this time-consuming process must be repeated each new duty, with removal of the grease mark each time too, and all in pursuit of a dangerously flawed technique.

I don't think so.

[lambert]

Incredible!! It is 2011 and we don't know where the wing tips are nor where on the runway V1 is, surely technology can save us?

[Huck]

and we all sit slightly differently

Not if you have those little balls on the center post to align yourself......
We're supposed to put our heads in the same position using known sightline references, on my aircraft (777F). And the rough location of our wingtips is detailed in the manual.

It is a rough gauge only, however. We were entering the freight ramp in Incheon last month and a 747-400 was leaving on the parallel yellow line. It looked so close to both of us that we stopped until they passed. I asked the ground controller what the advertised spacing was between us, and he said 5 meters..... Not alot of cushion.....

[Toruk Macto]

If a catering truck had of run into the wing of the 380 or engineers pushed the comair A/C into a hanger and rote it off would it have got such world wide attention. If a pilot is at fault it is 100 times worse. Why.

[forget]

Hmmm. Is he including the A380? -or just sleepy controllers.

Press Release – Statement from FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.
For Immediate Release. April 14, 2011

Over the last few weeks we have seen examples of unprofessional conduct on the part of a few individuals that have rightly caused the traveling public to question our ability to ensure their safety. This conduct must stop immediately. I am committed to maintaining the highest level of public confidence and that begins with strong leadership.

This morning I met with the head of our Air Traffic Organization, the part of the Federal Aviation Administration charged with operating our air traffic control system. Hank Krakowski has submitted his resignation and I have accepted it. Hank is a dedicated aviation professional and I thank him for his service. Starting today, I have asked David Grizzle, FAA's chief counsel, to assume the role of acting ATO chief operating officer while we conduct a nationwide search to permanently fill the position.

We are conducting a top to bottom review of the way we operate our air traffic control system. We are all responsible and accountable for safety–from senior FAA leadership to the controller in the tower. Employees at the FAA work diligently every day to run the safest air transportation system in the world. But I will continue to make whatever changes are necessary to ensure we concentrate on keeping the traveling public safe.

[pattern_is_full]

If a catering truck had of run into the wing of the 380 or engineers pushed the comair A/C into a hanger and rote it off would it have got such world wide attention. If a pilot is at fault it is 100 times worse. Why.

If a catering truck managed to damage TWO aircraft (including spinning one around on video) - it might get 100 times as much attention. :}

[surplus1]

I'm fascinated by the level of pure speculation being voiced by so many. There is so much that we do not actually KNOW.

Here are some dumb questions:

What exactly constitutes "clear of the taxiway"? Does that mean that no part of your aircraft is physically within the confines of the taxiway? Does it mean that you are also clear of the adjoining "grass" area [between ramp and taxiway]? What about the service road, is that included as well? Does it mean that 100% of your fuselage is within the ramp area?

Does the wingspan of the A380 fit within the confines of the taxiway? Does it extend beyond the limits of the taxiway; if so by how much does it overlap? Is it 1m, 2m, 3m, maybe more? If there is any overlap at all; does that mean that the A380 is never within the confines of any taxiway? Of this particular takiway (A)? What exactly constitutes being "on the taxiway", or within the taxiway? Does that mean ALL of your aircraft, or only certain parts of it? Which parts?

Is the crew of the Comair jet expected to assume that even though its aircraft may be [I]clear of the taxiway physically, it is possible that a A380 - whose span happens to extend beyond the confines of the taxiway - just might be passing behind it and therefore it must clear by enough to accomodate the A380? How does the Captain determine just how much is enough? Is it 1m, 2m, 10m?

Is it possible that the pilot of the CRJ could have backed up into the wing of the A380? Why didn't the pilot of the CRJ anticipate that an A380 might want to pass behind him?

Why is the A380 restricted from using Taxiway B? Is that because its wing span overlaps the taxiway by enough to cause a hazard on the adjacent runway? Did someone decide it was better to risk a collision with something on the ramp as opposed to something on the runway?

If there is nothing particularly unusual about this aircraft (A380) that constitues significant hazard while it is moving about the airport, then why all the special restricitions and limitations (pages long) about where it can go?

Are the pilots of other aircraft types expected to make special allowances in their own operations for the unusual nature of the A380's size, or does that responsibility rest with the pilots of the A380? Is it the responsibility of the controllers? The airport authority?

Unitl we KNOW the actuall FACTS that lead to this incident, attempts to shift blame around appear to be a waste of time.

The only thing we KNOW at this point is that one of two aircraft collided with the other. Let the experts decide which, why and how; after which you can crucify the culprit(s) of your choosing.

[LetsFlyAway]

Is the FO allowed to taxi the aircraft or is this duty only allowed by the captain?

[JW411]

Well; I suppose having already made one contribution to this thread about an experience that I had at JFK when a PanAm 747 chopped the tail off a Renown Nord 262, I had better comment upon the (mostly) rubbish that is being posted on this forum.

I can confidently state that 99% of the heretics on this forum have never ever tried to taxi a wide-bodied airliner around JFK in either seat.

I have been particularly amused at "aviatorhi's" postings which tells us exactly how he would deal with JFK Ground's taxi instructions.

As those of us who actually do (did) these things, the instructions after landing is "next right, hold short 22R, Ground Point 9".

That means "Contact JFK Ground 121.9"

You are then going to get "Left Outer, Juliet, Right Inner Foxtrot, IAB".

That's it.

The guy is so busy that he does not have time to discuss the matter.

JFK is the biggest zoological garden in the world. I was based there as a DC-10 captain for three years.

Someone made the comment to the holier-than-thou guy from LGW (who told us all that all we had to do was follow "the green lights" on the taxiway). As someone pointed out, not only does JFK not have centreline lighting, but the yellow centreline painted lines are "difficult to see in the wet".

You want to try it in the snow my friend!

So what else do I want to have a rant about?

The idiots who cannot understand why we don't know where our wingtips are + or - five feet.

I never flew the 747 but I did fly the DC-10-10 and the DC-10-30.

It was impossible to see the wingtips of the DC-10-10 from the cockpit. It was "just possible" to see the wingtips of the DC-10-30 from the cockpit. I can confidently state that any of you out there who can judge within 10 feet of where your wingtip actually is could possibly be headed for an expensive surprise.

If you don't believe me and have never tried it before, I will tell you a story. I have now retired from professional flying and I bought myself a little PA-28. I loaned it to a B744 captain from a pretty famous airline and he managed to hit a fence-post with the right wing tip and caused £3000 of damage to my aircraft!

[CelticRambler]

It is 2011 and we don't know where the wing tips are nor where on the runway V1 is, surely technology can save us?

Of course it can! :ok: Trinity College to the rescue:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/collision-prevention-system-to-be-tested-in-dublin/1005617.article (http://http//www.theengineer.co.uk/news/collision-prevention-system-to-be-tested-in-dublin/1005617.article)

The WingWatch System (http://www.scss.tcd.ie/Gerard.Lacey/Gerard_Lacey_Homepage/WingWatch.html)

[pilotmike]

@Huck:Not if you have those little balls on the center post to align yourself......
We're supposed to put our heads in the same position using known sightline references,
Flawed again... Aligning those 2 balls can ONLY put your eyes somewhere on a line (2 points in space define an infinitely long line). You are free to move your eyes along that line, whilst keeping the balls perfectly aligned.

As pilots move their heads along that line (still with your balls perfectly aligned, remember, oh er missus!) you are introducing an error about 100 times larger in predicting where the wing tip is supposed to be.

As I said earlier, it is a highly flawed technique, based on very shaky assumptions. Maybe the AF captain was trying it as he taxied into his mishap?

[jcjeant]

Hi,


1.6vs
My thoughts go out to the A.F. captain right now. He must feel awful after what happened. He was obviously distracted for a split second but thankfully nobody was hurt.
:confused:

visibility3miles
Neck injuries and whiplash are a concern for passengers in the smaller plane whether or not they hire lawyers. You can't get whipped around like that without some risk of injury, as the seat belts securely fastened wont stop your head and neck from getting rapidly tossed sideways.
And there are the psychological trauma to add at your list !
:ok:

BTW .....
It is clear that the A380 was not in flight .. but in a rolling phase ..
All traffic regulations include the rule that:
Every driver must be able to stop before any obstacle predictable or unpredictable :8

[robertbartsch]

....anyone care to speculate on how long it would take to repair the AF wing? I assume this situation is much different from the wing that was damaged from the RR engine failure last year; right?

[Loose rivets]

Only the AF A380 CVR will give a good answer, did they actually see the comair aircraft ? and/or discussed would it be clear or not ?!?


This is the point I was trying to make earlier. Everything should be mentally/visually 'swept' clear at 150m.

What did the AF skipper register in his mind . . . where was his attention in those crucial 150metres?



********



There seems to be some confusion about how long the small aircraft was in that position, but assuming it wasn't long, the skipper has an absolute right to come to a standstill any time he is concerned that it may not be safe to continue. Just seeing that vehicle pass in front of him is just cause to stop and consider two main things: Is HE in the right place, if vehicular traffic is passing, and/or is anything else likely to be heading his way - and I don't mean the behemoth attacking from the rear!


If ever we find we're forced to press on into situations we don't like, just because we might get hit from the rear, then we'll know modern airports are simply no longer equipped for modern flight-movement numbers.

[Max Angle]

There are lot human factor type incidents in aviation in which blame is shared by many people and the commander of the aircraft can, quite reasonably, not be held fully or even partially accountable.

Unfortunately for the AF Captain, regardless of the various factors involved, hitting a stationary aircraft whilst taxing is not one of them and he must shoulder the blame. All too easy to screw up though, the potential is there for all us every time we let the park brake off no matter how good we think we are.

[fireflybob]

All sympathies to the AF crew.

Yes the Captain is responsible but there again if a football teams loses 30 goals to nil, you wouldn't blame it all on the goalkeeper.

[I.A.T.U. Butler]

Your football analogy is incorrect. The manager picks the goalkeeper, hence he is responsible.

There is no excuse, I do not believe maneuvering an A380 is more tricky than a 777-300?

There are currently two threads running here on Air France accidents. Not a good advertisement for this carrier.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

To all those who believe the AF captain is not at fault.

If the A380 captain had seen the potential collision and had come to a stop to avoid it but then somebody had rammed him from behind who would have been at fault then?!

[Capt Sly]

Can we stop blaming people, and start trying to find a way to prevent this happening again. It seems like this is your typical 'Swiss cheese' accident. If the truck hadn't been where it was, if the RJ had pulled forward, if the RJ had notified 'Ground' that they weren't parked/were impinging the taxiway, if the AF had been more cautious and stopped a bit earlier, then we wouldn't be debating this right now.

Taxiing Heavies at JFK is a nightmare, especially at night, and it feels like nobody is on your side. So boys and girls, how do we prevent this happening again? Could this happen at your base, and if not why not? What needs to change? (And please no stupid answers, like rebuild JFK from scratch - its not going to happen any time soon!)

[CaptainDan80]

I have 25 years taxiing narrow body and wide body aircraft and we almost always have to stop and wait for ground equipment to be moved or a guideman and most of the time we are hanging out on a taxiway. If some moron hits you he is 100% at fault!!!!!!!! End of story.

[Rananim]

In light of the new info about the RJ not being fully parked I'd say:

Special aircraft require special treatment(both from pilot and ATC).AF skipper will take the blame but so must ATC.They knew an A380 was taxiing and should have ensured the RJ was FULLY parked before issuing clearance.If the RJ pilot didnt report fully parked then I still say its encumbent upon ATC to verify that he is clear before issuing "continue taxi" instruction.Only if the RJ pilot reports fully parked when he's not gets ATC clear off the hook.The 2 frequencies(ramp vs gnd) does cloud the issue but doesnt let ATC off the hook.Two aircraft in close proximity both talking on different freqs never works.Its up to ATC to cover that uncertainty.JFK controllers are slick but there are occasions when slickness is the wrong MO.Sometimes they need to slow down and be more circumspect.

[MountainBear]

JFK controllers are slick but there are occasions when slickness is the wrong MO.Sometimes they need to slow down and be more circumspect.

There are many words to accurately describe New Yorkers, including some which are unprintable. 'Circumspect' is not one of them. Ever.

[stepwilk]

"If the A380 captain had seen the potential collision and had come to a stop to avoid it but then somebody had rammed him from behind who would have been at fault then?!"

We are truly straw-grasping here. T-category aircraft taxiing are in no way similar to SUVs doing a bumper-to-bumper 60 on the LIE.

[ATCFloripa]

After an accident/incident happens, it seems one of the first actions is looking for who is guilty; well, a pair of low power laser beams assembled at the tip of the wings and pointing the ground beside the cockpit or ahead, would help the pilots to see precisely and in advance whether they have or not enough room to pass.

[iskyfly]

....anyone care to speculate on how long it would take to repair the AF wing?

it was back in the air 24 hours later.

[Feathered]

robertbartsch wrote:
....anyone care to speculate on how long it would take to repair the AF wing? I assume this situation is much different from the wing that was damaged from the RR engine failure last year; right?

Apparently less than 24 hours.... Actually less than that because I doubt maintenance was allowed to touch the airplane before the investigators gave the ok.

"It will buff right out..."

[SimJock]

Just two points from my observations.

From the overhead pics provided, this '+' intersection has clearance bar lights (3 yellow in pavement hold lights). Accepting that these are normally used for low vis operations, it might be a good idea to use these for A380 movements, ie hold the A380 at intersections until the preceding aircraft has reported, in this case 'on stand' or in another case 'at it's next cleared postion'.

The apron area boundary is marked in this case by a road, on other airports there is often a dark pink or red line which I assume marks the boundary between the declared taxiway width and apron area. The 'see and avoid' principle surely still applies on the ground, if it's hanging out past the line or boundary, stop and get it investigated.

Just my opinion.

[Exascot]

If the A380 captain had seen the potential collision and had come to a stop to avoid it but then somebody had rammed him from behind who would have been at fault then?!

No question unless it was also an AF of course:hmm:

[Airbus_a321]

agree with rananim and mountainbear in almost all aspects, but the AF skipper is not to blame - it's all ATC fault - maybe a little too relaxed. Or was the skipper given Taxi clearance on "own discretion" ? - for shure not.

On a good airport with good controllers all my career long we were always advised to stop, or to hold short or.... until the ground traffic was clear. sometimes the controllers were overcautious and also we reported clear from ground traffic they were waiting for info from additional sources. so JFK obviously a "special airport" with "special":} ground controllers...

[aviatorhi]

@Simjock,

Not a bad idea, but don't single out the A380, I think the 747-8 and the An-225 fit into the same category as far as width is concerned.

@A321,

While I'm not part of the lynch mob saying the AF A380 driver is exlusivley at fault, he contributed the most of anybody. It's his responsibility to know where his wingtips are and he failed at that. Failed by as little as 6 inches but failed all the same.

[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?

[aterpster]

CaptainDan80:

I have 25 years taxiing narrow body and wide body aircraft and we almost always have to stop and wait for ground equipment to be moved or a guideman and most of the time we are hanging out on a taxiway. If some moron hits you he is 100% at fault!!!!!!!! End of story.

27 years for me. I am in complete agreement with you except my experience was not "almost aways" but certainly it happened on a quite reqular basis. Your last sentence is absolutely correct.

I'll add, if in doubt about an ambiguous taxiway or ramp conflict, coming to a complete stop until it is resolved makes you, at worst, the "hittee." The exception is not leaving your tail hanging out over the runway unless you simply cannot move forward, in which case you need to be forceful about it to ATC.

[barit1]

AdvancePost #145 correctly states the A380 is an ICAO Cat F aircraft. It is also only 3/4" short of the maximum wingspan for that category.

Is that 3/4" true in Riyadh as well as Edmonton? :eek:

[old,not bold]

The exception is not leaving your tail hanging out over the runway

Or, indeed, penetrating the obstruction surface while landings and/or takeoffs are in progress, to be technical. But it's really ATC's job to look after that.

[fsfaludi]

There are many "reasons" for the collision, but ultimately... who ran into who?

Answer that question and THAT is who is responsible. No?