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.

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.

For those suggesting Comair should call Ground...
 

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.

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.

ça passe... ou ça casse !
 

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....

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.

(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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 .
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.

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?

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.....

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.

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.