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

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 [in this case] the Comair jet expected to assume that even though its aircraft may be 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.

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

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!

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

The WingWatch System

@Huck: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?

Hi,


1.6vs
:confused:

visibility3miles
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

....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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?!

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!)

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.

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.

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

"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.

A cheap idea to solve this problem
 

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.

it was back in the air 24 hours later.