Quote:

---

LRInteresting. So Manchester provides the escort - presumably because it wants the revenues and perhaps even the kudos. Just how do they do this without assuming some responsibility?

Perhaps a tablet of stone delivered to the captain. "You taxi at your own risk."

---

Now you're just being silly.
It matters not if it is an A380 or a Cessna 150. If it's being marshalled or using a 'follow me', it's still the aeroplane drivers final responsibility not to hit anything. The size of the aircraft is utterly irrelevant. Procedures exist the world over for specific aircraft smaller than A380's. Kudos or any of that other BS doesn't come into it, the responsibility of the marshaller and aircrew are the same, they're just using different equipment.

'Marshallers' have training and procedures to provide safe guidance regardless of the size of aircraft, they have a responsibility/duty of care to do just that. They are not infallible, therefore the Captain must satisfy himself that the guidance provided is appropriate, and stop/query it if unhappy. This doesn't just apply to aircrew it applies to 'tuggies' and 'spanner w###ers' riding the brakes of an aircraft under tow. If an incident occurs then the operations staff will probably have to take a share of the blame, but that 'share' will depend on each individual circumstance.

The captain is unliklely to get off without any liability in a ground incident where his aircraft hits another object, because he taxi's at his own risk.

Well, sarcasm is often called irony on PpruNe, I don't know why, I was intending to be plain sarcastic.


We have OPS manual SOPs that make it quite clear where the buck stops, and we have blanket legislation substantiating the logic of these SOPs. Yet, we blithely allow skippers into situations which require them to maneuver in difficult circumstances. Occasionally, very difficult circumstances. Oh, but don't worry, someone will help by writing something like:

I think this is a contender for the most mind-numbingly banal statement ever to be put in any aviation manual, but there, that's just me again.




I recall one skipper in the early days of jet transport who likened being a pilot to - something like - traversing a gorge on a tightrope with crocodiles snapping from below. Funny the things that stick in one's mind, but he was right. He also taxied more slowly than anyone I've met before or since.

I was never quite sure if he instilled confidence, or radiated a lack of the same.

20,000 hours in a log book seems to be no protection from that transition from being a respected and incident-free aircrew member, to feeling that first shudder through the airframe. Horrific. My heart really goes out to this guy.

I think this forum should be about brainstorming in general, so incidents like this can be--all but--eliminated, and one thing that's coming out of this to me, is that pilots will be put in ever increasing danger of falling into traps set by others, then being told they are responsible.

As I've said, my gut feeling is that in this case he may have looked away and therefore culpable, but as a general rule, I don't think a blanket refusal of any form of responsibility by the airport/ATC authorities helps long term flight safety, or the industry as a whole.

In that context, I'm amazed nobody 'picked up' on an earlier post about the C5, which seems to have additional taxying lights in the wingtips, lighting up anything that may get in the way of those very wingtips.
Sounds like the answer to me, but then I'm just an engineer, I don't taxy 'heavies' in the night....

+1

Sure there are always many factors that go into a dinged airplane, but the buck stops in that front left seat. I would rather take the responsibility and the freedom to make my own decisions now and then.

I can all but guarantee that captain won't even get close to another aircraft for the rest of his career. Additionally, with all the training this will generate it will probably be a while before any 380 runs into something.

Maybe JFK should be closed for all A380 flights that taxi at high speed without knowledge of their wingspan. Up until now JFK has not had any abnormal problems with jets running into each other. Just close US airports to the A380 until they can resolve their problem. It isn't ours, we don't build any jets with a wing span our airports can't handle. It isn't our job to adapt to what other people want to fly. Let them pay for the separation of taxiways. This incident involved a smaller jet on the ramp, not a taxiway.

The FAA and US ATC had little to do with this incident. The PIC should have known his wingtip clearance and avoided the collision.

I have always known mine and after 23,000 hrs never clipped a wing. It isn't that hard.

Dumbing down taxiing to a beam of light off a wingtip coincides with automation to make flying so simple a caveman could do it but it looks like it is going that way so why not. I'm so glad I'm retired.

What's so bad about a visual aid as opposed to having to guesstimate?

If your idea of flying is that it should be more difficult in order to be safer then I'm glad you're retired too.

A 'safe' but 'brisk' taxi helps to keep things flowing nicely, I just don't see the speed as an issue here. To me its purely a matter involving contact between the two birds.

There needs to be a 'do not exceed' push back point which takes into account the length and wingspan of the largest category aircraft to operate in a specific area.

Guys,

Aircraft of every airline, make and model have been hitting each other for ages. Why spend 15 pages discussing this just because it's a 380 this time?

CJ,
The L188 Electra has / had "clearance lights" shining down from the wing tip like the C5. This illuminates a spot on the ground to help with taxiing.
The A380 needs this and a camera to see it.

How about lazers on the wing tips projecting a visible marker of exactly where the tips are. Seems simple enough?

They would just lead you into a false sense of security, as soon as you started turning swept wing growth was make the lasers worse than useless.

Wing tip taxi lights to illuminate the general area in front of the wing would be useful, I don't know if the A380 has these or not.

Fun facts (note I wrote facts) about the event:

COM CRJ7 was stationary in the ramp for over four minutes prior to the collision. The aircraft was positioned so a B763 was able to taxi past on the alpha taxiway.

The A388 was taxied left on to alpha, against the prevailing flow of traffic because that is how the airport operator (The Port Authority of NY and NJ) wants the A388 moved. The bravo taxiway is only available when alpha is closed. The A388 cannot turn right on alpha because of clearance with the service roads.

The A388 did not depart JFK the morning after the event and as of 4/15 was still at JFK.

Did someone just seriously suggest attaching l@sers to wingtips?

That would be very popular with fellow pilots on the ground I'm sure :ugh::ugh:

The 380 is still at JFK (Reg F-HPJD)

Not sure where the previous poster got info that it flew off the next day?

Air France collision taxing at JFK

The previous poster saw the airplane with his own eyes!

but this is a "push-in" problem. In other words he was not yet fully in the barn.

Still sat on the tarmac at JFK with a slat missing and the wingtip stripped down?

HM79 - I wasn't meaning you, someone posted much earlier in this thread that the 380 had flown home the next day.

Yes, post #235, the poster claimed the A380 was back flying 24 hours after the incident.

bubbers44, post #281, said :

"Maybe JFK should be closed for all A380 flights that taxi at high speed without knowledge of their wingspan."

The 380 was taxiing at 9 kt. Don't trust video...


PS: Don't know how to quote, tried the "quick reply button" but did not work:confused: