I understand the B744-8F has wingtip downward facing lights to help judge clearances:ok:

FAA's La Hood was just interviewed by Chris Wallace on a variety of topics. Relative to this thread, he pronounced "human error was involved", and then ducked the follow-up question: "Who screwed up?" by saying that the NTSB is still working to determine that.

"...and then ducked the follow-up question: "Who screwed up?" by saying that the NTSB is still working to determine that."

Why would you say he "ducked the question"? Sounds like a reasonable answer to me--indeed the very answer that is often suggested right here on this forum.

Starting at the top of the list - Who decided that class f a/c could use this taxiway? Where is the engineering documentation? Or - was it a political edict? :eek:

Cameras = safety
 

"On the A380 engine failure thread, it was mentioned that the crew were rushing about looking out of the cabin windows trying to see what had happened, but were unable to, and I asked the question why it would not be possible to mount a camera or two at points where they could see the engines, since CCTV cameras about the size and weight of a fag packet can be obtained for only few pounds.

Would it not also be a good idea to install one looking forward from each wingtip to see any obstructions that might be looming in their path? "

:ugh:

Yes - what a great idea. Lets taxi around not looking out the window - but watching TV instead...

Safety cameras have such a great track record in other walks of life too don't they. No brainer really...

How about: Look where you are going and know the width of your vehicle. Just like every other thing that moves on land, water or air.

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE reading PPRUNE - but there is some :}

Maybe the video was at times 2 speed. It doesn't make much difference, the captain needs to know where his wings are when he upgrades to a bigger airplane. The guy sitting on the ground he hit was ordered to hold for a 767 before taxiing so it wasn't his fault or ATC's fault. Every captain is responsible for his aircraft. The A380 captain screwed up by not clearing his wing. Does anybody disagree with that? I don't want to put the captain down but think it will all go on his shoulders after the investigation.

The A380 was cleared along a blocked taxiway? Sure, good airmanship dictates you try not to run into anything, but ATC should have told the A380 to stop. What's the point of having ATControl otherwise?

I suppose when ATC clears you to the runway holding point, you would would blame the controller for not telling you to stop before hitting the preceding aircraft waiting to depart.

We dont want your kind here!!
 

bubbers44

Is that a bit of protectionism := creeping in there ...

Looks like Chuck Berry needs to add some "pilots' verses" to It Wasn't Me!

Toolin' down the taxiway, on my way to France
Whacked into a CRJ and, boy, I made 'er dance!
It wasn't me, Boss! No no, it wasn't me!
It musta been some other body, unh-uh Boss, it wasn't me!

The taxiways are narrow, the ATC's unheard,
Just blame it all on JFK - and not my lovely bird!
It wasn't me, F-A-A, it wasn't me!
It musta been some other body, Nossir Cap'n, It wasn't me!

too much !!!
 

There have been 3 posts that I consider solid and helpful in the case, too many in my opinion bear a fowl taste of patriotism and protectionism.
Those three post I think are helpful were TurboDAWG #145, lomapaseo #246 and Loose Rivets # 278.
Not much to add, but few facts, taken from ICAO Annex 14, charts and Google Earth aerials.

TWY "A" and "B" width less than 25 m - ICAO recommendation for Cat. "F" type aircraft not fullfiled.

Safety distance TWY "A" -centreline to objects min. 57,5 m - ICAO recommendation for Cat "F" type aircraft not fulfilled ( here I consider the service road and the cars using it as "object")

Safety distance centreline TWY "A" and "B" - min 97,5 m ICAO recommendation for CAT "F" type aircraft not fulfilled.

Notwithstanding these known shortcomings the FAA and the Port Authority of New York has certified KJFK for A 380 operations.

Finally, if a taxi clearance is issued it must be assured the intended taxi path is clear and safe to be used by the recipient of that clearance. Once a clearance is issued the conduct of that motion has to be monitored closely, especial in known difficult conditions.

As was posted before: that is why there is Ground Control and what those in charge get payed for.
Jo

annex14:

Who appointed you to make such profound judgments? I didn't defend the chaos that is typically JFK, rather I stated that fact. I also stated that I have come to a stop many times at JFK and many other airports over the years when there was any doubt whatsover about wingtip clearance.

Since you didn't include me in your esteemed list, I presume my observations and operating procedures must have been in your "fowl" (foul) taste category.

I am at a loss to understand your logic.

If crews believe an ATC taxi instruction is a guarantee of a clear route, why do half of them call up for taxi with a tug blocking their way (possibly still attached) and even ground personnel on the taxiway ahead of them?

From the UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1:
"Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions........to assist pilots in preventing collisions between.........aircraft moving on the apron, and aircraft and vehicles on the manoeuvering area".

I think a previous poster has hit the nail on the head.

No-one is (I believe) absolving the aircraft commander of any responsibility, but, as in so many incidents/accidents before, there is a chain of events/failings that lead to the mishap. To deny that denies the opportunity to learn and ensure that robust and sustainable measures are put in place to prevent this happening again

To believe otherwise demonstrates a very hidebound view of ALL aspects of flight safety, both on the ground and in the air...

Interesting to see that our friends on the French forum are keeping a fairly low profile on the case at issue, but with some curious observations at
http://www.pprune.org/french-forum/4...on-menage.html

Amongst other comments, such as ""seigneur de l'atlantique" "lord of the Atlantic", they include:

#3 les tests psycho a la con d'AF n'avaient-ils pas detecte que ce cdb est un kamikaze?

Did psychological testing at AF not show that this skipper is a kamikaze?

and

# 10 Quand j'atterris à cdg je suis toujours surpris dont la majorité de leurs avions roulent comme des fangio de nuit.

When landing at CDG I'm always surprised that the majority of their aircraft roll like boy racers.

As they say in France "Aucun commentaire" - "No comment".....


Jack (not Jacques)

If Annex14 in post#308 is correct, there should be some action at JFK!

I sure feel sorry for the captain of the A380. I feel he is going to wear the majority of the blame for this near tragedy, so we await the report.
That said, in the end there needs to be some resolution of why it happend and how such an occurence can be avoided in the future. :ouch:

So let's leave it to the FAA work on that.

In the meantime, I am sure there will be many other suggestions here. The problem is that the posters have no concrete ideas how to prevent more such events.
Lots of freely given suggestions... some of which may be in the final report. I just think a major contributory factor is that JFK is not A380 friendly. But then again, which airport is?

FN

The captain shouldn't shoulder all the blame. As the flight safety goalkeeper his job is made all the harder when teamed up with a crappy defence. In no particular order:
1. The FAA
2. JFK ATC
3. The other members of his crew.
In my opinion, JFK ATC are a huge flight safety problem that needs addressing. They speak too quickly, use non standard RT and aggressively bite your head off if questioned or asked to repeat an instruction. None of this is of benefit to flight safety and most of it is a hindrance. When you combine a third world airport with poor controllers, taxiing around JFK can be considered to be a very high threat environment.

Loopdeloop:

Quote:

---

In my opinion, JFK ATC are a huge flight safety problem that needs addressing. They speak too quickly, use non standard RT and aggressively bite your head off if questioned or asked to repeat an instruction. None of this is of benefit to flight safety and most of it is a hindrance. When you combine a third world airport with poor controllers, taxiing around JFK can be considered to be a very high threat environment.

---

JFK was a major airport for my former airline. I flew in there from 1964 to 1990. It has always had issues during busy times. It used to be it was busy from about 2:00 PM to 9:00 PM, or so. That has changed. It is busy starting much earlier now.

Chaotic, yes; third world, hardly. Those kinds of negative terms do nothing but invoke emotion. In effect, what I think you are saying is the AF captain would have been just fine had he been at a first world airport. At a first world airport a commuter airplane with its tail in a questionable position relative to the taxiway would not be a problem. An A380 pressing on as in "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead," would not have been a problem at a first world airport even with the commuter bird postured as it was at JFK.

Of course, controllers at first world airports never have accent or speaking issues, even when the ground traffic is overwhelming.

BTW, for those of you who live in countries where the national government owns all those first world airports, that is not the case in the U.S. With the exception of KDCA and KIAD, the U.S. national government does not own or operate airports. JFK, LGA, and EWR are owned by the Port of New York Authority which is an entity of of NY and NJ.

A lot of money has been spent on JFK, especially in the past several years. As to the controllers, they work for the FAA, but most of them are from the New York metro area. They have bidding rights, thus choose to live where most Americans would not.

One good way to avoid JFK is simply not have New York as a destination. It is Paris with a New York accent. Most of us choose to avoid the place(s).

Annex 14 - there's no room at JFK to have the spacing for Cat F a/c. There are several other options - waiver(approved), don't fly there, or be more vigilant.