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

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/...ilot/AF380.jpg


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

Oh, pictures and videos and all outside BEA Jurisdiction.

Not good for AF.

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

Running down the center line not your only job.
 

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

@ tatin

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.

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:

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.

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.

Daysleeper,

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 :
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.

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

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.

Your fault
 

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:.

Speed Sensing
 

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.