Seems to me that the CRJ was waiting for a marshaller, in fact the person walking out may be him. So why then was the CRJ presumed to be clear of the TWY? Can the controller in charge of that patch see? Did the CRJ report he was waiting? Was any kind of local traffic passed? So many questions!

In my patch there are a few unsighted areas of the terminal area. And pilots often do fail to mention they're just sitting off the gate waiting. Hopefully a positive, in the form of tightened procedures, will come out of this.

You may find that any number of individuals, groups, procedures, pieces of infrastructure, what have you, caused a situation that lead to this collision.
However in the end you are left with this: A moving aircraft hits a non-moving aircraft. When playing the blame game, it doesn´t get any more clear cut than that.

We were in an A340 the other night, number 2 to AF A380 in JFK recently, when AF was taxing past us at a rate of knots. They are pushy guys wanting their way all the time.

No doubt the tail light of CRJ would hard to see at night, and the wing span is huge on the A380 and possibly wing tip is not as high as expected, but, at the end of the day, the moving party is going to be doing the explaining.

Had this been daytime, AF would've have stopped or slowed down and the CRJ may have told to move forward. It would go to show that AF would've had to yield and not just blunder thru.
ATC is not responsible for wingtip clearance, but can advise. The sole responsibility lies with the AF PIC. The CRJ had his back to the AF A380 completely so I am surprised he even knew who bumped him.

Many aircraft stop before entering the ramp area and it is understood why, change of frequency, congested area and congested frequency. The CRJ is lucky all are ok. How many of us undo the shoulder straps when taxing in and now, we know why to keep seat belts fastened until the seat belt sign is turned off.

Judging from the picture/movie, I think the movie ends before AF stops completely.

Looked like 6 seconds by my rough estimate using the frame clock. That translates to 23.7 knots or 27.27 mph.

If this is the same one that SLF can use, from memory from my trip on an EK one, you still can't see the wing tips

I did listen to the audio and went to the trouble of finding a chart for JFK. AF was cleared to taxy along A and hold short at E for a 22R departure. Next call was to hold at KD for opposite direction traffic. Accident actually happened at the junction of A and M, well before that, so there was no call from ATC to warn about the CRJ. I would assume that is because ATC had not been informed that there was a problem

Taxiway chart here to help
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1104/00610AD.PDF

Weather around the time

KJFK 120051Z 19013KT 9SM BKN250 12/10 A2958=
KJFK 112351Z VRB03KT 7SM CLR BKN250 12/10 A2957=
KJFK 112351Z COR VRB03KT 7SM FEW100 BKN250 12/10 A2957=
KJFK 112251Z 20013KT 7SM FEW045 SCT130 BKN250 12/10 A2957=
KJFK 112151Z 19011G18KT 7SM FEW045 SCT130 BKN250 14/11 A2958=

Suzeman

Yes, he is told to hold short at Echo, AF says for information he can accept Foxtrot - so he is quite prepared to take off from the intersection and certainly not dawdling. "Plan for the full length", is the terse reply.

As one who has spent a fair portion of my life at JFK I just cant belive that anyone would expect the Ground Controllers to warn crews about every potential collision posibility, {they cant even see some gates} dear God they would never stop talking or come up for air! Its real simple, the buck stops in the left seat, period!

One thing to consider here - the pilots may have seen the RJ and had no worries, as there is no way to judge where one's airplane is at that scale, one would not rely on eyeballing, particularly at night, when sitting at the wheel of a rolling auditorium - one would have a reasonable expectation that the ground crew had done their jobs properly and that "the RJ I see there to my left, is out of my superjumbo's path..."

-drl

I don't care how you cut it the AF guys should still be making sure aircraft are clear. Common sense.

CRJ out of its stand ?
 

Hi all!

From the video made at the ramp, after the "touch" :\, I could swear that the CRJ was out of the stand. If that is true it'll be a key information to know why.

I honestlly don't believe the speed of the A380 was a factor for this mishap. It would clip the CRJ anyway :ouch: if the smaller plane was in fact out of it's stand.

If on the other hand, this was Air France's fault....it is becoming a dangerous airline to fly... :ooh:

Saúde! :)

deSitter:

I'm amazed that the A380 doesn't have cameras for just this purpose. Lacking that, if there is an iota of doubt, the safe course of action is to stop the aircraft and request confirmation of clearance.

Common sense is great, but the human visual system has limitations. I doubt anyone could judge to within say 10 feet the distance of something 120 feet distant directly ahead, not to say, to one side, particularly when sitting high up with attention focused on taxiing an ocean liner.

-drl

Cam
 

I think cameras are not always good for taxi. They can fool you, due to distortion...

Genuine question: are the wingtips of an A380 visible from the LHS on the flightdeck?

Would have thought it easily possible that they might not be.

Seeing as everybody is throwing their two pence in, I think ATC should have spotted the threat here. "Caution the CRJ parking on stand xx, when he's on stand, continue taxi..." From the audio, the AF gets a number of contradictory taxi instructions for taxiways further on, meaning one of the pilots could have been 'heads in' checking the taxi chart at the time of collision.

I believe that a number of airfields make follow-me cars mandatory for A380 ops.

let's face it boys and girls, if a plane is stopped and another plane is moving, who is really at fault? every rule requires us to visually avoid collision...visiblity was obviously OK and low vis procedures were not in effect.

AS the air france is likely to record it speeds, even on the ground, it will be interesting to see the exact speed.

grumpyold geeks analysis is right on.

if I may add...I would think that the captain on the AF probably was more comfortable with flying the concorde...joke...due to its super fast speed...ha.

I do offer this serious suggestion...that ALL super jumbo planes be escorted with pilot cars at all four points...nose, wing tips left and right, and tail...that the escort cars be in radio contact with ATC and Captain of escorted aircraft.
That a speed limit of 5 knots on the IRS be enforced with a bitcy woman's voice...You are going too fast you dumb ass.

Even with the F-ME car in front of the A380 it would be dificult to see it there was clerance. The F-ME goes ahead of the plane and far from the wingtip...and worse, at night!!! The key for this, is in the reason why the CRJ was not INside its parking stand... :(

Sevenstrokeroll,
Of course. And all cars should have a man with a red flag walking in front of it!
Get real.

Maybe this will be a wakeup call to the dangers of mixing large transports with swarms of pestilential RJs manned by inexperienced crews. At Atlanta, the RJ pest is confined mostly to one concourse, where they can get in each others' ways without impacting real aviation at all :)

-drl

"..man with a red flag.."

..being dragged by the leash behind a bomb-sniffing dog!

I seem to remember they make the A380 at LAX park in the boonies. But you know how strict they are in LA regarding parking.

-drl

You cannot ignore the basic fact that when two aircraft collide and one of those aircraft is stationary, the moving aircraft is prima facie at fault. There's no need for a debate about speed - even if the latest footage shows they were taxying too quickly - and there's no scope for arguing contributory negligence by ATC or the RJ. The AF pilot made an error of judgment.

Looking over the design of JFK - it looks like 5 local airports have been fused by a matter transporter into some sort of board game for Titans. All that's missing is START HERE and a "CandyLand" arch over the JFK Expressway. It's a wonder this doesn't happen all the time.

-drl

These guys hit a stationary aircraft, end of story. If you are taxying the biggest airliner in the world, you look where you are going and would watch your tip clearances like a hawk.

Regardless of whether the video is actual speed, the velocity of the CRJ is exactly the same....

AirFrance are getting a bit of a reputation for incidents and accidents.

It's the ground controller's fault
 

If the ground controller had been speaking in French at the time then this would not have happened. ;)

IMHO responsibility lies with the moving aircraft. Someone in the cockpit needs to have their head up (no, not there!) and looking around. If the Comair wasn't parked yet - why didn't someone in the A380 notice it was sticking out more than the parked craft? They can't see their wing tips - but they can see what is ahead of them on the flight line.

A pilot who is not constantly and vigilantly aware that the "World's biggest passenger plane" is going to have more clearance problems than the average plane (up to 30 feet per side more than a 747) - probably should not be crewing the "World's biggest passenger plane."

I notice ATC had to remind the AF crew to shut down their engines so the emergency trucks could move in - but I cut them some slack on that - they were no doubt a bit shaken emotionally after the collision.

deSitter, the reason that JFK is the way it is goes back a few years. At the time of the original build most aircraft were piston {DC6/Connie/ DC4/ DC4M/plus all the twins} these aircraft were OK on 6000ft strips, so JFK was built with a whole bunch of runways radiating out like spokes from the centeral terminal, one end being tangental to the terminal , the theory being that wind permiting ,flights could land straight in no matter which direction they were coming from.THEN somone introduced the early four engine jet transports which required a lot of blacktop to get of and on the ground, so those runways became taxiways , thats why its the way it is today. At Heathrow it a bit different, they lost the plans in 1955 and have just been making it up as they go along ever since!

I was in the congo line at JFK one night waiting my turn to take-off on 13R. One of the local commuter airlines was flying a fleet of modified Nord 262 twin turboprops (I think the Americans called them Mohawk 298s). They were forever calling for "intersection take-offs" and were darting in and out of the congo line like ferrets up a drainpipe.

Anyway, there was a PanAm 747 about five aircraft ahead of me and he moved forward. The chap driving the Nord 262 had not moved forward far enough for his "intersection take-off" and the 747 took the entire fin and rudder off the Nord.

"God dammit" said our commuter friend "somebody has taken my tail off".

He then evacuated his aircraft so we had passengers running around in the dark in a congo line of 30 or so wide-body aircraft. How no one got killed was a miracle.

The 747 crew did not feel a thing.

I've just seen the BBC tv report on it - with aerial photos of the aircraft - there looks like a bit more damage than just the winglet taken off - the whole nav light area is missing :eek:

This is the second time this has happened at JFK, a Saudia 747 clipped a BAE 146 tail, in the early nineties if memory serves.

I'm going to hazard a guess here. The A380 was certainly taxiing down the centerline, and I'm also assuming the CRJ was stopped at his usual spot on the Comair ramp awaiting a marshaller.

JFK is an old airport with narrow taxiways, and incredibly busy around trans-Atlantic departure time. Whoever was responsible for ensuring Taxiway Alpha was suitable for the A380's wingspan, the FAA is my guess, may have dropped the ball on this one.

I'm sure they're already out there with rulers, pencils and measuring tapes, fine-tooth combing for any other spots they've missed.

I'm not arguing that the fault is with the moving aircraft and the responsibility rests with the Captain whether he or the copilot was doing the taxiing.

However having taxied widebodied planes where one cannot see the wingtips and having taxied at JFK I do have some sympathy with the Air France pilot.

If one has been assigned a tight parking spot it is common to have wingmen assigned to assist with parking but it does not happen for routine taxiing. At holding points short of the runway where several taxiways merge into a large pan one has to take particular care.

If someone is correctly following an ATC taxiing instruction and is taxiing in the middle of the taxiway and clonks a wingtip it is highly likely the aircraft he has hit should not be there. The taxiways at JFK are not that wide and there is little scope for going right of the centreline to avoid an obstacle on the left. Indeed turning to the right merely makes the left wing stick out a bit more.There will doubtless be questions as to was the regional jet in the correct place and if he was then it may have been an incorrect ATC instruction to use a taxiway that had inadequate wingtip clearance for an A380. If the Air France had realised and come to a stop in time before impact he would have had to be pushed back which is a major cock up on someone's part.

So although the responsibility for the accident is ultimately that of the Air France Captain it is likely that one or more other errors have been made first by others that led to this accident. The outcome of the investigation will be interesting.
　

Does anybody know whether the A380 crew has visibility (via video camera) of their wing tips?

With a wing span of 261 feet it must be a fairly daunting task manoeuvring the aircraft without some sort of visual perspective reference wing clearances.

It does have a camera system called ETACS, unfortunately the camera in the tail doesn't give a view of the wingtips. It only shows the wings up to just inboard of each outboard engine (it has markers on screen to show where the wing gear is so the crew can more easily judge on tight turns).

The smaller view on the upper part of the screen just shows the nose gear from a belly mounted camera.

Image found of ETACS, it's standard fit on the A380 but the display has to be manually selected by the crew - don't know what their company procedure is but it would have been no help in this situation anyway.

Air France A380 Taxi Camera display

inexperienced crews?
 

Just commenting on deSitter's observation a page ago making an assumption about the RJ's crew experience level. While the Airbus crew no doubt has more total time, I have to wonder if they are likely less experienced in type than the RJ pilots. For this type of accident, time in type may be the more important metric (having a feel for your dimensions, etc.)

A lot of airports that I fly to have wingspan limitations on selected taxiways. It will be interesting to see if considering such limitations is part of the response to this incident.

"You break it you bought it." One plane is stopped, one is moving. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the fault lies.

I've had aircraft try to 'sneak' by in tight spots. I set the parking brake. Makes the investigation that much quicker to solve. :ok:

"When in doubt stop the airplane." :D

Damage Photos
 

Several daylight, close-up damage photos available at Closeup Damage Photos of Air France A380 and Delta CRJ Bumper Planes | NYCAviation

My first impression is the wingtip clipped the rudder trailing edge under the horizontal stab. If so, just a couple feet might have made a difference.

(Gotta laugh, just noticed photos credited to "Bart Crashley")

Wow,one little slip up(not so little for Comair obviously) and its on the www for everyone to see.How embarassing.Taxiing one of these things is an art.You just cant be too cautious in something this big.If he's on the centreline then ATC or airport management must take at least some of the blame.

I don't think so (unless you mean vertically!) - the leading edge is damaged as far as the slats which has to be a reasonable distance on a 380 wing.

Maybe someone knows the answer - It looks to me like the A380 cockpit is a mite lower (a meter perhaps) than the 747 cockpit.

FAA v/S BEA...
 

At least there will be an FAA investigation on this one...

...a few month ago an A330 of AF has cut the tail of another AF A380 in CDG...no BEA investigation !!!!

I am surprised after this recent AF A380 incident/accident in CDG, that the AF A380 pilots are still taxiing like their A330 "cowboys" colleagues !!
(the A380 of AF was holding short of the stand without passing any info of this to ATC, A330 PIC , captain, thought it would it "ok".... and boum !!!)

may be FAA will ask info about this A380/A330 incient in CDG a few month ago... to learn a bit about the "Air France safety culture"........!!!!!!!!:ugh:

Every 747-driver flying into JFK knows the dangers of taxiing at JFK (even worse during low visibility and snow/blizard conditions). Quite a few times I have stopped during taxi, suspecting insufficient clearance (which, BTW, is really hard to see from 30 feet up, with a wingspan of –only- 213 feet, just being able to see your wingtip), or mix-up in the routing. Most of the time there was no problem, but twice I was right in stopping the aircraft (to improve flight safety: you should hear the comments of the JFK ground/apron controllers). Now, I only visit JFK about twice a year, but if I have already experienced this twice, then (potential) ground incidents must be (at least) a daily occurrence. Which brings me to the question of whether taxiing at JFK with the supers (and even heavies) is an accident waiting to happen.

Also, remember the A380 BKK mishap in sep 2007 .. and those guys were (home turf)Thai pilots and Airbus testpilots. Why are there no (legal requirements for) pilot aids to detect/avoid taxi mishaps for these aircraft and why don’t companies insist on installing them? Every two bit car is equipped with such a system, why not a $300 mln aircraft (with a similar system)?

Perhaps it is up to the (international) pilot community to start writing safety reports each time ground clearance was (potentially) compromised. Incidents and accidents are piling up (even with follow me cars and marshallers). Just blaming the pilot:ouch: is not only very convenient but also highly ineffective in preventing future accidents.