It looks like the CRJ700 stopped for a truck crossing in front of it based on a video on TV here.

A380 shunt
 

Bare in mind that aircraft have to follow the green taxi lines which are also illuminated by green lights at night.

So either they were not following that line,running off the line,or the parked aircraft was parked too far back (not likely) or its a simple matter of the A380 just being too big for this taxiway . It all depends if it can be proved that the 380 was off track and too far to the left of the taxi lin


a sign seen airside on most airports uk

' Pilots and tug drivers are responsible for wingtip clearance!

Oh puleeeeze! :ugh:

That's an interesting observation. Given that the CRJ700/900 series involved in this incident is as long as or longer than the A318/319 and the B737-200/300/400/500/600/700 and only 1.4m shorter than the B717 - can I presume that you would also ban those types from JFK or is it just your politics that's showing? Prejudice should not play any role in accident avoidance/prevention.

Preliminary data would seem to indicate that the ONLY passenger airliner that would NOT have cleared the RJ in this incident happens to be the A380. That would appear to indicate that the A380 is "too big" as opposed to the CRJ being "too small".

I haven't read thru this whole cackling hens thread, but notice much mention that a 380 Captain or copilot can NOT see the wingtips when seated in the cockpit. I could not see the wingtips either as I recall from the left or right seat of a 777, 767, 757 and I don't think I could from a DC10 a 727 or Super 80.
If any of you pilots would like a simple (but takes a little time/effort) method of learning where your invisible wingtips are...... go out on the ramp and grab a few of those orange plastic traffic cones that are all over ramps. Put a cone directly under the left wingtip. Walk forward parallel to the fuselage and place another cone abeam the cockpit. Move forward, again paralell to the fuselage perhaps 1/2 aircraft length and place another cone on the tarmac. Climb aboard your aircraft, get in the left seat an adjust the seat exactly as you would for flight. Now turn your head left (don't lean or bend body just swivel head) and note where the orange cone is in your left window. MEMORIZE THAT SPOT mark it with a grease pencil or use an identifiable part of a window frame whatever. Look ahead and to the left at the cone placed ahead of the aircraft. Where does that cone appear on your glareshield??? You now KNOW where your left wingtip is going to be in the future when the aircraft moves straight ahead. You can, and should do the same for the right wingtip using "landmarks" on the windows of the right side of the cockpit. Have your co-pilots do this same exercise, because they are also on scene when metal is bent and probably would like to know where the wingtips are as well.

I liked to move the cone ahead of the aircraft on the left to the spot where the cone was in the left corner of the glareshield and the left windshield vertical post of the 77, 75 and 76.

This method will give you an inner peace (just try it)); knowing where your wingtips are while taxiing about various airports on the planet; at least during those times you are going straight.
You can also look ahead of you when directly behind like aircraft on a taxiway and see where their wingtips are in "landmarks" on your windows.

The technique was very helpful as a CKA when riding around with a new Captain who had no clue about his/her wingtip location. Showed 'em the cone technique during the first walk around check.

Oh puhleeeze!

Obviously never been to JFK! They don't have "green" taxiway lines and they don't have green centreline lights on most of them. Just blue edge lights. The faded yellow centrelines are extremely difficult to see at night and nigh on impossible in the wet.

Why is it not likely? You should know if you're an airside worker at LGW that if a stand is not fully ready, the a/c will hold short until it is. In the video of this incident, it is quite obvious that the CRJ is holding short of the stand for whatever reason, as is his prerogative.

Those wishing to offer "expert opinion" without the experience or qualification to do so should avail themselves of a parallel thread in Jet Blast where they can shmooze with fellow raconteurs and pretend they are all pals whilst moaning about the "sky-gods" on this thread who, where it is obvious, are offering opinion based on fact and experience. Here, I'll help you. Just follow this link: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4485...ishap-jfk.html

It seems the discussion is all about whether or not the AF captain is to blame, but shouldn't it be re-centered a bit? The real point should be, why did it happen? That's obviously not the same thing.

There have been some posts, e.g. #163, #143, #145 and others, emphasizing that JFK at night is a hard place to taxi in. Obviously both the ground controllers and A380 PIC knew this, as did other people who might have helped prevent the accident. So it looks to me like, whether from overconfidence, routine, tiredness, plain bad luck (AKA combination of unfortunate circumstances) or whatever, people weren't being careful enough - possibly not following the rules either (about going clockwise). So there must be a lesson for improved operations here. No offence to mumbo, but that seems obvious even to a non-expert.

Also, just possibly, this may be a reason for Airbus to add zoom to those taxiing cameras - although, mind, it'd have been hard to judge the available space even if you could see the wingtip from the cam, due to the angle involved. It's a question of practice I think.

In the earlier posts on this thread, many opined that the video seemed to be faster than normal citing the walking pace of the ground crew prior to the collision and the taxiing speed of the AF plane.

I just saw a version of the collision video from AP and it seems to my eye and senses that everything is moving slightly slower.

Looking at this link, the A380 does not appear to be moving quite as fast (I make no judgment whether it is the appropriate speed). I believe the ground crew begin running toward planes after they collide. The sequence with truck crossing in front of the RJ is missing.

SKS777flyer - I've done the same without cones. Observe markings on the ground in line with the wing tips and abeam the cockpit. Observe the locations after sitting in the seat.

Another method is while taxiing behind the same aircraft type observe what their wingtips pass over (laterally). As you pass the same spot observe where those marks/signs/man hole covers/grass spot, etc are on your side windows.

It's fairly simple from the seat position I favor(lower than 'official'). If I can see it in the FO's side window(R2) it's outside of the wingtip. On my side the extended wingtip line is about 1/3 of the distance above the lower screw (757/767) on the aft side of the on the L2 window.

Any doubt....stop. Come anywhere near my 'marks'...stop.

Oh, the world was a very safe place yesterday. Why? The AF A380 incident was the lead (#1) story on U.S. national news(NBC 6:30 PM).

War? Debt? Riots? Political infighting? Nope. AF A380 hits CRJ.

There was a story on ABC World News last night. It points out some things which may have contributed to this event. Here is the video (after the pet commercial)...

World News with Diane Sawyer - ABC News

Yes, I've tried to post that observation for the last 24h, but [as a full-career ATCO] I seemed unable to post. Perhaps this time it will work?

There seemed a lot of activity at the CRJ's intended ramp, which led it to be obstructing the taxiway.

Throughout this thread there has been consistent discussion about the PIC being able to see his wingtip. Not for one moment do I think this is the issue.

The truth hinges on what that captain saw, say, 150M prior to the collision, and how he interpreted it.

The worst scenario would be that he made the assumption the CRJ was progressing normally and therefore going to 'clear'.


Did he simply not see it? Remember, he may have been really straining to see the poor markings, and concentrating on keeping dead-center on the narrow and damp taxiway.

Only an in-depth analysis of this poor guy's visual clues and thought process leading up to the collision, will be of help to finding the cause.


Lastly, I found the communications bewildering. Is there a prize for being laconic on American RT? Converting from ATPL to ATP years ago, the radio was my only difficulty. It doesn't seem to have got much better.

Parabellum above makes the most interesting point of all, which is the practice of parking two RJs at the same stand. You can see the resulting chaos in this Google Maps view of Concourse C and D at ATL:

Google Maps

Jigsaw puzzle parking!

Google Maps

Although all the little sparrows' tail feathers may be inside the line, it's clearly chaos on the ground here. In one place it seems as if as many as 4 RJs are parked at the same stand once used by Delta's L1011s. Throw in baggage trams and utility trucks in a tight squeeze airport like JFK and you are asking for trouble.

The real issue here is the choking of hub airports with RJ traffic.

Here's JFK's brand of jigsaw parking:

Google Maps

No birds in this nest though - must have been a large owl perched on the terminal scared'em off :)

I guess you actually have to know something to appreciate what happened. On TV this morning, a captain tilton spoke out on the subject of : NOSEWHEEL ON THE YELLOW LINE.

IF I am on the centerline with my nosewheel, whatever happens ISN'T MY FAULT.

I chuckled. Tilton is a nice guy...flew at American I think...mad dogs...or bigger, not sure.

BUT, we learned a long time ago at my airline that one particular gate at chicago midway, if you put your nosewheel on the line, your starboard wing would hit the fence.

So much for the : Nosewheel on the centerline theory.

There are lots of things to consider in how to avoid this type of accident in the future. One poster even insisted I was out for blood...how CRAZY is that? I don't want blood. But I do know that it seems that a plane that was at a halt, was struck by a plane moving. I cannot fathom any other physical reality. IF both planes were moving...well, we would have to take a good long look. IF both planes were at a halt, there would not have been a collision. But one was moving and that plane is at fault.

The airbus 380 captain knew when he bid the aircraft that certain problems would require unique solutions. Wingspan was part of the equation.

Certainly a case can be made against certifying an airplane that is too big for existing taxiways and airports. TV cameras or other anti collision tools should have been mandated.

Does anyone remember when Boeing considered having folding wing tips ( like on aircraft carrier based planes) for its B777? This was to avoid problems caused by a long wing span.

I saw one poster mention that JFK was an international airport and that regional jets shouldn't be there. Heck, I know of international airports that have grass runways/taxiways...its just a designation for customs or immigration staffing.

Some speak of insufficent lighting on the regional jet...I could plainly see it in the video, and assuming that the camera was not infrared or such, the same lighting would have allowed another airplane's crew to see the RJ.

We all know that during taxi, we do the pre takeoff or taxi checklist. Sadly, that can be distracting. In a perfect world, we would set the parking brake and do the checks and then release the brake and go about getting into the wild blue.

Well, it could have been worse folks...there will be lots to learn, and reconsider. Maybe a very pistol should be fired whenever an A380 moves? (kidding).

http://i52.tinypic.com/2vls038.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/10po6iv.jpg

Anyone know if the captain or the FO was actually taxying?

Indeed...and I would blame Airbus Industries for building such a ridiculously large aircraft that causes so much trouble for the world's "too small for it" airports. The entire infrastructure of any airport is totally upset by the arrival and departure of just one of these monsters...Customs, Immigration, Baggage handling etc., etc. I would just ban all A380 aircraft from ANY airport that was not specifically designed and built to cope with it. :rolleyes:

In Guatemala City if a wide body is taxiing out you can't land because of the proximity to the taxiway. I think all the blame will go on the Air France pilot because he was taxiing too fast and not making sure his wingtips were clear of other aircraft. Who is to blame if you crash into another airplane, the centerline?

Has a french judge blamed AA, UA or the british engineer's that actually worked on that very wing yet? ;)

AB AND BOEING will build everything they are asked and payed for.

Nice first post, Pit Cock.

The RJ captain was certainly not planning to sit there long - he was blocking the road, and that road is busy. Maybe he was concerned about HIS wingtip proximity to something on the ramp and was waiting for the marshaller we see approaching in the foreground.

To all those assisning "blame already: who is to blame if ATC sends 2 aircraft too wide for each other down opposite taxiways?

1) PIC of aircraft one for not keeping track of his wingtips.
2) PIC of aircraft two for not keeping track of his wingtips.
3) ATC for not assigning appropriate taxiways.

The point is that you can find multiple causes of each accident, it's not solely the AF crews fault, it's not solely the Comair crews faul, it's not solely ATC etc. etc. It's a combination.

This isn't the first time a plane taxiing out hit the tail of another plane. Just the first time it got caught on tape really, really well. Speed was not an issue, and usually never is, unlike some people would like you to think. What was an issue was the failure of the Comair crew to clear a taxiway when entering the ramp holding area and the AF captain to keep track of where his wingtips were. I've read some incredible nonsense here the last few days of people talking about hiring special personell to taxi aircraft in, collision monitoring and so on. The reality is that given enough opportunity Murphy will prevail and make the best laid plans (complete with every so called safety system in place) fall apart. I've had to park myself plenty of times without ramp crews available and/or missing. The fact that Comair appears to have a policy of restraining flight crews and handcuffing them to nonsense like this hold on arrival while waiting for ramp personell is absolutley crazy to me.

Oh for goodness sakes, what a lot of drivel!!

If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions. Before the A380 was cleared to fly into JFK, the Port Authority would have done its research into wingtip clearance and what was required for the safe operation of the aircraft.

The AF crew got clearance to taxy and they did...the CRJ was NOT at its stand and was holding short of it, at a spot that obviously was not clear to the controller and not visible enough for the AF pilot (who would have been safely assuming the CRJ would be holding with enough clearance).

This is a lesson for the JFK airport operator as well as ATC and new regulations will come out regarding ramp operations.

A couple of years back, a 747 clipped the tail of a 767 at YMML..since then, there has finally been proper documentation of aircraft type to hold at the particular taxiway.

aviatorhi

I am with you on your post. Plus, add the fact the airport authority asked for a variance (let's not make it wider) on taxiway width and received the same.

I'd say it is when a collison actually occurs... lady luck was operative here, anything could have happened with that sort of momentum at work.

In fact, if that video really is anywhere near true speed, then:

a) there's almost certainly hidden inertial damage to the CRJ airframe
b) there's almost certainly a few on board with pulled muscles in neck or back, at the least

That was a good few degrees/second... oldies onboard could have suffered, and a strike elsewhere could have produced a fire.

Not something to minimise, quite enough danger when airborne :ugh:

Willoz269:

You must not be either a pilot or a controller.

Concur!

Note that the Comair did not completely pull in due to ground crew issues...


(if I was driving a 380...I would be going like 5km, just because I know that nothing is set up for me)

Air France will be holding a criminal trial in French court about this matter. They are charging JFK ground controllers, the CRJ crew, JFK ground crew and the designers of JFK airport with criminal negligence.

I'm starting to have second thoughts about this. Just wondering what a civil court might think about the case.

Someone might suggest that any airport that accepts an aircraft as different as the 380, should raise their standards, much to the same extent they raise the fees. Their expertise perhaps should encompass some awareness of the captain's difficulties in getting the aircraft safely to the end of the runway.

I don't know, but I wonder if the airport authority can absolve themselves of all responsibility.

Willoz269:


Quote: If a ground controller gives me a clearance to taxy down a taxiway, it is perfectly assumed by the pilot that the taxiway is clear of obstructions

I disagree. You can give a taxi clearance from the apron to the runway which can be a very, very long way at some airports (kilometres). It is not an assertion to the Captain that the taxiway to the runway is clear of obstructions and it does not imply that the situation will not change throughout his taxi to the runway either. It does not remove the Captains responsibility to exercise the appropriate judgement or care. This is why he's getting 350K a year (well, that's what some are getting to operate these beasts).

If a controller tells him to taxi into a ditch or into a hangar, will he do it unreservedly? No. Regardless of what the conditions etc were, he's responsible for not running it into anything - it's his jet.

Doesn't KJFK require aircrafts which are not or could not fully docked in to report to ground control of their status? For e.g at KLAX at gate 101 at TBIT, pilots are required to report that they are fully gated in on the ground frquency.

Snail Dave...


I agree partially...obstructions is a broad term...I should have specified fixed obstructions....which in this case, the lack of clearance to the beginning of the ramp would be.

I just cannot believe all the garbage about the taxy speed of the A380 being a factor...if an aircraft is certified for operations on a particular runway or taxiway, it is the airport operator's duty to ensure the operators are aware of the necessary margins....if the Comair operator had been advised that stopping where they did would encrouch on the wing clearance for the Super weight class, I am sure they would have done something else...as it is, and with every accident, you cannot put 100% blame anywhere.

I see the NY Airport operator with the biggest responsibility here, ATC procedures second , Comair third and Air France last.

As for my experience...ATC and Pilot for many years...now retired.

A very good article...

JKF Airport Accident: Planes Bump

aviatorhi wrote:
Willoz269 wrote:
The Comair CL-600 had apparently stopped to avoid hitting a ground vehicle in front of it. I'm not sure how that can be described as a "failure to clear a taxiway." If you were exiting a taxiway and something stopped in front of you, wouldn't you stop as well to avoid hitting their tail? I don't think maneuvering left or right was an option in this case. If you are hit while stopped, it is pretty difficult to blame you, IMHO.

Excuse the SLF question, but could someone explain how that would apply in this case.

It seems to me that this may identify a position in the ground where the wing tip would pass over, but it would also require the pilot to estimate the relative position of the tail of the other jet compared to an imaginary line extending from that point upward.

Perhaps it's a lot simpler than I imagine (I'm imagining that you're still seeing this from an angle, and that night/wet isn't going to improve things).

I'll shut up now.

Using that logic, I suppose you would believe you were in the right if you plowed into the back of a line of aircraft on the taxiway you were cleared to taxi on.

post 193 -

Excuse the SLF question, but could someone explain how that would apply in this case.

It seems to me that this may identify a position in the ground where the wing tip would pass over, but it would also require the pilot to estimate the relative position of the tail of the other jet compared to an imaginary line extending from that point upward.

Perhaps it's a lot simpler than I imagine (I'm imagining that you're still seeing this from an angle, and that night/wet isn't going to improve things).

I'll shut up now.
*******************

Steve,

Passing your wingtip over an object is not a good idea unless you know for a fact that it will clear the object. Obviously that is not the case in this incident.

When you use this technique you'll know, while sitting in the Captain's seat, where your wingtip will be. Imagine putting a grease pencil line parallel to the ground where your wingtip will extend. As you approach an object it will be above, or below, the grease mark as you view it. If it's above the line it's outside of your wingspan. If it's below the line it's inside of your wingspan.

Approaching the CRJ tail it would have appeared below, or at least near, any 'mark' the pilot would use as a guideline. When an object is abeam the pilot it will not be in contact with the wingtip.

Another factor that helps using this technique is the side window is not that close to you as compared to an automobile. So any head movement doesn't not move your imaginary wingtip in or out as much as it would if the side window was very close.

You can demonstrate this by sitting upright, or slouching, with your hand near your face or with your arm fully extended, and comparing it against a fixed object in the distance. The closer your hand is to you the more vertical movement it appears to have when you shift your eye height.

Airbus has tech personnel in JFK with A380 certification. You can notice people in "Airbus" wests going inspecting A380's at the gates.

There's a lot of information going around as to why the COMAIR stopped. Point being that if I was forced to stop short due to a ground vehicle not giving way to taxiing aircraft I would advise ground:

"Kennedy Ground, Comair 123, we're unable to enter the ramp at this time, ground vehicle blocking our way" (or some variation thereof).

If it was due to lack of ground personell I'd probably just park myself. Not sure of Kennedy's policy but around here it's no big deal (:mad: happens). If Kennedy doesn't allow an aircraft to park itself I'd get as far in as I can to be sure that I'm clear of the ground controller's area of responsibility.

Furthermore, I didn't assign blame to anybody but made the point that anytime something like this happens it is a combination of things going on. For all we know the driver of the ground vehicle wasn't paying attention to the roadway because he was busy talking with his girlfriend on the phone (I AM NOT SAYING HE WAS, JUST PROVIDING AN EXMAPLE). Little would he think that answering a call from her would start a chain reaction that leads to several million dollars of damage. Situational awareness is key and the absolute most important thing in aviation. Flying and operating by the book will get you nowhere if you don't know where you are and what you're doing. We can argue semantics about procedures all day and all night, but the reality of the situation is AF did not keep appropriate track of his footprint (where his wingtips were), COMAIR encountered something out of the ordinary and it doesn't appear that flight did everything it could have to alert those in its immediate vicinity.

I most often see a similar thing happen with 747 drivers, who happily move the forward part of the aircraft off the runway and stop to wait for directions with their tail sticking out onto the runway as I'm on final, hasn't actually caused any incursions or occurences since they move forward in time. But it does show a clear lack of knowing what the position of their aircraft is.