A lot of absolute nonsense in this thread about speed. When I last flew to JKF (a long time ago -its probably even busier now) the taxiways were so busy that it was all eyes outside (three pairs in those days) and very slow taxi. Its obvious - the slower you go, the more time you have to see something amiss and the faster you go (20 knots as postulated is about 4 times as fast as we ever used to go) the less time you have.

I think this could have happened in any aircraft. I'm sure many of us have been surprised by aircraft taxying well ahead of us which we thought we would clear once they turned away. Once an aircraft turns away from you it is very easy to 'forget' about it, especially if you have been taxying behind it for quite a while at constant speed. If however, that aircraft slows down in the turn, as many aircraft do, then suddenly you are seconds away from contact.

I am not saying that's what happened here though, just an observation.

For those suggesting Comair should call Ground...
 

For those suggesting Comair should have advised ground that they are not at the stand... keep the following in mind...

Once an Aircraft enters the ramp (Termial 2 in this case) the aircraft will switch to RAMP Control (131.375), They are No longer talking to ground control. The aircraft is in the Judistriction of Ramp control, not JFK Ground Control.

At most of the airports around the US, RAMP control is managed, staffed and run by the airlines them self, it is not an FAA facility... not sure how JFK is run but don't see why it would be any different than anywhere else.

No substitute to Vigillance.

TurboDAWG, I understand that and that's great; Why was the aircraft not completley within the ramp area? I return to my previous points, there were multiple causes and the A380s speed was not a factor in the "cause" itself, it only contributed to the severity of the hit to the CRJ.

Also, I just got a good laugh out of somebody saying that 20 knots is 4x faster than people ever taxied...

Really? I never recall taking 30 minutes to taxi from one of a runway to the other, then or now (unless it was due to the volume of traffic). Imagine just how slow things would go if everyone was taxiing at 5-10 knots, at most major airports this would be a 1/2 hour to 45 minute taxi without anyone in front of you.

ça passe... ou ça casse !
 

For sure everyone is involved in an aircraft accident/incicent, ATC , the ground car, the Comair, AF PIC, JFK airport authority, etc...

However you can be sure, that if the AF crew was not be be blamed at all, Air France would have communicated already on this, as this event is making the buzz also in France, and they can't hide it like the AF330/380 incident in CDG a few months ago).

Only the AF A380 CVR will give a good answer, did they actually see the comair aircraft ? and/or discussed would it be clear or not ?!?

IF on the CVR there is something like FO saying " çà passe avec le petit jet à gauche ?" (it is ok with the small jet on the left) and Captain answers : c'est bon çà passe (it's Ok it will fit)... then deep **** for AF....

I've tried to make sure no one else has said this, so forgive me!
On the assumption that the ATC tape is in real time, what might have happened is this:
If the RHS was taxying the aircraft, then the Captain is doing the RT. He was given a "Give way opposite direction at KD" he then looks at his charts to try and find out where KD is. FO cannot see across and down to where the Comair is. Crunch.
Still not excusable, but understandable.
I have almost had a ground collision at Chicago where we had the 3rd runway change in as many minutes, I'm entering the data into ACARS and an MD11 appears from behind my screen pillar and goes right across the front. We were at a ground frequency change over point and he had been cleared by the other controller, but obviously expected us to be giving way to him.
The big surprise really is that there aren't many more collisions at JFK.

(My italics and underline)

No. It's deep **** whether they talked about it or not. Talking about it beforehand probably shifts it from negligence to gross negligence!:ugh:

The French can try and blame who they want, but the fact remains that it is the Captain who is responsible for the safety of his aeroplane. On the ground, and in the air.

The Captain hit another aircraft on the ground, it is the Captains fault.

There may be mitigating circumstances, and lots of holes in cheese, but the buck stops on his lap.

L337 - might your comments apply to the Commair crew as well?

from the ATC tape released, sounds very much like the FO was doing the radio.. (very shy and rather young voice), so Captain was PF I suppose. Just guessing anyway.

Tosh,

from the pax mobile phone cam you can make an assumption that the 380 was speeding ? No, he may have been but the difference in relative sizes also makes it difficult to tell.

Did the comy tell ground they were holding way off stand ? did ground tell 'super' to stop ? with such inertia, did 380 know what happened at once ?

Uncle Freds right, the system seems more at fault here.

I can't believe people are blaming the Comair crew and the ATC, just imagine the RJ had just suffered a NWS fault, and was just to communicate to ATC about it. Does that give a right for the AF crew to just plow through the back of it?

Fact is this is 100% the AF crews fault, if ever the "see and avoid" rule were to be followed, this is it.

I don't believe so. The Commair crew were parked, and hit from behind at night. However they failed to clear the active taxiway.....The crucial thing from the Commair crew perspective is, did they own up to it on the RT?

JFK is bedlum at the best of time. It is a place in a big aeroplane you need to be super cautious. I know "there but for the grace of God etc.." but if I hit a parked aeroplane, it is my fault. Even if it is parked in the wrong place, it is still my fault. It is my fault because it is my job to make sure that I am safe. That's what I am paid for.

nilcostoptionmyass - the length of the A380 is known. Measure the amount of time it takes to pass a known spot and you can figure out it's speed. It appears to be 20 kts (+/-). Using a stopwatch, instead of the timer on the video, will give a more accurate estimate of the speed.

Did AF know what happened at once? Well they surely suspected something because they came to an abrupt halt, way outside braking techniques used during normal ops.

Why does everybody keep talking about taxi clearances? They are actually taxi instructions. You can get a clearance to take off, land, climb, descend, taxi across a runway, etc. You can also get a taxi clearance which includes crossing runways, but the clearance if for the runway crossing, not the taxi.

In this case the instruction was to taxi A hold at E (ie don't cross 13L/31R)

It is a pity that [Steve]'s concerns about the potentially dangerous use of a grease pencil mark on a window to assess collision risk has been so lightly dismissed, particularly by misd-agin, who confidently states .
Sorry, but you simply can't KNOW that.

Steve's point was that the alignment gives a slant sight down to a point on the ground, so any object above said slant line, whether closer to you or not, will appear to be safe using this flawed technique.

misd-agin then goes on to misinterpret Steve's argument as suggesting it is safe to pass a wingtip over an object, which he patently was NOT suggesting.

This technique is flawed in many ways, and thankfully the original contributor has either removed his suggestion, or it has been done for him. Any error of just 1 cm in eye position, being 30cm or so from the window, will be magnified around 100 times at wingtip distance, giving a potential error in the order of metres. Sadly that was all it took in this unfortunate circumstance.

Anyway, for this method of sighting to work effectively, it pre-supposes the use of a head-clamp when seated, and that all obstructions (including aircraft tails and wings) conveniently be built vertically, with no overhangs. Sadly, in the real word, they are not, as in the design of the Comair's tail!

So to clarify, after placing our cone on the ramp, as we run back up to the flightdeck - no small journey on an A380 - how can we be certain that nobody has moved our cone? Then we must run back down to remove the cone after making our mark. Are you guys serious? Frankly, I have better ways to use my time on arrival at the aircraft.

Then there is the issue that we generally fly different aircraft each day, and we all sit slightly differently, so nobody else's grease pencil mark is any use to the next pilot. So this time-consuming process must be repeated each new duty, with removal of the grease mark each time too, and all in pursuit of a dangerously flawed technique.

I don't think so.

Incredible!! It is 2011 and we don't know where the wing tips are nor where on the runway V1 is, surely technology can save us?

Not if you have those little balls on the center post to align yourself......
We're supposed to put our heads in the same position using known sightline references, on my aircraft (777F). And the rough location of our wingtips is detailed in the manual.

It is a rough gauge only, however. We were entering the freight ramp in Incheon last month and a 747-400 was leaving on the parallel yellow line. It looked so close to both of us that we stopped until they passed. I asked the ground controller what the advertised spacing was between us, and he said 5 meters..... Not alot of cushion.....

If a catering truck had of run into the wing of the 380 or engineers pushed the comair A/C into a hanger and rote it off would it have got such world wide attention. If a pilot is at fault it is 100 times worse. Why.

Hmmm. Is he including the A380? -or just sleepy controllers.

Press Release – Statement from FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.
For Immediate Release. April 14, 2011

Over the last few weeks we have seen examples of unprofessional conduct on the part of a few individuals that have rightly caused the traveling public to question our ability to ensure their safety. This conduct must stop immediately. I am committed to maintaining the highest level of public confidence and that begins with strong leadership.

This morning I met with the head of our Air Traffic Organization, the part of the Federal Aviation Administration charged with operating our air traffic control system. Hank Krakowski has submitted his resignation and I have accepted it. Hank is a dedicated aviation professional and I thank him for his service. Starting today, I have asked David Grizzle, FAA's chief counsel, to assume the role of acting ATO chief operating officer while we conduct a nationwide search to permanently fill the position.

We are conducting a top to bottom review of the way we operate our air traffic control system. We are all responsible and accountable for safety–from senior FAA leadership to the controller in the tower. Employees at the FAA work diligently every day to run the safest air transportation system in the world. But I will continue to make whatever changes are necessary to ensure we concentrate on keeping the traveling public safe.

If a catering truck managed to damage TWO aircraft (including spinning one around on video) - it might get 100 times as much attention. :}

I'm fascinated by the level of pure speculation being voiced by so many. There is so much that we do not actually KNOW.

Here are some dumb questions:

What exactly constitutes "clear of the taxiway"? Does that mean that no part of your aircraft is physically within the confines of the taxiway? Does it mean that you are also clear of the adjoining "grass" area [between ramp and taxiway]? What about the service road, is that included as well? Does it mean that 100% of your fuselage is within the ramp area?

Does the wingspan of the A380 fit within the confines of the taxiway? Does it extend beyond the limits of the taxiway; if so by how much does it overlap? Is it 1m, 2m, 3m, maybe more? If there is any overlap at all; does that mean that the A380 is never within the confines of any taxiway? Of this particular takiway (A)? What exactly constitutes being "on the taxiway", or within the taxiway? Does that mean ALL of your aircraft, or only certain parts of it? Which parts?

Is the crew of [in this case] the Comair jet expected to assume that even though its aircraft may be clear of the taxiway physically, it is possible that a A380 - whose span happens to extend beyond the confines of the taxiway - just might be passing behind it and therefore it must clear by enough to accomodate the A380? How does the Captain determine just how much is enough? Is it 1m, 2m, 10m?

Is it possible that the pilot of the CRJ could have backed up into the wing of the A380? Why didn't the pilot of the CRJ anticipate that an A380 might want to pass behind him?

Why is the A380 restricted from using Taxiway B? Is that because its wing span overlaps the taxiway by enough to cause a hazard on the adjacent runway? Did someone decide it was better to risk a collision with something on the ramp as opposed to something on the runway?

If there is nothing particularly unusual about this aircraft (A380) that constitues significant hazard while it is moving about the airport, then why all the special restricitions and limitations (pages long) about where it can go?

Are the pilots of other aircraft types expected to make special allowances in their own operations for the unusual nature of the A380's size, or does that responsibility rest with the pilots of the A380? Is it the responsibility of the controllers? The airport authority?

Unitl we KNOW the actuall FACTS that lead to this incident, attempts to shift blame around appear to be a waste of time.

The only thing we KNOW at this point is that one of two aircraft collided with the other. Let the experts decide which, why and how; after which you can crucify the culprit(s) of your choosing.

Is the FO allowed to taxi the aircraft or is this duty only allowed by the captain?

Well; I suppose having already made one contribution to this thread about an experience that I had at JFK when a PanAm 747 chopped the tail off a Renown Nord 262, I had better comment upon the (mostly) rubbish that is being posted on this forum.

I can confidently state that 99% of the heretics on this forum have never ever tried to taxi a wide-bodied airliner around JFK in either seat.

I have been particularly amused at "aviatorhi's" postings which tells us exactly how he would deal with JFK Ground's taxi instructions.

As those of us who actually do (did) these things, the instructions after landing is "next right, hold short 22R, Ground Point 9".

That means "Contact JFK Ground 121.9"

You are then going to get "Left Outer, Juliet, Right Inner Foxtrot, IAB".

That's it.

The guy is so busy that he does not have time to discuss the matter.

JFK is the biggest zoological garden in the world. I was based there as a DC-10 captain for three years.

Someone made the comment to the holier-than-thou guy from LGW (who told us all that all we had to do was follow "the green lights" on the taxiway). As someone pointed out, not only does JFK not have centreline lighting, but the yellow centreline painted lines are "difficult to see in the wet".

You want to try it in the snow my friend!

So what else do I want to have a rant about?

The idiots who cannot understand why we don't know where our wingtips are + or - five feet.

I never flew the 747 but I did fly the DC-10-10 and the DC-10-30.

It was impossible to see the wingtips of the DC-10-10 from the cockpit. It was "just possible" to see the wingtips of the DC-10-30 from the cockpit. I can confidently state that any of you out there who can judge within 10 feet of where your wingtip actually is could possibly be headed for an expensive surprise.

If you don't believe me and have never tried it before, I will tell you a story. I have now retired from professional flying and I bought myself a little PA-28. I loaned it to a B744 captain from a pretty famous airline and he managed to hit a fence-post with the right wing tip and caused £3000 of damage to my aircraft!

Of course it can! :ok: Trinity College to the rescue:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/collision-prevention-system-to-be-tested-in-dublin/1005617.article

The WingWatch System

@Huck:Flawed again... Aligning those 2 balls can ONLY put your eyes somewhere on a line (2 points in space define an infinitely long line). You are free to move your eyes along that line, whilst keeping the balls perfectly aligned.

As pilots move their heads along that line (still with your balls perfectly aligned, remember, oh er missus!) you are introducing an error about 100 times larger in predicting where the wing tip is supposed to be.

As I said earlier, it is a highly flawed technique, based on very shaky assumptions. Maybe the AF captain was trying it as he taxied into his mishap?

Hi,


1.6vs
:confused:

visibility3miles
And there are the psychological trauma to add at your list !
:ok:

BTW .....
It is clear that the A380 was not in flight .. but in a rolling phase ..
All traffic regulations include the rule that:
Every driver must be able to stop before any obstacle predictable or unpredictable :8

....anyone care to speculate on how long it would take to repair the AF wing? I assume this situation is much different from the wing that was damaged from the RR engine failure last year; right?

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. Everything should be mentally/visually 'swept' clear at 150m.

What did the AF skipper register in his mind . . . where was his attention in those crucial 150metres?





There seems to be some confusion about how long the small aircraft was in that position, but assuming it wasn't long, the skipper has an absolute right to come to a standstill any time he is concerned that it may not be safe to continue. Just seeing that vehicle pass in front of him is just cause to stop and consider two main things: Is HE in the right place, if vehicular traffic is passing, and/or is anything else likely to be heading his way - and I don't mean the behemoth attacking from the rear!


If ever we find we're forced to press on into situations we don't like, just because we might get hit from the rear, then we'll know modern airports are simply no longer equipped for modern flight-movement numbers.

There are lot human factor type incidents in aviation in which blame is shared by many people and the commander of the aircraft can, quite reasonably, not be held fully or even partially accountable.

Unfortunately for the AF Captain, regardless of the various factors involved, hitting a stationary aircraft whilst taxing is not one of them and he must shoulder the blame. All too easy to screw up though, the potential is there for all us every time we let the park brake off no matter how good we think we are.

All sympathies to the AF crew.

Yes the Captain is responsible but there again if a football teams loses 30 goals to nil, you wouldn't blame it all on the goalkeeper.

Your football analogy is incorrect. The manager picks the goalkeeper, hence he is responsible.

There is no excuse, I do not believe maneuvering an A380 is more tricky than a 777-300?

There are currently two threads running here on Air France accidents. Not a good advertisement for this carrier.

To all those who believe the AF captain is not at fault.

If the A380 captain had seen the potential collision and had come to a stop to avoid it but then somebody had rammed him from behind who would have been at fault then?!

Can we stop blaming people, and start trying to find a way to prevent this happening again. It seems like this is your typical 'Swiss cheese' accident. If the truck hadn't been where it was, if the RJ had pulled forward, if the RJ had notified 'Ground' that they weren't parked/were impinging the taxiway, if the AF had been more cautious and stopped a bit earlier, then we wouldn't be debating this right now.

Taxiing Heavies at JFK is a nightmare, especially at night, and it feels like nobody is on your side. So boys and girls, how do we prevent this happening again? Could this happen at your base, and if not why not? What needs to change? (And please no stupid answers, like rebuild JFK from scratch - its not going to happen any time soon!)

I have 25 years taxiing narrow body and wide body aircraft and we almost always have to stop and wait for ground equipment to be moved or a guideman and most of the time we are hanging out on a taxiway. If some moron hits you he is 100% at fault!!!!!!!! End of story.

In light of the new info about the RJ not being fully parked I'd say:

Special aircraft require special treatment(both from pilot and ATC).AF skipper will take the blame but so must ATC.They knew an A380 was taxiing and should have ensured the RJ was FULLY parked before issuing clearance.If the RJ pilot didnt report fully parked then I still say its encumbent upon ATC to verify that he is clear before issuing "continue taxi" instruction.Only if the RJ pilot reports fully parked when he's not gets ATC clear off the hook.The 2 frequencies(ramp vs gnd) does cloud the issue but doesnt let ATC off the hook.Two aircraft in close proximity both talking on different freqs never works.Its up to ATC to cover that uncertainty.JFK controllers are slick but there are occasions when slickness is the wrong MO.Sometimes they need to slow down and be more circumspect.

There are many words to accurately describe New Yorkers, including some which are unprintable. 'Circumspect' is not one of them. Ever.

"If the A380 captain had seen the potential collision and had come to a stop to avoid it but then somebody had rammed him from behind who would have been at fault then?!"

We are truly straw-grasping here. T-category aircraft taxiing are in no way similar to SUVs doing a bumper-to-bumper 60 on the LIE.

A cheap idea to solve this problem
 

After an accident/incident happens, it seems one of the first actions is looking for who is guilty; well, a pair of low power laser beams assembled at the tip of the wings and pointing the ground beside the cockpit or ahead, would help the pilots to see precisely and in advance whether they have or not enough room to pass.

it was back in the air 24 hours later.