I just want to emphasize. The result would not have been the same if Air France had been slower. The CRJ would not have been *tossed* like a toy. There's much more energy in a faster moving 750,00lb+ aircraft than a slower one. It's simple physics.

+1!That A-380 is going by so <SpeedFont=on> fast <SpeedFont=off> it looks like another episode of "Aircraft Demolition Derby".Cheers.- jahman.

Maybe you shouldn't do a 'quick' check but an in-depth check of your manuals (if they aren't outdated) then you will see that e.g. Boeing recommends 30kts for the 767.Make an educated guess why that might be.....

bstolle, you need to go back and reread your manual slowly. Boeing only gives "recommended maximum" taxi speeds. There is no way, they, nor any airline, nor any regulatory body will "recommend" a certain taxi speed. The word "maximum" next to the word "recommended" provides a completely different meaning than what you seem to have in your head with regard to taxi speed guidance in these manuals. You have the wrong syLLAble emphasised in your head. The recommended maximum taxi speed is not your recommended taxi speed. It is a maximum speed which you *may* be up to if conditions are ideal for it. Otherwise, a lesser speed should be used. If Boeing actually went and recommended a taxi speed of 30kts, then somebody driving a plane could plough into something at 30kts at night at a crowded airport and then in the ensuing lawsuits, say that Boeing told them to go that fast. The recommended maximum is a limit, not a goal. Scary that somebody who purports to be a professional pilot with 14,000 hours does not understand this.

bstolle, you need to go back and reread your manual slowly. Boeing only gives "recommended maximum" taxi speeds. There is no way, they, nor any airline, nor any regulatory body will "recommend" a certain taxi speed. The word "maximum" next to the word "recommended" provides a completely different meaning than what you seem to have in your head with regard to taxi speed guidance in these manuals. You have the wrong syLLAble emphasised in your head. The recommended maximum taxi speed is not your recommended taxi speed. It is a maximum speed which you *may* be up to if conditions are ideal for it. Otherwise, a lesser speed should be used. If Boeing actually went and recommended a taxi speed of 30kts, then somebody driving a plane could plough into something at 30kts at night at a crowded airport and then in the ensuing lawsuits, say that Boeing told them to go that fast. The recommended maximum is a limit, not a goal. Scary that somebody who purports to be a professional pilot with 14,000 hours does not understand this.

Isn't that sort of a personal attack?The previous post contended the 747 "recommended maximum" was 25.Bstolle said the 767 recommends 30.i.e. the 767 "recommended maximum" is 30.i.e. the A380 didn't appear to be exceeding a "recommended maximum" of a 767.No?

Isn't that sort of a personal attack?The previous post contended the 747 "recommended maximum" was 25.Bstolle said the 767 recommends 30.i.e. the 767 "recommended maximum" is 30.i.e. the A380 didn't appear to be taxiing over a typical "recommended maximum"No?

Again, a maximum is a limit, not a goal. Did the conditions that night warrant taxiing at the maximum speed? Were the conditions of nighttime and dense traffic conducive to using your "maximum" speed? Just because the posted speed limit is 65, does that mean you drive at that speed at all times? What if it is foggy? What if it is raining? What if it is snowing? What if there's a lot of slow traffic? What if there are deer on the road? Disconnect the notion of maximum from assigned. A maximum is merely the fastest you can move if conditions allow. It is not your recommended speed.Just replying in the same condescending tones that bstolle himself likes to use. Nothing personal.

Isn't that sort of a personal attack?The previous post contended the 747 "recommended maximum" was 25.Bstolle said the 767 recommends 30.i.e. the 767 "recommended maximum" is 30.i.e. the A380 didn't appear to be exceeding a "recommended maximum" of a 767.No?

What? The personal attacks were done during the first 5 or so post. Where were you?! :( What Kevin wrote was more common sense and by no means would I have considered it a personal attack. This whole post has gone down hill because of a certain non-sense argument. Let's just drop the personal undertones before it gets even "more worser".

What? The personal attacks were done during the first 5 or so post. Where were you?! :(

"I find it hard to believe this comment came from a self proclaimed professional pilot." that's the kind of comment. That was your post...There's maximum speed and safe speed...they are different. Both important here..

I think the Air France 380 should fix the damage to the Delta and let's just move on. :) The newscaster stated that the A380 is so big that most airports can't handle them. Does it make any sense to build a plane so big that you can't land anywhere?

Don't be surprised if they try to pin this on the CRJ, at least in the media.They already have, "the commuter should not have taxied in front of the jumbo who was taxing on a runway... CNN."I wouldn't be surprised if the CRJ is a total hull loss.How do you say clear left in french?

"I find it hard to believe this comment came from a self proclaimed professional pilot." that's the kind of comment. That was your post...There's maximum speed and safe speed...they are different. Both important here..

I know what I posted. :( I stand by what I say. Very much so... I promise I'm a nice guy in person. This forum doesn't allow for body language but I still keep my personal style of communication, regardless.Anyway, this happens more often than is reported by national media. I just think it's too bad the pilot has to learn the hard way to stay vigilant at all times to avoid collisions. And I mean vigilant. That it was dark did not help the poor guy. The speed involved didn't either.EDIT: Is it me or are the French members really defending the Air France pilots mistake? No, it's just me.

I know what I posted. :( I stand by what I say. Very much so... I promise I'm a nice guy in person. This forum doesn't allow for body language but I still keep my personal style of communication, regardless.Anyway, this happens more often than is reported by national media. I just think it's too bad the pilot has to learn the hard way to stay vigilant at all times to avoid collisions. And I mean vigilant. That it was dark did not help the poor guy. The speed involved didn't either.EDIT: Is it me or are the French members really defending the Air France pilots mistake? No, it's just me.

That's what you do while your driving your car too, always keep vigilant. I think defensive driving applies to pilots as well. The A380 was just too wide for where it was going. Well we'll just have to wait and see.

If you watch the video again, watch the marshal carrying the hand light. Judging by the speed in which be moves and jumps out of the way it appears to me that the video may have been sped up. If it is true that this video is sped up then it would appear that the A380 was taxing faster then it really was, and the entire event would appear more dramatic.I suspect the video has been sped up.

1. On the ATC tape you hear ATC tells AF to 'give way to the opposite turning off', so the responsibility was with AF from that point.2. Note the position where the CRJ stands during the collision. The yellow lights indicate where the apron area begins without creating a collision hazard with aircraft on taxiway A. The CRJ protrudes well into the area of taxiway A. As a pilot you alway try get out of the safety strip ASAP but if the marshaller tells you to hold position, you have to do that.3. Although the 380 needs to give way to the CRJ, they apparently miss the fact that the CRJ comes to a stop at the wrong point.4. As usual, it's not a single error but the classic chain of events that leads to this collision.5. Taxiway A is a long straight taxiway and if the other aircraft stay within the safety area on the apron, it's not crowded etc...6. At JFK all planes tend to taxi rather fast as in most cases it's a long way from the parking position to the departure runway.7. Reason for e.g. the 767 to let her accelerate up to 30kts is to keep the brakes from overheating on the way out. In that case you would reduce your braking capability in case of a rejected take off!! That's why it is 'recommended' to let her accelerate...

The French have chosen a strange way to enforce a no-fly zone.

7. Reason for e.g. the 767 to let her accelerate up to 30kts is to keep the brakes from overheating on the way out. In that case you would reduce your braking capability in case of a rejected take off!! That's why it is 'recommended' to let her accelerate...

You are still conveniently ignoring the word Boeing places directly next to the word 'recommended.' And that is the word 'maximum.' Perhaps it is a result of having english as your second language. I don't know. You seem to want to place a lot of undue and incorrect emphasis on the word 'recommended' in the phrase 'recommended maximum' and take away meanings that Boeing never meant for you to take. Boeing is not recommending that you go at 30kts. They are recommending a maximum speed of 30kts. The word 'recommend' removes 30kts as a hard limitation on you in order to allow you to taxi faster. If all Boeing said was 'maximum 30kts' then it would be illegal for you to taxi any faster than that. They are not going to place a hard limit like that on your taxi. So they add the word 'recommended' in front of 'maximum' so that the operator can have discretion at exceeding it. The word 'recommended' does not apply to the '30kts' but rather is a modifier to the word 'maximum'. There is no way Boeing is going to recommend to you in their manual to accelerate to XX kts because of the liability that would expose them to. They may tell you that you should taxi no faster than, but they will never tell you to taxi at anything.

How about admitting that you are plain and simple wrong. Where's the problem in admitting that?I even explained why Boeing recommends that speed and why it is desireable.It's absurd trying to blame YOUR error on english not being MY first language.BTW, I don't know what manuals you are refering to, but nowhere in current manual is the word 'maximum' mentioned...