It's the responsibility of the tower. you don't send an oversized truck in a small town without escort. And you don't send an A380 when an aircraft is 40 yards from the gate.Also why Comair 553 "advanced" like 0.3 kt when the A380 arrived, KJFK is a busy airport right ?Finally, with all the possible way and taxi-line, why those plane were sent in a collision course ?

It's the responsibility of the tower.

Ummm....how about no.Care to guess again?

Care to guess again?

Care to develop again? Oh, no you haven't yet.It's like having two trains on the same rail, but blaming one because it was "speeding" at 18 kts...I don't know you, but I took the plane maybe 150 times in my life, and I saw fast taxi speed everywhere.Just to make you focus in a 90 degrees turn your are limited to 10 kts, so what's 8 more in a long strait line ?PS : Before you start to not develop again, wait for the official parking position of the aircrafts.

Since you like to edit your post again and again after positing here you go:

Care to develop again? Oh, no you haven't yet.

Did you snap your fingers while you typed that?You go girl!

It's like having two trains on the same rail, but blaming one because it was "speeding" at 18 kts...I don't know you, but I took the plane maybe 150 times in my life, and I saw fast taxi speed everywhere.Just to make you focus in a 90 degrees turn your are limited to 10 kts, so what's 8 more in a long strait line ?PS : Before you start to not develop again, wait for the official parking position of the aircrafts.

1.) Comair 6293 was holding short near taxiway A&M awaiting marshal to the gate. They had all necessary lighting to alert all other aircraft and ground crew to their presence and potential movement. It was not on the taxiway or runway in use by AF7.2.) AF 7 was taxiing for departure at a rate that appears faster than safe or appropriate. Especially when you consider the wingspan of the A380, night, and near the terminal. Even though a FOM says you can taxi at 30kts doesn't mean you do in a terminal environment. 3.) It wasn't tower's fault; it was the fault of AF7's crew for not avoiding parked traffic while taxing. 4.) Nothing is wrong with fast taxi however in this case you see what happens when you taxi too fast and are not paying attention. 5.) You can take 1000 flights as pax and still not know your exhaust duct from a hole in the wall. It is obvious with your 150 commercial flights you fall into this category. Enjoy!

It's the responsibility of the tower. you don't send an oversized truck in a small town without escort. And you don't send an A380 when an aircraft is 40 yards from the gate.Also why Comair 553 "advanced" like 0.3 kt when the A380 arrived, KJFK is a busy airport right ?Finally, with all the possible way and taxi-line, why those plane were sent in a collision course ?

It's the flight crew's responsibility. The UK AIP for Heathrow (EGLL) is clear. EGLL-AD t 2.20 — LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS reads:Ground Movementa. Generalv. Flight crew are reminded of the extreme importance of maintaining a careful lookout at all times and are at all times responsible for wing tip clearance. The taxiway lighting system is an aid to pilots when they are operating on the manoeuvring area during darkness or in poor visibility. Notwithstanding the taxiway lighting system, pilots continue to remain responsible for wing tip clearance.vi. In promulgated holding areas, ATC may require aircraft to pass each other. Avoidance of other aircraft is the responsibility of the flight crew involved. If doubt exists as to whether other aircraft can be safely overtaken, aircraft must stop, advise ATC, and request ATC for alternative instructions.http://www.ead.euroc..._2011-02-10.pdf

Avoidance of other aircraft is the responsibility of the flight crew involved. If doubt exists as to whether other aircraft can be safely overtaken, aircraft must stop, advise ATC, and request ATC for alternative instructions.

So, it's ATC saying, you go to this runway by this taxi way, we don't give a sh*t anymore, even if we have a plane that is not parked yet.And if pilot begin to stop, go out to check clearance and go, what gonna be the general aircraft delay in KJFK ? LFPG is 120 TO/LD every hour.The A380 received a green to go, a car on the taxi way or a non authorized pushed back plane, OK. But why they let him go when a plane was on the same taxi way and not even parked yet ?18 kts like I measured on the video or 5kts, the result would have been the same

1.) Comair 6293, It was not on the taxiway or runway in use by AF7.

So why collision ?

2.) AF 7 was taxiing for departure at a rate that appears faster than safe or appropriate. Especially when you consider the wingspan of the A380, night, and near the terminal. Even though a FOM says you can taxi at 30kts doesn't mean you do in a terminal environment.

I'm agree with that, but KJFK handle what ? 150-200 planes per hours, is it impossible that they send a huge aircraft where it shouldn't be ?

3.) It wasn't tower's fault; it was the fault of AF7's crew for not avoiding parked traffic while taxing.

Just Chaos, be on time, point of view. Ground control are normally here to help you, but nothing happen...

4.) Nothing is wrong with fast taxi however in this case you see what happens when you taxi too fast and are not paying attention.

It's not a Cessna, where a 90 degree turn can show you everything, it's a super-jumbo that need help form the tower.

So, it's ATC saying, you go to this runway by this taxi way, we don't give a sh*t anymore, even if we have a plane that is not parked yet.And if pilot begin to stop, go out to check clearance and go, what gonna be the general aircraft delay in KJFK ? LFPG is 120 TO/LD every hour.The A380 received a green to go, a car on the taxi way or a non authorized pushed back plane, OK. But why they let him go when a plane was on the same taxi way and not even parked yet ?18 kts like I measured on the video or 5kts, the result would have been the sameI remove it

It is pretty event by your postings today and on other occasions that you lack any form of mature cognitive ability or rational when it comes to aviation. Numerous users have attempted to explain that you are mistaken and why you are mistaken but you would rather reply in childish ways and not listen. This is the last response you will get from me on the topic or deserve in general. Since it is obvious your are ESL I will make it easy. Comair 6293 was not on the same taxiway as AF 7. AF 7's large wing span encroached on 6293's taxiway. AF 7's crew were responsible for seeing and avoiding any and all potential collisions. Even if that means stopping to wait or stopping in order to ask for ground assistance. It was AF 7's fault

It is pretty event by your postings today and on other occasions that you lack any form of mature cognitive ability or rational when it comes to aviation. Numerous users have attempted to explain that you are mistaken and why you are mistaken but you would rather reply in childish ways and not listen. This is the last response you will get from me on the topic or deserve in general. Since it is obvious your are ESL I will make it easy.

You really seems to forget politeness in those forums.

It is pretty event by your postings today and on other occasions that you lack any form of mature cognitive ability or rational when it comes to aviation. Numerous users have attempted to explain that you are mistaken and why you are mistaken but you would rather reply in childish ways and not listen. This is the last response you will get from me on the topic or deserve in general. Since it is obvious your are ESL I will make it easy. Comair 6293 was not on the same taxiway as AF 7. AF 7's large wing span encroached on 6293's taxiway. AF 7's crew were responsible for seeing and avoiding any and all potential collisions. Even if that means stopping to wait or stopping in order to ask for ground assistance. It was AF 7's fault

Sort of the pot calling the kettle black ;)It’s not mature to make conclusions like this before the details come out.Like - what were the instructions? - And who knew what?I know this is a forum – not the FAA ;) we can assign blame in on the spot - and we always do. :(

Sort of the pot calling the kettle black ;)

I don't see it that way at all. :(

I know this is a forum – not the FAA ;) we can assign blame in on the spot - and we always do. :(

I am not one to normally jump to conclusions but it is pretty evident in video, ATC recording (on Avweb), and the known dimensions of the A380 that the AF crew should have slowed and maneuvered to avoid the parked CRJ or stopped until the CRJ moved. BTW here are photos of the damage,.

From bstolle: Do you think it would be better to stop at every taxiway especially at JFK and call for a wing walker? Good luck.I can't understand why some self proclaimed GA flight instructors always tend become immediately aggressive or insulting. I sincerely hope that you are talking in a different way to your 'students'

The first 'question' posed is not a 'good one'. Who 'mentioned' stopping at every 'intersection'? Don't resort to snide juvenile remarks when you have a weak case.I sincerely hope that you don't find fault with teaching 'students' that 20-30kts is too fast a taxi speed. Anywhere. At all times. Unless clearing an active on high speed. I wasn't aggresive or insulting, I just find it hard to believe that a professional would make such a claim. Would the collision have happened at 3 kts? Maybe. Would the damage have been as great at 5-10kts (3 kts you mentioned)? Nope. :( So let me clarify your past statements: As a professional, you would teach students to taxi at uncomfortable speeds around heavy, expensive equipment. That's idiotic and I know you're no idiot. That being said, let's get along. We've started things off on the wrong track. :( (Dummie :( j/k)

You really seems to forget politeness in those forums.

Pot. Kettle. Black. And we should all remember this as I'm no exception.

So, it's ATC saying, you go to this runway by this taxi way, we don't give a sh*t anymore, even if we have a plane that is not parked yet.And if pilot begin to stop, go out to check clearance and go, what gonna be the general aircraft delay in KJFK ? LFPG is 120 TO/LD every hour.The A380 received a green to go, a car on the taxi way or a non authorized pushed back plane, OK. But why they let him go when a plane was on the same taxi way and not even parked yet ?18 kts like I measured on the video or 5kts, the result would have been the same

The answer is as I said before. It is the flight crew's responsibility to avoid colliding with other aircraft. Aircraft frequently and regularly follow other aircraft along the same taxiway without running into them. Your use of the term "green to go" shows your lack of understanding of the reality of the situation.

Sort of the pot calling the kettle black ;)It’s not mature to make conclusions like this before the details come out.Like - what were the instructions? - And who knew what?I know this is a forum – not the FAA ;) we can assign blame in on the spot - and we always do. :(

And we're always right! :-) In fact, we should be hired by the FAA/NTSB folk!<flak jacket on> :-)So here's *my* take: Regardless of max allowed taxi speed, AF-7 taxied too fast on the apron. (On long TWYs max speed is driven by dfferent requirements, e.g. max allowable tyre sidewall temperatures.) But the apron is the apron, so you're supposed to slow to walking speed. As to who's at fault, if a moving vehicle moves into a stopped vehicle, the moving vehicle is at fault (a RWY incursion would be the obvious exception.)Maybe there's a reason why Captains always say "I have control" at 60 kn after the FO lands...Cheers,- jahman.

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.