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...

How about you calm down and quit it with these "you're wrong I'm right" statements you always make and the YELLING.I referred to manuals for the 737, 767 and 747. You've taken two separate points. 1. Taxi no faster than 30kts. 2. Don't ride the brakes. And twisted them into the one thought 3. Taxi at 30kts.Quote from a 737 manual: "The normal straight away taxi speed should not exceed approximately 20kts. Speeds in excess of this, when combined with long taxi distances, cause heat buildup in the tires. When approaching a turn, speed should be slowed to the appropriate speed for the conditions. On a dry surface, use approximately 8 to 12 knots."Quote from a 747 manual: "Maximum recommended speed for normal straight taxi is 25kts; for making high speed turnoffs of up to 45 degrees, 15kts, and when making greater than 45 degree turns, 10 kts is the maximum recommended speed."Again, what was the reason for you to taxi at 30kts all the time? Is the 737 so fundamentally different than the 767 that you have to go fast in the 767 in order avoid heat buildup in the wheels? Completely opposite of what Boeing puts in this manual? Please. Honestly quote your manual. In complete sentences. Not just cherry picking separate words. I am really curious as to see what your manual is saying.

So in review, bstolle. You recommend:-One should be taxiing around everywhere at 30kts. Even at busy intersections, ramps, etc. Even when other multi-million dollar aircraft are being pushed back and ground equipment is in the vicinity... to keep my brakes cool.-One should be teaching prospective pilots not to taxi slowly, but to "zoom" around the ramp and taxiways regardless of equipment, aircraft, and the like. My style of teaching careful and methodical taxiing is erroneous and --to you-- it's scary to think there would be instructors who emphasize such safe practices. <--This one made me chuckle.-And finally, the rules of physics don't apply to AF A380s because the same thing would have happened in the same way if the Airbus had been going much slower in the busy area-- regardless of the difference of kinetic energy in each different situation.This is everything you've implied to me so far. Now by no means would I blame the whole thing on excessive speed. The pilot misjudged his wingspan and that is the first problem. Night time hurt the situation. But this thread has taken on a completely different (and ludicrous) argument.

Again, what was the reason for you to taxi at 30kts all the time?

Try to READ what I wrote. 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... Where on earth did I write to taxi all the time at 30kts? Taxiway A at JFK is exactly such a let-her-accelerate taxiway. As you constantly refuse to read or understand what I wrote this thread is all yours (and ZachLWs of course) now...Have a nice day :)

Now by no means would I blame the whole thing on excessive speed.

You must be joking as THIS was your very first statement:The A380 pilot was taxiing way too fast to begin with

Try to READ what I wrote. 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... Where on earth did I write to taxi all the time at 30kts? Taxiway A at JFK is exactly such a let-her-accelerate taxiway. As you constantly refuse to read or understand what I wrote this thread is all yours (and ZachLWs of course) now...Have a nice day :)

Okay, let's explore your tidbit of information. In the context of this discussion, would that even apply to a certain Air France A380 with a dented wing? Does this information also justify the other outlandish suggestions made earlier.

You must be joking as THIS was your very first statement:The A380 pilot was taxiing way too fast to begin with

Yeah, I stand by that one. He was taxiing to fast. Surely we know I believe that to be fact by now? What's your point? That's just a link in the chain.But I digress. Agree to disagree. I'd buy you a drink if I met you in person. :(

Try to READ what I wrote. 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... Where on earth did I write to taxi all the time at 30kts? Taxiway A at JFK is exactly such a let-her-accelerate taxiway. As you constantly refuse to read or understand what I wrote this thread is all yours (and ZachLWs of course) now...Have a nice day :)

Dude. That was a rhetorical question meant to point out that your reasoning was in direct opposition to what I quoted in this manual. I guess you missed it. Your argument has been that normal taxi speed is 30kts. I argued that it is not normal, but merely the maximum. I argue that there is a difference between considering something maximum and something normal. Normal is something that is appropriate for the situation. You equate maximum with normal. I asked you whether 30kts was appropriate for a night, high traffic, conditions. You have been afraid to answer that.Your first post in this thread was where on Earth you wrote that kind of statement:"No, he wasn't too fast. The speed of the A380 in this video is between 20-30kts which is the recommended taxispeed for most Airliners...."Have an uneventful day.

But I digress. Agree to disagree. I'd buy you a drink if I met you in person. :(

Checked, if you let me buy the second round :wink:Best regardsBernt

Isn't that sort of a personal attack?

Hey dmaher, I just found this in my PM inbox from bstolle yesterday: EDITED BY ADMIN. PM MEANS PERSONAL MESSAGE HUH? Would that be some sort of personal attack?

This is scary:http://www.youtube.c...player_embeddedLucky for me I was not on the crj, as it must have been one heck of a shock to passengers.Glad there were no injuries.

Ill do this all the time when in a hurry, even hop over other planes when they are in queue..

What seems strange is the 380 has lots of external video cameras that can be viewed on instrument panel displays, so:

1. Don't they have video cameras on the wingtips?
2. Couldn't the camera have special optics with a vertical line that would help identify objetcts in the taxi path?
3. Can't they add special lighting for night taxi to assist in clearing objects?
4. If the preceding is not feasible, how about one of these on each wingtip to help clear the way?

Let's keep some levity in the discussion and then maybe we can all get together and you can buy me some drinks! :-)Cheers,- jahman.

Don't they have video cameras on the wingtips?

You can get this :---http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/6/0/1823064.jpgNot much of a help.

Interesting thread but too much testosterone guys!Please calm down.Now the embedded cameras offer three fixed views only but the GPS Primary System of the A380 does show every aircraft in the vicinity while taxiing.(not displayed on this photo but mandatory during night flights ot low visibility)The reponsable of this accident is without any doubt the pilot in command.Not for the speed but for the lack of vigilence.

The reponsable of this accident is without any doubt the pilot in command.Not for the speed but for the lack of vigilence.

I start to agree with this fact.When the A380 taxi near the CRJ "stopped or at very low speed" at cockpit level, the AF crew should have spotted it.But let's all wait for the FAA inspection report.

Hey dmaher, I just found this in my PM inbox from bstolle yesterday: EDITED BY ADMIN. PM MEANS PERSONAL MESSAGE HUH? Would that be some sort of personal attack?

Sorry – I didn’t really mean to single you out - even though it reads that way.Not sure why I made the comment, except that I’m curious about the accident…and not so much in grudge matches.But whatever...it’s the internet ;)I think there where at least four parties that played a role in the accident (to some extent)…more when you cast a wider net. First impressions are the responsibility falls entirely on the pilots...still it’s important to be digging a little deeper. I don’t think we want a system that forces airlines to be making guesses about clearances on the taxiway. There’s a matter of congesting airport flow…but there are basic marshalling changes that would avoid this – removing any guesswork.

Sorry – I didn’t really mean to single you out - even though it reads that way.Not sure why I made the comment, except that I’m curious about the accident…and not so much in grudge matches.But whatever...it’s the internet ;)

Curious as to why Roch edited bstolle's comments out after bstolle complained to him about it. Is the PM meant as a method for which we can hide behind to hurl insults and threats at each other, things that we otherwise would not be willing to say in public for fear of looking immature or being banned? What exactly is it about personal insults or threats to report me to the mods requires protection of a personal message? And why wouldn't bstolle put those comments up in public on his own?

OK, so then no wingtip cameras yet, but why not add them? (With the optics as I suggested).The repair of the tail of the CRJ could cost more than the installing the wingtip cameras on AF's whole 380 fleet.Price check: Think of the cost of installing pen-sized Wi-Fi cameras that connect to the cokpit laptop they already use to play Tetris with (hopefully not during 30kn taxi on the apron!) As for the Wi-Fi signal not making it past the Faraday effect of the fuselage, they can vacuum-stick a Wi-Fi antenna on each cockpit rear side window, or maybe offer a discount to two passengers doing same in economy class :-)Cheers,- jahman.