Unfortunately it was common sense that lapsed here and there is no cure for stupidity. You can engineer the safest mode of transportation and still some human idiot is going to find away to screw it up.

Yes, but you can still add safety measures (equipment and procedures) when justified, as it wuld seem in this case.Cheers,- jahman.

I love reading these arguments, especially when half the folk involved sound like idiots LOL

Even with some of the "enthusiasm" shown in this thread, it's a lot better than trying to follow a discussion thread on CNN. I come over here to get away from people who blame this on Obama or the Tea Party, or who say it's a sign that the Apocalypse is at hand.At least most of the people here know something.

Yes, but you can still add safety measures (equipment and procedures) when justified, as it wuld seem in this case.Cheers,- jahman.

Unfortunately no. This would not have been preventable by a simple camera system. Add synthetic vision to airplanes and we still have CFIT and crashing into objects. They had eyeballs that are some of the best 'cameras' around and they were still not able to see the CRJ's tail hanging over the line.

Unfortunately no. This would not have been preventable by a simple camera system. Add synthetic vision to airplanes and we still have CFIT and crashing into objects. They had eyeballs that are some of the best 'cameras' around and they were still not able to see the CRJ's tail hanging over the line.

You can add a an optical rangefinder to the wingtips to trigger automatic braking. If we are now able to place a small unmanned version of the Space Shuttle in orbit for eight months, de-orbit and land all automatically we can surely design an automatic braking system for objects in the path of a 380's wing tip. :-)Cheers,- jahman.

It would appear that many of the self-designated "experts" here have never taxied a wide-bodied a/c. It would also apppear that very few here have any actual experience taxiing around JFK. No one has mentioned, nor asked, why the Comair had stopped short of the gate. I would say that would be a material piece of information. People keep talking about "ground control", but I've heard no mention of "ramp control". What difference could that make? You don't know? Does a 380's wings extend beyond the taxiway? How about a 747? Or a 767? Oh, yes, taxi real slow. Yeah. Try that at JFK, or ORD, or _____ and find out what happens. Clear of the taxiway??? What does that mean? No part of the a/c is over the grass area, or the ramp area, or the service road? etc, etc, etc. Now, what about flying as a job? I don't mean loading up the video game (which I do quite often) I mean a real job. CIFI? I was one- once. Flew little planes, good weather, never sick, no problems, or, I didn't go. The real job is a little different. Actually it's so different that, you, well, uhhh, "It's not like making furniture. You know what I mean?" (quoted from Memphis Belle).DB.

It would appear that many of the self-designated "experts" here have never taxied a wide-bodied a/c. It would also apppear that very few here have any actual experience taxiing around JFK. No one has mentioned, nor asked, why the Comair had stopped short of the gate. I would say that would be a material piece of information. People keep talking about "ground control", but I've heard no mention of "ramp control". What difference could that make? You don't know? Does a 380's wings extend beyond the taxiway? How about a 747? Or a 767? Oh, yes, taxi real slow. Yeah. Try that at JFK, or ORD, or _____ and find out what happens. Clear of the taxiway??? What does that mean? No part of the a/c is over the grass area, or the ramp area, or the service road? etc, etc, etc. Now, what about flying as a job? I don't mean loading up the video game (which I do quite often) I mean a real job. CIFI? I was one- once. Flew little planes, good weather, never sick, no problems, or, I didn't go. The real job is a little different. Actually it's so different that, you, well, uhhh, "It's not like making furniture. You know what I mean?" (quoted from Memphis Belle).DB.

I haven't taxied any heavies except in the "real" simulator. I have however, taxied RJs at JFK in "real" life. It is a tight airport. The ramp areas I am familiar with are extremely tight. You have to be careful at JFK. A lot of traffic and not a lot of room in between you and other things. I have no qualms about slowing down there. So far, I haven't hit anything there, although I've come close. That's why I am not afraid to slow down. There is no need to ask why that Comair RJ stopped. It was a Delta ramp. Delta ramps suck. That's all there is to say about that. In the EMB-145, there is a an upside down T shaped handle at the top of the side window. This handle is what you pull on to release the side window if you need to make an escape. It is approximately even with your temple a few inches away. When ASA lost an EMB-120 in Atlanta many years ago, the captain was killed by that red handle entering his head. When I watch that RJ spin around like that, my first thought was how my head would have hit that red handle if I was sitting in the right seat. Fortunately, I normally sit in the left, so it would have been my FO who would have had the skull fracture or concussion, and not me. People can get hurt out there. To basically say "so what" to taxiing unsafely like that and hitting things is beyond pale. What if there was a ramper standing near the nose of that RJ? What if there was a fuel truck next to them? All of that could have been easily avoided if the Air France captain would have slowed down and stopped when he saw that RJ stopped without its tail clear of the taxiway. Just because you are cleared to taxi somewhere does not mean you stop for nothing. You are not a freight train. Even an A380 has a pair of brakes at the captain's feet that can stop her pretty quick. Each year we go to CRM class and they show us pictures like this (warning: graphic) http://www.theairlinepilots.com/flight/runningengineandgroundsafety.htm to give us our annual reminder about what could happen if you are not careful out there.In the end, no one will be faulted for this. The Comair crew will be absolved since they were the stopped vehicle. If they weren't stopped, they would have hit something else in front of them. The ground controller will be absolved since it is not his responsibility that planes taxiing around aren't watching their own wingtips. His instructions to both aircraft had all been correct. The Air France crew will be absolved since his nosewheel was on the centerline.

Unfortunately it was common sense that lapsed here and there is no cure for stupidity. You can engineer the safest mode of transportation and still some human idiot is going to find away to screw it up.

Aviation would be a lot more dangerous if it didn't take a wider view than this.It's why aviation is so procedural. And why pilots learn to be systematic rather than spontaneous.Anytime pilots rush to blame other pilots they're not really thinking like pilots.There was a chain of events here.So this situation could be prevented somewhere in the chain.We can't just blame idiots...we're all idiots from time to time.- no credentials to really comment on this :( - but the CRJ appeared to be stopped between the taxiway and the gate.The details around that should be suspect too.Likely both flight crews, ground control, and the gate crew all thought there was no interference.I realize it’s impractical in a busy airport, not to have an intermediate hold between the taxiway and the gate.But it either must be properly sized or not allowed.Otherwise the CRJ could be made to hold on the taxiway until it's cleared into the gate.I can see that'll cause gridlock ;)

It would appear that many of the self-designated "experts" here have never taxied a wide-bodied a/c. It would also apppear that very few here have any actual experience taxiing around JFK. No one has mentioned, nor asked, why the Comair had stopped short of the gate. I would say that would be a material piece of information. People keep talking about "ground control", but I've heard no mention of "ramp control". What difference could that make? You don't know? Does a 380's wings extend beyond the taxiway? How about a 747? Or a 767? Oh, yes, taxi real slow. Yeah. Try that at JFK, or ORD, or _____ and find out what happens. Clear of the taxiway??? What does that mean? No part of the a/c is over the grass area, or the ramp area, or the service road? etc, etc, etc. Now, what about flying as a job? I don't mean loading up the video game (which I do quite often) I mean a real job. CIFI? I was one- once. Flew little planes, good weather, never sick, no problems, or, I didn't go. The real job is a little different. Actually it's so different that, you, well, uhhh, "It's not like making furniture. You know what I mean?" (quoted from Memphis Belle).DB.

A lot of the same rules in a 1,200-12,500lb aircraft also apply in a 700,000lb aircraft. That includes "covering your own a--" around heavy traffic and not blowing through. From what I take from your thread, you've never taxied a heavy aircraft at JFK either! We have that in common. If I have a choice between pissing ground/ramp control off or damaging a $350,000,000(!) aircraft, guess which one I'll do first? Yeah... The 'real job' (since non-air carrier jobs aren't real ones?) shares a lot of the same rules. Like don't bend up the aircraft, first and foremost. Then you can make controllers happy. We call that prioritizing.All the same there's really no official blame, I'd say. The pilots can't even see the wing tips on the A380, and that plus the fact they were following directions correctly will be the technicality in which the AF crew isn't "blamed". It's a lot of airplane and I'd hate to have that much responsibility... :( I still say they should have been taxiing slower. :(

Aviation would be a lot more dangerous if it didn't take a wider view than this.It's why aviation is so procedural. And why pilots learn to be systematic rather than spontaneous.Anytime pilots rush to blame other pilots they're not really thinking like pilots.There was a chain of events here.So this situation could be prevented somewhere in the chain.You can't just blame idiots...we're all idiots from time to time.

I'd have to agree. I'll be perfectly honest and tell this forum something I don't tell anyone. I had an encounter with a fence post while in a Piper Archer years ago. It was shortly after receiving my PPL (which I had done in a high wing). Up to that point I thought it impossible for me to have a lapse in judgment and break an aircraft. A dent in the leading edge and 500 dollars later, my thoughts changed on this one. Had I been slower, it would have been a scratch and not a dent. :( Same is true for sleeping at the steering wheel. I wondered how folks could fall asleep driving... It's amazing how sleepy an exam can make you before you have to drive home from school... (no damage that time, fortunately) Then again, I wouldn't argue for too long if someone wanted to call me an idiot. :( I've learned some valuable lessons over the years.

The video shows a moving aircraft colliding with a stationary aircraft. Given that it's the responsibility of the flight crew to avoid a collision with other aircraft why the argument? the fault was with the A380 flight crew.

Even with some of the "enthusiasm" shown in this thread, it's a lot better than trying to follow a discussion thread on CNN. I come over here to get away from people who blame this on Obama or the Tea Party, or who say it's a sign that the Apocalypse is at hand.At least most of the people here know something.

Oh, hey tell me about it. Online news media threads have taken over from late-night radio phone-ins as the favoured outlet channel for obsessives, curtain-twitchers and dementing shut-ins.

Now we start getting around to some reality here. No, never taxied a heavy, never taxied at JFK. Taxied other transport cat jets tho, never east of ORD. There was a legit reason the RJ was stopped where he was. JFK has overcrowding problems,mmore so than many fields, follow the yellow line, I've heard pilots complain sometimes it impossible to see. Lots of prolems at JFK- taxi lighting, markings, etc. That is, according to pilots I've talked with in the past. Excessive speed. You can always say that. Be careful about the slow down idea. Companies have fined pilots for that. The pilots can not see the wing tips. The AF crew weren't responsible, what else could they have done? If they had been going slower, they still would have hit. Flying the 380 for AF, "probably" they are towards the senior end of the list. So it is believable at this point there was no fatigue involved due to recent duty time. I don't know, so probably. Were they both sick? Were they dealing with wife problems, kid problems, other family problems, financial problems? It alll adds up. Many comments/ ideas hewre are way out of line. The "system" is at fault.DB.

Now we start getting around to some reality here. No, never taxied a heavy, never taxied at JFK. Taxied other transport cat jets tho, never east of ORD. There was a legit reason the RJ was stopped where he was. JFK has overcrowding problems,mmore so than many fields, follow the yellow line, I've heard pilots complain sometimes it impossible to see. Lots of prolems at JFK- taxi lighting, markings, etc. That is, according to pilots I've talked with in the past. Excessive speed. You can always say that. Be careful about the slow down idea. Companies have fined pilots for that. The pilots can not see the wing tips. The AF crew weren't responsible, what else could they have done? If they had been going slower, they still would have hit. Flying the 380 for AF, "probably" they are towards the senior end of the list. So it is believable at this point there was no fatigue involved due to recent duty time. I don't know, so probably. Were they both sick? Were they dealing with wife problems, kid problems, other family problems, financial problems? It alll adds up. Many comments/ ideas hewre are way out of line. The "system" is at fault.DB.

This post makes some sense! :(

The pilots can not see the wing tips

So how about line pilots getting together and asking the NTSB/FAA combo to request the airlines/aircraft manufacturers combo to install wingtip cameras? What are you waiting for? Heck, your grand kids play all day with phones that have TWO cameras on them! What does it feel like to have a torn wingtip on your service sheet after 30 years of unblemished flying? Man, I could by a cheap gunsight at an armory, an even cheaper WiFi video camera (even of the "FLIR" type!), and hook-it up to the nav light electrics por power. Then hack the Microsoft Kinect, get the software to do the image analysis/motion control on a laptop and have "STOOOOP!" scream out of the laptop's speaker when, er, you should stop. What else do you need? A demo video on YouTube to go viral? As I said before, braking could even be automated. OK, so the stuff has to be TSO'd, etc, etc. but why doesn't it get done?Sheesh, I shouldn't be posting these ideas here, rather at the U.S. Patent Office web site, then I could license the technology and make the millions I need so I can trade FSX for the real thing! (Donations accepted towards the "Jahman needs to buy a used King Air E-90" fund gladly accepted! :-) Cheers,- jahman.

Be careful about the slow down idea. Companies have fined pilots for that. The pilots can not see the wing tips. The AF crew weren't responsible, what else could they have done? If they had been going slower, they still would have hit. DB.

Slowing down to avoid an accident is not a work action. Would a company rather you stop when it looks doubtful that you can clear an object or have you hit that object? How well did not stopping work out for that Air France crew? I work out of EWR, CLE, IAH, ORD, and IAD every week, and I've always, and followed other aircraft who have, stopped when something looked like it might be in the way. Those are some fairly busy airports, and I've slowed or stopped innumerable times when clearance looked doubtful. It's just simple common sense. It's what I do everyday whether I'm driving my company's Embraer or my own Ford. No controller has ever called me on it. No chief pilot has ever called me on it. Not in eleven years. I am pretty sure though, if I hit something, they would call me on the phone though.One of the random questions one often gets on an oral exam while transitioning to a plane is "what is your wingspan?" Not that any of us can tell exactly what XXX.X' might be out the window, but it means that it is important that you be aware of how big or small your aircraft is so that you have some idea of how you can avoid impacting other objects with it. Just because you cannot see your wingtip does not mean it gives you carte blanche to smash things and hurt people. Wouldn't you think that the bigger your plane is, and the more out of sight your extremities are, the more careful you should be about how you operate that machine? Especially when near other objects in low visibility and cluttered environments? Wouldn't prudence, responsibility and maturity dictate that one should stop if in doubt? By the conversations I seem to be having around this board, it seems as though the consensus of the people here is the bigger the plane is, the less responsibility you have for your actions. If that is the case, shouldn't the A380 captaincy be relegated to the most junior and least paid pilot at Air France? After all, since you can't see your wingtip, you're not responsible for it. The A380 should then be the plane most relieved of any responsibility.