Even with some of the "enthusiasm" shown in this thread, it's a lot better than trying to follow a discussion thread on CNN.SimOuthouse banned me once because I said Fox is horrible news. What a joke.

SimOuthouse banned me once because I said Fox is horrible news. What a joke.

Horrible, is an euphemism in this particular case :(

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.

That is the problem with these boards . No one has operated in these conditions but a few of us. What works in your head or sim is not practical in real life.The problem with your arguments and others is you're trying to make absolute statements. There are very few times when you can make absolute statements and this is one of them where it doesn't work. People are saying slow down when conditions warrant it, not all the freaking time. This event here would warrant extra care with the conditions of night, congested ramp and a large aircraft.Today at work for example. I was at yvr and we were taxiing with an aircraft approaching us. We held even though we had the right away from the controller. Because of that we made an air Canada 767 hold position on another taxiway. Controller wasn't happy but I don't give a rats &@($* because it would be my fault if I continued, even though I had the right away and smashed up the airplane. One of my instructors always reminded me by saying, "whose pink fuzzy body dies when you screw up? And whose pink fuzzy body dies when they screw up?" You have to be vigilant for what you, the controller and other aircraft are doing. More vigilance here would have gone a long way.

1.I work out of EWR, CLE, IAH, ORD, and IAD every week, and I've always2. Wouldn't prudence, responsibility and maturity dictate that one should stop if in doubt? 3. After all, since you can't see your wingtip, you're not responsible for it.

1. IAD? Me too. It would be for sure interesting to meet you IRL there...which airline do you work for?2. Do you honestly believe that the AF380 crew were missing these qualities?3. Don't know the 380 but at least on the 767 you CAN see the wingtip if you open the window.

We held even though we had the right away from the controller. Because of that we made an air Canada 767 hold position on another taxiway. Controller wasn't happy

Try that at JFK...I've once taxied a few feet too far into a crossing taxiway and ATCs response was immediate and not friendly.It's amazing how fast you can screw up, block etc... everything in the vicinity if you are not exactly doing what ATC expects from you, especially in a high density area like JFK.

I work out of EWR, CLE, IAH, ORD, and IAD every week

EWR & IAH on the jungle jet, sounds like a Express Jet. Which hub are you primarily out of?I was with COEX in IAH right out of Riddle in 2000-2002 before leaving for ACA then KittyHawk.

Try that at JFK...I've once taxied a few feet too far into a crossing taxiway and ATCs response was immediate and not friendly.It's amazing how fast you can screw up, block etc... everything in the vicinity if you are not exactly doing what ATC expects from you, especially in a high density area like JFK.

If we did do exactly as the controller said there would be a head-on collision. Blocking a767 would be the least of his worries if we continued.

This is such a good conversation, for better or worse. But the whole issue stems from faulty ground operation systems and regulations! No?Aviation needs a serious overhaul. Safety is not a suitable department for cutting costs >.<

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.

Yes these procedures were made for the people who lack aeronautical decision making. There is a procedure made for just about everything but when there isn't one then that is where common sense has to come into play. This is no rush to blame the pilots but from all accounts it doesn't sound like the aircraft failed them so that leaves it to the pilots. There are two regs in which they can clearly be pinned under and those are 91.3 PIC and 91.13 careless and reckless operation.91.3 clearly states: That the pilot-in-command is the sole person that is responsible for the operation of their aircraft. Nowhere does it say you must apply to taxi instructions and not stop or speed down the taxiway because the company said so (this has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard).91.13 clearly states: No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. This proves again that for the given conditions the crew should have slowed down for the conditions and environment they were in.

I'm not sure that someone is getting the whole ADM (Aeronautical Decision Making) part of the discussion. "Should I go, or not?" "Should I fly near that storm?" "Does the controller see what I'm seeing?"This question fits in both a topic of ADM and common sense: "Should I be hauling &amp;@(&#036;* through here, or not?"At this point I'd say leave the poor dead horse alone. :(

Yes these procedures were made for the people who lack aeronautical decision making.

Well I don't agree with this statement (strongly)...but as for the rest of the post I do :)Also I think we're getting very different impressions of events looking at a brief video from a single angle.I guess as for regulations and procedures, I wonder if the CRJ is expected to fully clear the taxiway.And if there are any systems in place to ensure they are clear...like markings.In this case they were maybe 98% clear....and apparently stopped(?).130 ft from the CL might have been safe before the A380. But now it is obstructing the taxiway.Was the CRJ crew unaware of that or aware of it and unable to get clear? The same for the ground crew.Common sense says you don't maneuver off the taxiway until you're able to taxi clear of the taxiway.If you are going to obstruct the taxiway you want to make it definitive...see and be seen.Maneuvering 98% off doesn’t help anyone…it creates a hazard.On the other hand if the CRJ wasn't holding - but continuously maneuvering...then that's another matter :)

Well I don't agree with this statement (strongly)...but as for the rest of the post I do :)

What part do you not agree with?

I guess as for regulations and procedures, I wonder if the CRJ is expected to fully clear the taxiway.And if there are any systems in place to ensure they are clear...like markings.In this case they were maybe 98% clear....and apparently stopped(?).130 ft from the CL might have been safe before the A380. But now it is obstructing the taxiway.Was the CRJ crew unaware of that or aware of it and unable to get clear? The same for the ground crew.Common sense says you don't maneuver off the taxiway until you're able to taxi clear of the taxiway.If you are going to obstruct the taxiway you want to make it definitive...see and be seen.Maneuvering 98% off doesn’t help anyone…it creates a hazard.

From the reports the CRJ was waiting for more than a minute to be marshaled on the ramp. At the time they were told to hold position the a380 was not a factor.

What part do you not agree with?

:( It’s just philosophical I guess…I wouldn’t say procedures are for a certain group of people.It could be interpreted (by some) that procedures aren’t meant for people with good aeronautical skills.I don't think that's was you point. :(

:( It’s just philosophical I guess…I wouldn’t say procedures are for a certain group of people.It could be interpreted (by some) that procedures aren’t meant for people with good aeronautical skills.I don't think that's was you point. :(

Yes it makes everyone safer but really helps the ones who don't think. With the majority of rules in aviation they were written because someone bent metal or died because they weren't vigilant or didn't take time to use their head.

With the majority of rules in aviation they were written because someone bent metal or died because they weren't vigilant or didn't take time to use their head.

Written in blood.