ATC recording of the incident:

If this hasn't been edited, less than four seconds elapsed after the controller issued the "give way..." instruction, and less than two seconds after the AF PIC acknowledges the instruction, before Comair reports being struck... :(

It's interesting that since I posted this, not one single person seems to have either noticed or made any comment about it...I took a bath last month, so it can't be BO... :( Aside from the miniscule amount of time elapsed from AF's acknowledgement of the "give way" advisory, there's the obvious hesitation and "uncertainty" in the controller's instructions, as if he'd just suddenly become aware that there might possibly be a problem...

It's interesting that since I posted this, not one single person seems to have either noticed or made any comment about it...I took a bath last month, so it can't be BO... :( Aside from the miniscule amount of time elapsed from AF's acknowledgement of the "give way" advisory, there's the obvious hesitation and "uncertainty" in the controller's instructions, as if he'd just suddenly become aware that there might possibly be a problem...

No I listened to it and that was one of my sources to support my point of view in this argument.

No I listened to it and that was one of my sources to support my point of view in this argument.

That video loads funny for me…it always starts about ¼ in. So I missed that part before.-But no, those instructions to AF to give way at A-KD relate to another conflict ahead. Not the CRJ.The CRJ was clipped at A-M.The relevant instructions would be in the previous transmission, and that's not on the video.If the CRJ had been holding clear of the taxiway for some time I wouldn’t imagine AF would get a specific warning about it. (?)

It's interesting that since I posted this, not one single person seems to have either noticed or made any comment about it...I took a bath last month, so it can't be BO... :( Aside from the miniscule amount of time elapsed from AF's acknowledgement of the "give way" advisory, there's the obvious hesitation and "uncertainty" in the controller's instructions, as if he'd just suddenly become aware that there might possibly be a problem...

The AF audio level is low in the recording, so presumably it was also low in the cotroller's headset, which makes understanding more difficult, esecially when the instructions are hesitant to begin with (hesitation in speech can be a marker of a thought process that is momentarily trailing behind events rather than leading in front.)Again technology to the rescue: A simple WiFi antenna transmiting and receiving aircraft location, direction, speed, safety perimeter radius to/from appropriately located WiFi antennas along the TWYs and RWYs (with backup over a 3G74G data carrier cellphone network) could have avoided this incident. If coupled with taxi instructions, alarms and automatic braking to hold especially at RWY intersections (and TWY intersections), taxi instructions could be strictly enforced. Sort of a TCAS for ground operations. Note a couple of students at an aviation college could implement such a system in a semester... on an iPhone! (Go to the Apple AppStore and download "iTaxi My Plane") :-) Then configure with your aircraft type (so the app can bias the GPS receiver location from the cockpit back to aircraft geometric center) and that's it. GPS accuracy is now 30 ft or less, but you could reduce that to 3 ft by placing a Differential GPS transmitter at airport center to bias locations broadcast by aircraft at the system's central server at the airport. And the beauty of this setup is it works for all aircraft of all types plus ground vehicles: Even wing walkers would show up! (No more engine FOD).Cheers,- jahman.

A couple of points: KevinAu, if you are flying RJ's for real, then certain comments of mine obviously don't apply to you- the point being there is a difference between airline flying for a living, and flying for fun, part-time, or whatever else. Many of the comments here are nothing more than naive statements based on any lack of reality in a real world. Your opinions are worth listening to. However, if you're ieda is that AF was taxiing too fast, and that's it, I would be more into that as nothng more than one of many contributing causes. There was a statement about contacting the FAA with ideas. Sounds great. Kind of like a woman saying once after an accident that klled a small nmber of people that that airlines hire the experienced pilots. She is so naive. The FAA receives tons of potentially hazardous information and does nothing about it.DB..

As for the audio recording you can get the whole thing on live atc.As for all the taxi locations I'm sure JFK is a transponder on airport for aircraft surveillance plus ads-b will be here in a few years and there will be no more need for these apps.

This looks pretty cut-and-dry to me. I wouldn't want to be that Air France captain.I was taught early-on in my flying career that there are three unforgiveable mistakes that'll land you in drowning-deep doo-doo as PIC...because you always have the ability to prevent them:1. Land with your gear up2. Get caught flying under the influence of alcohol or drugs3. Taxi into something during ground ops All discussions of congestion, time between ATC call and collision etc are essentially moot--it's the captain's absolute responsibility to avoid the completely preventable occurrence of hitting something during taxi, and none of the things discussed here relieve him of that. What's particularly damning on this one is that the CRJ was stopped and on the captain's side of the jet where the A380 captain could see it, so the responsibility for this really is all on him. I've got a lot of experience threading a 160 ft wide C-141B through congested ramps all over the world. That taught me a couple points that are relevant here: first, speed is not your friend in a congested area in the dark...and when you're the guy with the tiller in your hand, nobody controls your speed but you. And second, when in doubt, stop.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

My car has a radar thing that beeps if I'm about to back into something... it's probably the best feature on the car... haven't run over over anyone yet...Why can't they install something in the wing tips that does something similar.

Seems to simple a system to be on a modern airliner.

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.

Well as a former ATC, Ground Movement's primary responsibility is with the PIC. ATC does not MAINTAIN SEPERATION on Ground Moving Aircraft. Period. End of Sentence.Braun

Well as a former ATC, Ground Movement's primary responsibility is with the PIC. ATC does not MAINTAIN SEPERATION on Ground Moving Aircraft. Period. End of Sentence.Braun

Besides IFR aircraft they don't provide separation. That's why I say it is the PIC's fault nearly 100% of the time.

Well as a former ATC, Ground Movement's primary responsibility is with the PIC. ATC does not MAINTAIN SEPERATION on Ground Moving Aircraft. Period. End of Sentence.Braun

Braun, my trouble is there were two PIC's involved here.In lots of situations there’s that principle of mitigating circumstances.One party is not always %100 at fault…sometimes blame needs to be shared.The goal is to avoid a repeat incident.This accident aside for the moment...What responsibilities do pilots have to fully clear the taxiway threshold before holding on the apron?Maybe none?Maybe they’re required to clear the threshold?Maybe it’s a gray area – without a rule.A similar problem magnified is an aircraft that is straddling the hold short line...The facility locates these markings properly and the PIC’s adhere to them carefully.That's where the confidence in the system comes from.And yes -it goes without saying– PIC’s are responsible to maneuver without hitting stuff in the way.In this accident, I figure the practical steps to avoid a repeat would surely involve a closer look at the threshold and the steps PIC's take when holding adjacent one.DannyPS. In the video look for taxiway M and the threshold lighting to match your bearings to pic below.In the pic below, the CRJ would be holding to the left of M and spanning the threshold.Not btw at "Hold" I've marked.vvv -> mgh, if you're holding without clearing the threshold, ie you're obstructing the taxiway, would you then notify ground?And also, was it their gate or the apron that was obstructed?

What responsibilities do pilots have to fully clear the taxiway threshold before holding on the apron?Maybe none?Maybe they’re required to clear the threshold?

They cannot have any responsibilty for clearing the threshold. If an aircraft finds the apron obstucted it will and must stop - It's not going to run into a vehicle or ground crew. A follwing aircraft must take yhis possibilty into account.If you are behind a car that is turning off the road ahead of you, it is your fault if you collide with it because it hasn't cleared the road a quickly as you anticipated. It's your judgement that was at fault.

"...taxiing at high speed..." Apparently he it was computed that the AF was taxiing at 9kts. The idea that the video had been speeded up came out about 2 weeks ago. It had been speeded up. So, it would appear that that accusation can be tossed into the garbage.db.