"...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.

That's incorrect: Whenever two air vehicles collide, if one vehicle is stopped at the time of collision the fault resides with the moving vehicle. FWIW the moving vehicle could be crawling at a measly one furlong per fortnight (approx. 1 cm/min), it still is at fault if the other vehicle was stopped. No trial court on Earth would find otherwise.Cheers,- jahman.

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?

You confuse blame with cause. What you are trying to touch on is the "chain of events" and where the CRJ sits in that sequence. Right? Sure, if the CRJ hadn't stopped for some truck then this wouldn't have happened. If the lav truck didn't drive by at that moment, then this wouldn't have happened. If somebody hadn't called for a lav truck this wouldn't have happened. If somebody hadn't had diarrhea in the lav this wouldn't have happened. If somebody had washed their hands before making that burrito this wouldn't have happened. If the A380 hadn't been so big this wouldn't have happened. If the taxiways hadn't been so narrow this wouldn't have happened. If it hadn't been so dark this wouldn't have happened. If France and US had severed relations and stopped all airline service between the two countries this wouldn't have happened. A chain of events can go on ridiculously forever, all the way to the first day of Genesis. Assigning blame through a chain of events dilutes any blame to insignificance and makes it absurd. How much blame do we assign the burrito maker? Sure, the CRJ stopped short. Sure that was a cause. But that does not mean the CRJ "shares" any blame. Why? Because only one PIC had the scene unfold in front of his front window and could have easily kept anything from happenning by a little bit of brake pressure from his tippy toes.BTW, the only requirement any of us have about keeping anything "clear" is clearing the runway when exiting one. The AIM is also equally explicit that it is the responsibility of the pilot to avoid collision with other aircraft. There is no gray area here. Sure, sometimes I'll make a call to ground to let them know I can't get into a parking spot and can't clear the taxiway. But only to see if they want me to continue on the taxiway and have me wait somewhere else so that people can keep moving on the taxiway. Just common courtesy. It's not because of safety reasons. It's not because so that somebody won't hit me from behind. Do you know why? It's because somebody coming at me from behind will see that I'm blocking their path and common sense, and not a radio call from me, would dictate that they push on their brakes so as to avoid colliding with me. My radio call is only in the interest of keeping the plane behind me moving, as opposed to stopping him.Aviation Week has had articles about this incident in the last two issues. The words being bandied were "overconfidence" (surfeit) and "vigilence" (lack thereof).

I'm at a loss to understand why so many posters want to shift the responsibility from the PIC when all the regulations make it clear where the responsibility lies. The UK Rules of the Air state:Right of way on the ground42 (2) Notwithstanding any air traffic control clearance it shall remain the duty of the commander of a flying machine to take all possible measures to ensure that his flying machine does not collide with any other aircraft or vehicle or with any obstacle.Other countries regulations say the same although in different words.

Yup, me too. I can't even understand why people were arguing the point. It's plainly obvious that the AF aircraft is the one that caused the collision.Regardless of any clearance you get from ATC or any other standing rules, it always remains the duty of the PIC to see and avoid stuff whether on the ground or in the air, and that includes knowing how far your wings are sticking out, which is why all aircraft manuals have a dirty great big section in them pointing out how far you can see in front of you, what the turning circle is, and how much room you need for wingtip clearance.Whether the smaller jet was in the way when it possibly should not have been is irrelevant, it was there, so the AF aircraft should have pulled up and waited for it to not be there. And if that meant calling for some airstairs and the getting the co-pilot to deplane to check the wingtip clearance, or getting a marshaller to do so, then that's what the captain should have done, which might be a pain in the &@($*, but not as much of a pain in the &@($* as causing millions of dollars-worth of damage, probably several whiplash injuries, and finding yourself demoted to flying a desk, because even if the AF captain keeps his job, he will never live that one down. I bet he's already gained some kind of derogatory nickname in Air France circles over this incident, and it will stay with him too.Al

:( Lol, I don’t see “so many posters” wanting to shift a proportion of the blame to the CRJ PIC – just me. :( I’ve mentioned I’m not familiar with the regulations – I’m deferring to the PIC’s here.And I am asking about the rules of the road – beyond the obvious one :( - Just trying to understand the system and how this accident is to be avoided.It’s a discussion forum...Look at driving in the third world, a system needs depth because we can always count on people (and pilots) to break the first rule.Again and Again and Again :blush:Look at the rules of ground operation there is this sort of depth.It is designed to give everyone more than a fighting chance.When I look at the video and the map I see an aircraft that is difficult to locate in space.Because it’s not on the taxiway, it’s not on the apron, it’s not on its centerline, and it’s not moving.The AF crew has to take additional care to locate the CRJ spatially relative to the taxiway lighting.They need to reassess (as they are trained to do) an advisory that the CRJ has pulled clear.And for all we know - the CRJ crew believes they have pulled clear…no one knows yet what space was available. But they make no “courtesy calls’ and did not make a second effort to get onto the apron – for all we know yet.That does not exonerate AF - still no one seems to think the CRJ crew has some accountability here.Is there no fault for the foot in the aisle waiting to trip you?I bet we all think we would have seen and stopped for the CRJ...that's normal.Again it’s a discussion…I have no intention or interest in taxing an A380 :biggrin:Just wondering how this incident gets avoided - next time.

That does not exonerate AF - still no one seems to think the CRJ crew has some accountability here.Is there no fault for the foot in the aisle waiting to trip you?

No, they will not be held accountable here. The crew of the A380 bears full responsibility. Like I explained already, if you are to blame them, then you open the doorway to blaming everybody, anybody and everything that ever had a role in the chain of events. Instead, there already is written guidance that the responsibility for avoiding obstacles while operating a moving machine lies solely with the operator of the machine in motion. What more do you need? This wish to assign blame to the CRJ is the same kind of lib-think which blames a rape victim for being raped because she wore a sexy dress. It comes from a fundamental belief that you are not truly responsible for your own actions and that there is always someone else that you can spread blame to for something you did. And this kind of thinking permeates American society. It is why we have the litigious society that we have. It is the cause of a lot of problems here.Always watch where you walk. That way you won't trip.

No, they will not be held accountable here. The crew of the A380 bears full responsibility. Like I explained already, if you are to blame them, then you open the doorway to blaming everybody, anybody and everything that ever had a role in the chain of events. Instead, there already is written guidance that the responsibility for avoiding obstacles while operating a moving machine lies solely with the operator of the machine in motion. What more do you need? This wish to assign blame to the CRJ is the same kind of lib-think which blames a rape victim for being raped because she wore a sexy dress. It comes from a fundamental belief that you are not truly responsible for your own actions and that there is always someone else that you can spread blame to for something you did. And this kind of thinking permeates American society. It is why we have the litigious society that we have. It is the cause of a lot of problems here.Always watch where you walk. That way you won't trip.

I hear you :)I think you are putting too much emphasis on legal blame though.I’m talking about the procedures…the procedures that keep ground ops safe.There are lessons here about taxiing an aircraft as big as an A380 and also maneuvering small aircraft around them.The chain of events is what's worth disusing.These sorts of discussions are all about the chain of events.Once it becomes black and white there’s no learning from the accident.And the message seems to be, in this case, there are no lessons here.Still I can think of a 1/2 dozen lessons that would reduce the risk here - many are for the CRJ.Am I too critical?- on a dark rainy night, I wouldn’t feel safe with a captain that allows a “foot in the aisle” situation, because it’s technically legal or someone asked him to.It's like getting run-over in a crosswalk. Technically the victim has the right of way.

I think you putting too much emphasis on legal blame.I’m talking about the procedures…the procedures that keep us safe.I imagine there are lessons here about taxiing an aircraft as big as an A380 and also maneuvering small aircraft onto the apron.IMO it is the chain of events that is worth disusing...to avoid it.These sorts of discussions about incidents are all about the chain of events.

Ok, then let's stop using words like 'accountability' or 'responsibility' or 'PIC' or 'blamed' or 'shared' etc. Because those kinds of words denote a discussion about legal blame. If you want to shift the discussion to ways of avoiding this incident, then fine. That aspect has already been discussed in previous pages of this thread by others in their discussions about wingtip cameras, and vehicle radar obstacle warning devices, etc. I'm sure by throwing enough money at a technological solution, this one specific accident setup can be avoided in all futures. Unfortunately though, I doubt there is enough money in the world to throw at what is probably the true cause of this accident, which is carelessness.The problem sometimes with focusing on the chain of events is that it leads you astray into myopically thinking there is something technological or procedural that can be changed in order prevent something when there really isn't any kind of technological or procedural solution to plain dumb human overconfidence, arrogance, and carelessness. You should try and get ahold of the 4/18 and 4/25 issues of Aviation Week and Space Technology and look over the articles "Big Questions" and "Loss of Vigilance." I'm sure you will find those articles very interesting in their take on this accident and its relation to AF447.

These sorts of discussions are all about the chain of events.Once it becomes black and white there’s no learning from the accident.And the message seems to be, in this case, there are no lessons here.Still I can think of a 1/2 dozen lessons that would reduce the risk here - many are for the CRJ.Am I too critical? - I wouldn’t feel safe with a captain that allows a “foot in the aisle” situation, because it’s technically legal or someone asked him to.It's like getting run-over in a crosswalk. Technically the victim has the right of way.

There are plenty of lessons here. Just lessons about humans. What do you want the CRJ to do? Make a radio call? Sure. Ok lets make that a requirement as a result of this. Anytime you stop short of where you are supposed to go you are to inform ground control. Ok, sounds like a fine rule. Now everytime somebody stops short they key the mike and make a call. Then one fine day at JFK, ground control calls out to a 747 to hold short of a runway but his transmission is blocked because some jackwagon CRJ made a call because he had to stop short for a catering truck, and the resulting collison kills 500 people when the 747 crosses onto the runway and gets hit by another 747. Ok, so now we need radios that don't get blocked. And so on and so forth. You can go down this road of new rules and equipment as far as you want to go. None of which would be nearly as cost effective as humans conscientiously trying to be careful about what they do.

there really isn't any kind of technological or procedural solution to plain dumb human overconfidence, arrogance, and carelessness.

Just to make sure, my offer still stands that it would be very interesting to meet you IRL in KIAD. It's amazing how an 'airline pilot' like you talks and thinks about his colleagues :(

Big monkey's wrench here: ITR - Instrument "Taxi" Rules?What happens if a major airport gets seriousky fogged-in? (TWYs and Apron included, of course!)What if the PIC truly can't see the wingtips of his aircraft?Who has control? Or do all A/C just stop dead in their tracks?QUOTEPassengers and crew: This is your Captain speaking. Whe have "mostly" arrived at our destination, but the airport is seriously fogged-in, so we are unable to complete taxiing to the terminal, especially due to the possibility of vicious CRJ's with an appetite for 380 wigtips lurking in the darkness. Therefore please exit the aircraft, enjoy the slide down to the ground and find your way to the terminal if you can. Your luggage will be forwarded to you next week for a fee. Good luck!"ENDQUOTECheers,- jahman.

Big monkey's wrench here: ITR - Instrument "Taxi" Rules?What happens if a major airport gets seriousky fogged-in? (TWYs and Apron included, of course!)What if the PIC truly can't see the wingtips of his aircraft?Who has control? Or do all A/C just stop dead in their tracks?QUOTEPassengers and crew: This is your Captain speaking. Whe have "mostly" arrived at our destination, but the airport is seriously fogged-in, so we are unable to complete taxiing to the terminal, especially due to the possibility of vicious CRJ's with an appetite for 380 wigtips lurking in the darkness. Therefore please exit the aircraft, enjoy the slide down to the ground and find your way to the terminal if you can. Your luggage will be forwarded to you next week for a fee. Good luck!"ENDQUOTECheers,- jahman.

We have SMGCS procedures. Surface Movement Ground Control System is used when visibility is at or below 1200rvr. Specific charts showing specific taxi routes are published, airports will have specific features and equipment turned on, and specific crew and ATC procedures are used.

Ok, then let's stop using words like 'accountability' or 'responsibility' or 'PIC' or 'blamed' or 'shared' etc. Because those kinds of words denote a discussion about legal blame. If you want to shift the discussion to ways of avoiding this incident, then fine. That aspect has already been discussed in previous pages of this thread by others in their discussions about wingtip cameras, and vehicle radar obstacle warning devices, etc. I'm sure by throwing enough money at a technological solution, this one specific accident setup can be avoided in all futures. Unfortunately though, I doubt there is enough money in the world to throw at what is probably the true cause of this accident, which is carelessness.The problem sometimes with focusing on the chain of events is that it leads you astray into myopically thinking there is something technological or procedural that can be changed in order prevent something when there really isn't any kind of technological or procedural solution to plain dumb human overconfidence, arrogance, and carelessness. You should try and get ahold of the 4/18 and 4/25 issues of Aviation Week and Space Technology and look over the articles "Big Questions" and "Loss of Vigilance." I'm sure you will find those articles very interesting in their take on this accident and its relation to AF447.

:( Not sure what thread you’re talking about, this is the thread I’ve been posting to from the 1st day.And I didn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about ‘blame’ - my bad wording.Just that there’ll be someone found 'at fault' legally.Which is great.But it doesn’t necessarily explain the events or make me confident in the system.The legal rules may point to one crew.And I’ve always accepted the AF crew’s roles…over and over.My argument has always been the CRJ also has responsibilities here too...Mostly I’ve asked question about that.But I get the picture :(

Keep in mind we aren't talking about an aircraft that "fits" within the allocated width of the taxiway. Further to the point, the pilot knows that his wide-momma's wings extend well past the lines......it seems only prudent then to take extra care not to bump into things. :(

Keep in mind we aren't talking about an aircraft that "fits" within the allocated width of the taxiway. Further to the point, the pilot knows that his wide-momma's wings extend well past the lines......

The problem is trivial to solve:Cheers,- jahman.