Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th April 2011 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
watch this one the report has a rolling error with it
and
who will the Fench blame for this?
By: - 12th April 2011 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKGv3KFqKo&feature=player_embedded
By: - 12th April 2011 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's like a giant shark getting rid of the minnows - unfortunately shark is bruised
It's like a giant shark getting rid of the minnows - unfortunately shark is bruised too.:rolleyes:
Not a good way to get rid of small fry.:D
By: - 12th April 2011 at 09:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That must have come as one hell of a shock to the passengers and crew on the CRJ700!
By: - 12th April 2011 at 10:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...who will the Fench blame for this?
What a silly comment. :rolleyes:
Why would "the Fench" look to blame anyone?
Any blame that exists will rest with the A380 crew, the CRJ crew, local ATC, or any combination thereof.
Let's wait for the outcome of the inevitable investigation, shall we?
ps..... I love the phrase "regarded as the world's biggest passenger jet" in the CNN story. :)
By: - 12th April 2011 at 10:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What speed was he taxiing at?!! Whilst it would not have avoided the collision traveling at that speed at night is not right.
Rgds Cking
By: - 12th April 2011 at 10:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Lance: Clearly you have missed the new triple-decker A320. :cool:
By: - 12th April 2011 at 11:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any blame that exists will rest with the A380 crew, the CRJ crew, local ATC, or any combination thereof.
Just going from the video it looks to me like an airport fault, they must have to co-ordinate aircraft ground movements to enure each aircraft is an area clear of another one moving, even if the one moving has a greater span than usual.
The staggering thing is how the A380 moved the whole CRJ like it was a toy rather that ripping a chunk out of its tail or losing its own wingtip, I wouldn't have liked being onboard that 700 at all!
By: - 12th April 2011 at 14:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wouldnt of wanted to of been on that CRJ!
By: - 12th April 2011 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There goes Air France's No Claims Bonus.
By: - 12th April 2011 at 18:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Aviation Safety Network report is at http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121690 and is worth a look.
Hmmm...why do I keep thinking of those ads that go "Had an accident? Not your fault? Call Claims Direct - we'll get you 100% compensation!"
(Semi seriously: I wonder how many on board the CRJ700 will be putting in claims for "whiplash injuries"?
By: - 12th April 2011 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would not have liked to be on that CRJ! Looked like the A380 was going at quite a speed!
ATC Recording off the Incident!
By: - 12th April 2011 at 20:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What speed was he taxiing at?!! Whilst it would not have avoided the collision traveling at that speed at night is not right.Rgds Cking
You're right. He was really tanking it.
By: - 12th April 2011 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There goes Air France's No Claims Bonus.
Damn it where's the "Like" button when you need it :D
but yeah it must have left the Flight Deck crew a bit dazed in the CRJ :S
By: - 12th April 2011 at 22:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There goes Air France's No Claims Bonus.since 2000 they've written off a Concorde, an A340 and an A330. I would hazard a guess that their no claims bonus ain't worth all that much.
(Semi seriously: I wonder how many on board the CRJ700 will be putting in claims for "whiplash injuries"?Like I once joked insurance companies should be allowed to buy advertising space on the outside of winglets: "if you can read this, call us at 0800-CRASH for a good settlement!".
As for who is to blame, too early to tell. Could be the Air France crew, could be the Delta (Comair) crew. It's even possible neither of them is fully to blame, but that blame lies with ground control or apron control.
It does show why it is important to keep the seat belts tightened untill instructed by the crew it is safe to take them off!
By: - 12th April 2011 at 23:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some interesting technical facts in this blog ....
Some interesting technical facts in this blog ....
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2011/04/12/when-an-airbus-a380-and-a-bombardier-crj-700-meet-%E2%80%A6/
".....With the Comair CRJ-700 on Taxiway Mike, Air France Flight 7, an Airbus A380-800 (388) was taxing on Taxiway Alpha towards its departure runway....
......but at the moment one question seems to stand out … where exactly was the Comair CRJ-700′s tail?...
.....With the Airbus A380 on Taxiway Alpha, taxing on the centerline, its wingspan of 261.6 feet should not have extended beyond the 284 foot width of Taxiway Alpha.....
......Watching the video and listening to Tower audio of the incident of the incident, it appears that the controller in the tower did not properly space the aircraft to ensure that the Comair CRJ-700 was full onto Taxiway Mike before allowing the Air France A380 to cross the intersection."
By: - 12th April 2011 at 23:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Was that enough force to write-off the CRJ-700?
By: - 12th April 2011 at 23:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some more interesting facts of the area where the collision occurred
Some more interesting facts of the area where the collision occurred
http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-04-12_airbus.asp
It includes some diagrams and a satellite image of the collision area.
"........The length of taxiway Mike from the north edge of Alpha, across the perimeter road to the beginning of the ramp area, is very short. It is unclear where exactly the CRJ was stopped in this area and for how long. When given instructions to taxi to a ramp area, aircraft are not supposed to stop on taxiways unless they advise ground control ahead of time. The Delta ramp area may have been too congested for the CRJ to fully clear the taxiway.
In the case of the Airbus, all aircraft in motion are to ensure that their movement will not cause a collision. From the center of an A380 to one of its wingtips is 130.9 feet. The NTSB will look into the circumstances of this collision and future issues such as if Alpha taxiway is an appropriate route for the A380 and other larger aircraft. ........."
By: - 13th April 2011 at 02:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'll leave the assigning of responsibility or fault to the authorities, but it's already pretty clear what happened based on what's been reported so far. The Comair jet never cleared taxiway Mike because their gate area wasn't clear. Did they alert the controller they weren't clear? Were they required to? They held short while waiting for the equipment to be cleared with their tail still too close to Mike, at least for an oversized jet like the A380. The AF A380 came along at what appears to be a fairly rapid rate. I have no idea if he was moving too fast, that is for authorities to decide.
The limiting A380 design factor for use at current airports wasn't runway length or even MTOW, it was width of taxiways and size of gate areas. There are still areas like this at many airports where the margins are just too close when it comes to the A380. If there had been a fire there would have been nearly 600 people at risk in just seconds. I've seen the emergency evacuation test footage for the A380 and I know they passed, but I sure wouldn't want to be one of 525 people trying to escape an A380 with a transcontinental fuel load, while burning on the tarmac. I don't like Airbus aircraft for dozens of technical reasons, and while the A380 is a beautiful aircraft I don't ever want to fly on one. Way too many people on board.
By: - 13th April 2011 at 09:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Each time I watch the video I must admit it takes me back to childhood Dinky Toys
Each time I watch the video I must admit it takes me back to childhood Dinky Toys.
I had a Super Constellation, Avro York, Vickers Viscount and many others and my father had kindly constructed for me out of plywood a complete airport with hangars, runways, taxiways and aprons.
It was always a case of the wing peripheries of the Super Constellation over hanging the edges of the taxiways so there is the slight similarity of this collision at JFK. While saying that I am not stating that the Airbus A-380's wings were wider than the taxiway. What appears to be case though is that the CRJ's tail had not cleared the taxiway fully when the Airbus A-380 came along to the intersection.
The pax and crew of the CRJ were very very lucky as it appears watching the video that the CRJ pivots through 90 deg on (albeit for seconds) the starboard undercarriage (simply tossed out of the way by the giant Airbus A-380)
Some of the problems of handling the Airbus A-380 - it's size and capacity have not been obviously fully resolved even at major international airports.
Posts: 8,846
By: Newforest - 12th April 2011 at 07:36
No serious damage but some passenger delays!
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/04/11/new.york.plane.incident/index.html?hpt=T2