Air France A380 clips a Comair CRJ at JFK . . . video

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

The pilots must have been 18 and 19 years old with little to no experience.....not ( play-off of some topics throughout the last two months)

And good lord did they smack that aircraft hard. I hope to jebus that people obeyed the the FA and remained seated with their seat belts SECURELY FASTENED. Imagine being on the left side starting out the window ? Better yet , you know how there is always those one or two fools who have this raging desire to get their overweight carry on's before everyone else has a chance to unbuckle ? I hope they learned their lesson

[Sheila]

[FighterPilot]

do they not have a camera on the tail for this reason?

They do, but it's more to see if the nose and landing gear are lined up while taxiing, not if the wingtips have clearance.

[oldtimer]

OOPS, I goofed. I did not listen to the audio close enough and missed the call for Air France to hold short and give way to the CRJ. That definatly puts Air France in the wrong.
I wonder if the captain's training bond is paid off. I hope he has a night job, he may need it. Yuk Yuk.

[fish4life]

do they not have a camera on the tail for this reason?

They do, but it's more to see if the nose and landing gear are lined up while taxiing, not if the wingtips have clearance.

hmmm maybe they should have used some foresight and threw in some wing tip visuals... but then again why would pilots need to see that?

[ehbuddy]

Damage to the RJ.

If you look at the still photo from page 1 it does appear that the vertical stab is canted over at least 20 degree's to the left.

[boeingboy]

Optical illusion.

The aircraft was hit on the left side - which would mean the stab would be canted to the right.

[boeingboy]

I'm suprised a big plane like the A380 would sustain so much damage from such a smaller plane.

JFK taxiways are standard 75 feet wide.

JFK_1_Damage_244x183.jpg (19.37 KiB) Viewed 2787 times

[ehbuddy]

Take a look again at the still from page 1 that shows the RJ tail bent (optical illusion).

Is that the 380 in the background?

Lets say the RJ was empty and this incident occured. I would assume the 380 crew did not even realize they hit the RJ and would have some serious explaining to do at the next walkaround.

It appears the 380 went quite far before stopping.

[boeingboy]

I should have edited my last statement.

I have seen the photo - however it is not possible to be bent left when it was hit from the left, unless it snapped the tail and the tail seems to be still attached.

[grimey]

I should have edited my last statement.

I have seen the photo - however it is not possible to be bent left when it was hit from the left, unless it snapped the tail and the tail seems to be still attached.

I think it's the upper winglet from the A380, which is missing from the airbus. You can see the tip of the vertical stabilizer over the fuselage of the RJ, to the left of the "bent" bit. There's damage to the leading edge of the left horizontal stabilizer, and the little bit that's hanging down might just be what's left after some clown tore the winglet remains off.

[ehbuddy]

grimey............great detective work on your part.

At first glance it sure appeared that the vertical stab had broken and then perhaps folded back to the opposite side due to the jet blast from the 380.

But you are correct.............you can see the top of the vertical stab in the photo and the 380's winglet sitting between the root and tip of the left horizontal stab.

At least Air France knows where the part is.

[Defy Gravity]

[Prairie Chicken]

As someone with a past working as an aerodrome regulator, I'm seeing this as an issue for the airport operator, and possibly ATC. Assuming the A380 was on the taxiway centre line & the RJ was where he was supposed to be, this is one of those issues of concern when the 380 was introduced.

Certified aerodromes--airports--meet design criteria based on the size of a/c intended for use at that airport. YBW or ZVL would be Code A or B, designed for small cessnas or perhaps up to DH6 size a/c. Major international airports are designed for Code E a/c, and the largest Code E a/c was a B747. So, if you're a 747 at a Code E airport & have your nose wheel on the centre-line--you are guarranteed not to hit anything that is where it is supposed to be. Likewise, a C172 won't hit anything if he's on the centre-line of a Code A airport.

Now, since airports haven't been rebuilt to reflect the A380's increased size, I'm assuming (don't know, not in that business anymore) there are ATC procedures in place to prevent conflicts when an A380 is operating on the airport. So, I'm suspecting they had a hand in this.

As far as the ATC recording released, it is almost certainly time-compressed. In other words, the recording is not real time, and periods with no comms are not included. I didn't hear anything which would indicate wrong doing by the A380 crew.

I can't imagine the 380 crew would have a descent view of their wingtip or be able to judge clearance. They must have to trust other cues--centre-lines, ATC, & marshallers.

I hope to hear the outcome.

[righthandman]

There are many "reasons" for the collision, but ultimately... who ran into who?

Answer that question and THAT is who is responsible. No?

[linecrew]

There are many "reasons" for the collision, but ultimately... who ran into who?

Answer that question and THAT is who is responsible. No?

Sadly, not usually from a legal perspective. Have a look at the legal lunacy going on surrounding the Air France incident where the crew ran their A340 off the end of the runway at Toronto Pearson.