Can you imagine being in the cabin of the regional? Anything not tied down is going for one wicked fast ride.

I hope they sacked the Ground controller for that.
Who clears a pushback to the line when there's a 380 in the next taxiway? You shouldn't even do it when there's a 74 coming down.

>>wicked fast ride

For sure. Luckily, the seatbelt sign would have been lit at that point. Unfortunately, the Cabin crew would still have been walking around doing pre-flight. There would have been some badly injured flight attendants after that.

Why is it that every time something bad happens on or near and airport, there's always someone who'll blame ATC?

Ground had nothing to do with this. As a Ground Controller myself, I can tell you that pushbacks are done at the pilot's discretion. We may give the clearance, but it's worded "push and start at your discretion". There is way too much activity on a ramp for Ground to give a definite clearance. Not to mention that at a place like JFK, there's way too much activity on the entire airfield for Ground to be watching a single aircraft, A380 or not, taxi onto the ramp.

Unless you've sat in the seat (and if you have, I apologize for the following statement), don't assume something that you've got no idea about.


Hopefully the NTSB investigation will find out exactly what happened.

Sorry, I don't buy that.
A pilot has no idea about what's going on around him or the activities of the airport. When a pilot asks for clearance to depart, he is putting his faith that the control tower will account for timing and safety as to when that is granted.

You cannot tell me that the pilot of the regional jet is RESPONSIBLE for being clipped by an A380!!! That is ridiculous.

Should we now arm ground-based ACAS for all aircraft with the caveat that every pilot is responsible for protecting his/her aircraft from any other roaming vehicles?

When a plane is on the ground, it is the TOWER who calls the shots.
With all due respect, Kris; Military AC is a different kettle of fish. For one thing, the pilots have a much better field of view and much smaller aircraft (on average). It's more like GA I would think.

Also - you need to consider that the legal indemnity structure of civil authority works on entirely different principles. In our modern-day lawsuit culture, airlines place heavy burdens of liability on airports to ensure that traffic is effectively managed from air to gate and back again. That's why we have 'landing fees' - and probably why YYZ is the most expensive (because they're a bit of a joke tbh)

>>Not to mention that at a place like JFK, there's way too much activity on the entire airfield for Ground to be watching a single aircraft, A380 or not, taxi onto the ramp.

That's their job, Kris. It's an airport, not an ant colony.

You're right. A pilot may not be aware of everything going on around him, which is why he relies on not only ATC, but the ground crew pushing him back as well. A pilot can't see behind his plane, so that's why when he's pushing or powering back, there are marshallers on the ground guiding him (or the mule, in the case of a pushback) and usually at least one person towards the rear of the aircraft to make sure the area is clear. Ground might have given the pushback instruction, but it could've been several minutes before the RJ actually started moving...plenty of time for another a/c to come through. Yes, Tower does call the shots when an a/c is on the ground, but ramps are for the most part considered an uncontrolled surface, hence the earlier "your discretion".

For a/c vs vehicles...a/c have the right of way, so the vehicle operator is responsible for getting out of the way.

I have to disagree with you on military a/c being a different beast. Yes, on average, the planes are smaller. However, I can tell you for a fact that the field of view isn't much better (fighters notwithstanding) compared to a similar sized aircraft in the civilian world (except for maybe the Hercules...that thing has windows everywhere).

As far as legality of the whole thing goes, I will admit that I have limited to nil knowledge on that as the military is very different in that case.


Personally, as I assume that none of us were actually there, I don't believe that any of us can lay blame on any one person or agency. Only once the tapes are pulled and the investigation is complete will we know exactly what happened leading up to the collision. Maybe you're right, and the Ground Controller was entirely responsible.

>>You're right. A pilot may not be aware of everything going on around him, which is why he relies on not only ATC, but the ground crew pushing him back as well. A pilot can't see behind his plane, so that's why when he's pushing or powering back, there are marshallers on the ground guiding him (or the mule, in the case of a pushback) and usually at least one person towards the rear of the aircraft to make sure the area is clear. Ground might have given the pushback instruction, but it could've been several minutes before the RJ actually started moving...plenty of time for another a/c to come through. Yes, Tower does call the shots when an a/c is on the ground, but ramps are for the most part considered an uncontrolled surface, hence the earlier "your discretion".

On the last point, yes - I completely agree that the 'marshallers' would be at fault in this case then. AC can only operate on the basis that the people on the ground actually know what they're doing - so on that we agree. In this case, it could be that the marshallers took the RJ back to far. The pilot would have been faultless here though. Thing to bear in mind is that civil aviation is a slave to local control as all airlines are singing from a different hymn sheet with respect to procedures. On a military base, everyone knows the rules and the rules are the same in all cockpits. Different story at a place like JFK - you've got multiple airlines from a variety of continents. Some of which, pilots may know the airport, others may not. Regardless of *who* is responsible, the error resides with the airport itself (in my opinion) but as you say, the NTSB will bring this out.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion (as JFK is a recent adopted of the 380) that the problem may lie with the marshall procedures themselves - in that they have not be properly drawn and evaluated. There are usually ground markers to guide positioning for aircraft for startup/taxi and I'd imagine that the report will either say that these markers are wrong, old or non-existent.

>>I have to disagree with you on military a/c being a different beast. Yes, on average, the planes are smaller. However, I can tell you for a fact that the field of view isn't much better (fighters notwithstanding) compared to a similar sized aircraft in the civilian world (except for maybe the Hercules...that thing has windows everywhere).

Point taken. Actually, when I think about Trenton (good friend of mine stationed there) throw in some 130's, some starlifters and a few personnel transports and you have yourself an airport with similar sizes to the civies. I know for a fact that some military airports, for instance, have fouled up ground control/marshalling with the C-5 and AN225 so it floats both ways.

This statement is what I think is correct the A380 has a wingspan is about 10 meters wider than the 747. So procedures for handling an A380 on the field was not design properly. Maybe one of those Metric to Standard conversion errors.

Funny, scary but probably true, Frank. Kris is probably right on the money with the Marshallers - however, those Marshallers don't walk out with metre sticks (or yard sticks in the U.S.) - they go by the pretty lines on the tarmac, don't they? JFK is not exactly spoiled for space and they probably move craft quite tightly. It sounds ridiculous that the wingspan could make a difference, but we know its true and we also know that Bureaucrats don't like spending money.

NTSB could well finger the Facility manager or the A380 'Readiness' Project team.