A380 vs RJ7 @ JFK

[Tupac]

Stereotypes are wonderful things, aren't they?

[Golfer]

but wouldnt it take a bit more than just an average joe to pilot an A380, the largest airliner in the world?

An average Joe line pilot. He or she is just a pilot with a seniority number that holds the bid for the type and they're trained to the same standard. If he or she kept their nose clean and isn't a basket case (average Joe) then I'd be in their corner. If they were a person with a file of reasons they might not be a good person to keep around I'd use this to cut them loose. It also depends on their attitude after the fact as well but there is no way for me or anyone from the outside to know.

But they're just pilots. Not superhuman and all capable of mistakes

[Vulcan]

Boeing doesn't use taxpayer money directly like EADS, unless you consider our government buying military planes as subsidies. (And if you do, you're a fool. The government buys a product, and recieves a product, that the customer-aka Taxpayer-pays for)

If we lose money, no one bails us out.

Matter of fact, Boeing almost folded in 1973, when it had depleted all of its investment money into the 747 program.
Mass lay-offs, and a sign on the freeway that said "last one out please turn off the lights".

However, I can't speak for the other companies. 

Ahem

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110331/bs_nm/us_boeing_airbus_wto

GENEVA (Reuters) – Planemaker Boeing received at least $5.3 billion of illegal U.S. subsidies, the World Trade Organization said on Thursday in a dispute that shows no signs of an end to years of inconclusive wrangling.
The banned aid included $2.6 billion of research funding from space agency NASA. But a WTO verdict sparked an immediate row over whether trade judges were right to include more than $2 billion of further support on the charge sheet against Boeing.
The ruling is the latest chapter in a six-year battle between the industry's two giants. The spat has already entered the record books as the world's largest and costliest trade dispute.
The WTO verdict backs some, but not all, of a tit-for-tat legal case over Boeing aid brought by the European Union.
A separate WTO trade panel condemned European support for Boeing rival Airbus in a parallel case last year.
As so often in a row which now extends to 2,000 pages of complex trade court rulings, both sides claimed victory.
"This WTO panel report clearly shows that Boeing has received huge subsidies in the past and continues to receive significant subsidies today," European Union trade chief Karel De Gucht said.

...
Boeing acknowledged receiving $2.7 billion of aid on top of a dispute that has already been aired, but accused its rival of diverting attention from more pernicious types of European aid.

 

[flight17]

a whoping 5.2 bil, of which boeing claims 2.5 was illegal. Airbus has a tab of over 40 billion... still really want to say Airbus hasnt recieved anything?

[Vulcan]

a whoping 5.2 bil, of which boeing claims 2.5 was illegal. Airbus has a tab of over 40 billion... still really want to say Airbus hasnt recieved anything?

Did I say airbus hasn't received anything?

[MachFly]

but wouldnt it take a bit more than just an average joe to pilot an A380, the largest airliner in the world?

There is no way to tell. As Golfer pointed out it depends on your seniority level, logically if you have more seniority you'd probably be more experienced and be a better pilot but there is no way to tell exactly without knowing who the pilot is and what he did before. Seniority stays (and rises) only if you stay with one company, for example if the airline you worked for gets bough by another than your seniority level drops. So just knowing that he was an A380 captain (so his seniority is high) does not tell you enough.

[FTJR]

Can you see the wingtip from the cockpit of an A380?
I dont know.

If you're keeping to the centreline of the taxiway unless there is a notam to say otherwise you've got a right to expect that you'll have wingtip clearance.

Does this absolve you from watching out for things that infringe, of course not, but I can see the pilot, presumably the captain doing the taxi'ing and looking ahead to keep the plane on the lines. A prefunctaly look at the RJ, then look forward again.

Everyone is to blame and no one is to blame just be thankfull there where no lives lost.

[-tronski-]

One of my favorite misconceptions:

What protection does staying on centerline of a taxiway give you?

I'm talking FAA guidance.

For a twy thats rated for a code F aircraft, enough wing tip clearance not to smack into another aircraft

Blame whoever you want. If you're the captain of an airplane that smashes into something that isn't moving you will (and should be) responsible for it.

I also think you're putting too much stock into what an ATC instruction is going you in this case as well. Especially with regards to what's known as a non movement area which is essentially uncontrolled. Also company ramp controllers on their own discrete frequencies which aren't overseen by certificated ATC specialists.

And you're also not seeming to grasp that the AF A380 hit a stationary airplane.  Smashing into a fixed object is not generally the fault of the stationary object.  It was a big white airplane with nav lights and a beacon in a reasonably well lit area. Not moving.  The ultimate responsibility to not do something you're "cleared" to do because it might bend metal or otherwise violate you lies with the Pilot in Command. In this case the AF captain.

It may well have been as simple as misjudging how big your airplane really is bit the airplane was still taxied into a stationary object.

I grasp aircraft movements fine, even at night and I also know how easy it is to lose aircraft (especially from the arse end) in a congestion apron...and it might be different @ JFK but in sydney you cant enter or move anything on the movement area without ground clearance, aprons are still controlled by ground...that A388, and CRJ were both still on the manoeuvring area and I've heard plenty of captains baulk moving within a country mile of aircraft @ holdpoints that includes plenty of A388's so I find it hard to believe that an A380 captain would knowingly roll past something within wingtip clearance.

Can you see the wingtip from the cockpit of an A380?
I dont know.

I'm pretty sure you can't

 Tronsky

[Ripsnort]

Ahem

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110331/bs_nm/us_boeing_airbus_wto


 

Speaking in private, however, sources involved in the case clashed over whether the $5.3 billion figure cited by the WTO against Boeing was a fair account of where it went wrong.

The figure includes $2.2 billion of export assistance under a previous assistance program known as Foreign Sales Corporations, which the U.S. says is defunct.

"It is interesting but irrelevant," a U.S. source said.

FWIW, we don't get PUBLIC loans from the Government. EADS does. We get contracts for R&D from the miltary, but its not a public loan, it's part of the government military budget.

[RTHolmes]

assistance programs and tax breaks are examples of using public money to support a private enterprise. are you really suggesting boeing has never used public money in any form?

FWIW, we don't get PUBLIC loans from the Government. EADS does.

interesting, you have any details on these loans?

a whoping 5.2 bil, of which boeing claims 2.5 was illegal. Airbus has a tab of over 40 billion... still really want to say Airbus hasnt recieved anything?

so you're saying EADS has received 40bn of public money from somewhere. how did that work? loan? gift? tax break? investment capital? what amounts and from whom?

[MachFly]

Can you see the wingtip from the cockpit of an A380?
I dont know.

If you're keeping to the centreline of the taxiway unless there is a notam to say otherwise you've got a right to expect that you'll have wingtip clearance.

Does this absolve you from watching out for things that infringe, of course not, but I can see the pilot, presumably the captain doing the taxi'ing and looking ahead to keep the plane on the lines. A prefunctaly look at the RJ, then look forward again.

Everyone is to blame and no one is to blame just be thankfull there where no lives lost.

The only thing the centerline does it makes sure you don't get off the pavement in 0 visibility. You are responsible for where your wings are.
Also he was not even on a taxiway, it was a ramp, I'm not sure he even had a centerline.

[Ripsnort]

assistance programs and tax breaks are examples of using public money to support a private enterprise. are you really suggesting boeing has never used public money in any form?


interesting, you have any details on these loans?


so you're saying EADS has received 40bn of public money from somewhere. how did that work? loan? gift? tax break? investment capital? what amounts and from whom?

States give businesses tax breaks to keep jobs within the state. If you consider that a public loan, so be it. We call it capitalism. Its money no one ever HAD in the first place, but from your perspective, you see it as potential money coming in for government. I don't see it that way. For instance, today, Boeing moved a 2nd 787 line to S.C. because S.C. is giving Boeing better tax breaks than this state. That's not a direct public loan.

Regarding Airbus public loans, its a known fact, quoted in the article. I'm pretty sure those public loans can be found if the European countries involved have a Freedom of Information Act. Look for yourself.

[Golfer]

For a twy thats rated for a code F aircraft, enough wing tip clearance not to smack into another aircraft

I grasp aircraft movements fine, even at night and I also know how easy it is to lose aircraft (especially from the arse end) in a congestion apron...and it might be different @ JFK but in sydney you cant enter or move anything on the movement area without ground clearance, aprons are still controlled by ground...that A388, and CRJ were both still on the manoeuvring area and I've heard plenty of captains baulk moving within a country mile of aircraft @ holdpoints that includes plenty of A388's so I find it hard to believe that an A380 captain would knowingly roll past something within wingtip clearance.

 Tronsky

I didn't intend to sound condescending if that's how you took it now that I reread my post.  I'll blame it on writing from my phone and not as easily being able to format my thoughts into a more presentable fashion.

I don't believe the captain of the 380 in question knowingly or willingly would taxi where there would be an overlap with another object.  That's why I maintain this accident is just that and one the 380 captain is responsible for.  That's the end of it.  It's not Comair's fault, they werent moving.  

While there are design standards for airport and taxiway construction and it's great information to know it's going beyond what pilots need to know.  Simplify it.  How?  Read the AIM in chapter 2:

AIM 2-3-4;

b. Taxiway Centerline.
1. Normal Centerline. The taxiway centerline is a single continuous yellow line, 6 inches (15 cm) to 12 inches (30 cm) in width. This provides a visual cue to permit taxiing along a designated path. Ideally, the aircraft should be kept centered over this line during taxi. However, being centered on the taxiway centerline does not guarantee wingtip clearance with other aircraft or other objects

Anything you want to say about safety areas with regards to taxiway architecture is all well and good.  That right there is black and white and all a taxiway centerline means is someone painted a line on a taxiway.  With as restricted as a 380 is regarding to where it can actually go and how it can get around I'm surprised this happened in the first place but shake my head that some extra caution wasn't given.  I wasn't there, perhaps I would have done the same thing but throwing blame to anyone other than the individual responsible for not hitting stuff that isn't moving with their airplane isn't something I'm going to do.

Look where these guys were as they taxied along in Teterboro, NJ a few years ago.  Did it change the fact that at least the captain lost their job?  I don't know/recall about the other pilot in this case but I am quite confident that I remember being told the pilot taxiing was fired for it.




This 380 isn't the first airplane to hit something that wasn't reported/notam'd/lit/marked/where it should be while maintaining centerline during taxi and won't be the last.  I can go on but being "right" in the eyes of the lawsuit that follows to determine who pays is one thing.  It's another when it comes to keeping your certificates and getting a (at least now with the FAA) ding on your record that will not be expunged for something that might well not be your fault.  I'd like to say that keeping on the centerline of a taxiway will guarantee you'll keep from whacking into stuff.  It'd be nice and even logical.  It won't.

[RTHolmes]

so airbus and boeing have both recieved subsidies, tax breaks and assistance programs using public money.

boeing are a shining example of capitalism and free-market economics because ... um ... they are a US company.

airbus are a disgraceful example of socialism and market distortion because ... um ... they are european company.


ok I get it now

[Ripsnort]

so airbus and boeing have both recieved subsidies, tax breaks and assistance programs using public money.
boeing are a shining example of capitalism and free-market economics because ... um ... they are a US company.

airbus are a disgraceful example of socialism and market distortion because ... um ... they are european company.


ok I get it now

How can it be public money if it is not collected?

Oh, and replace "are" with "is".

Is Japn susidizing Boeing because we outsourced work there? India? Italy? Australia? Russia?

Boeing gets tax cuts to set up shop in a particular area be it in WA or elsewhere , they get tax incentives just like any other aerospace or large production house gets for setting up a shop in a particular area and contributing to the economic development of that region through employment and buisness generation . Boeing gets defense contracts through its Integrated defence and Phantom works division but has to compete for those contracts in one of the most cut throat defence industries anywhere in the world ( BA-ID is second to LMA and in many ways have lost due to various reasons) . Those contracts might be for product development , technology development , procurment etc etc and FIXED profits are given to boeing as per US laws and dealings with the DOD . Boeing is not owned by the US govt and is a publically traded company with many share holders (some own more then others) . Boeing does not Get launch aids from the US govt to start a particular jet development , it hires sub contractors who compete amongst themselves for the lucrative contracts and get tax breaks etc to be more competitve so that they win over others .