A380 vs. CRJ-700

[leemell]

What do the initials PIC mean?

I'm guessing, but Pilot In Command. Or maybe if you prefer, Pilot In Charge.

That's what I'm guessing too - but what do I know?

I almost went for training for ATC. (I was even given a date to report for training!) Now that's a scary thought!

Yup, it's Pilot in Command.

Oops, I didn't see that somebody already got it. BTW, I put the damage in the high 6 figures for both planes.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Will AirFrance pay for the accident if they are found at fault?

 

[John Bredin]

This reminds me of another event involving a near collision between a really big thing and its smaller cousin.

I thought of that too, but I thought I was the only one. :blush:

 

[jis]

He had wing damage, so he wasn't going anywhere even if the NTSB had said "we don't need to see the plane for our inspections." The Air France plane will need work before it can fly again.

The A380 reportedly is grounded for at least a week to repair its wing. It took damage on the wing skin and the outer slat, in addition to losing the top fence which got lodged in the stabilizer of the CRJ and was left there.

 

[railiner]

The visible damage to the impacted areas of the aircraft is one thing, but what is really unknown is what hidden effect that severe hit had to the entire structural integrity of the two aircraft, especially the smaller one.

That is one scenario that I doubt is ever thought about when new aircraft go through their certification for airworthiness in initial development. I would think that due to the severe stresses absorbed, the aircraft would have to be totally torn down for the most critical of inspections.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

The visible damage to the impacted areas of the aircraft is one thing, but what is really unknown is what hidden effect that severe hit had to the entire structural integrity of the two aircraft, especially the smaller one.

That is one scenario that I doubt is ever thought about when new aircraft go through their certification for airworthiness in initial development. I would think that due to the severe stresses absorbed, the aircraft would have to be totally torn down for the most critical of inspections.

Yeah I imagine the landing gears and struts are finished, that kind of stress could have done damage.

 

[Rumpled]

I first read about this on the web and then heard about it on the news. Thought it was a run of the mill clipping.

Then, I saw the video on the news last night and my words were something like blessed excrement!

That was quite a ride in that commuter for sure.

 

[assa]

this ain't a380, this one has 4 engines, so its a340!

 

[Trogdor]

A380s have four engines.

 

[jis]

this ain't a380, this one has 4 engines, so its a340!

So would you say that the 380 has 8 engines perhaps?

Here is what a Airbus A380 looks like:

and it is just a little less than twice the size of a Airbus A340, and example of which an A340-600 is standing right behind the 380 in the picture.

 

[railiner]

this ain't a380, this one has 4 engines, so its a340!

So would you say that the 380 has 8 engines perhaps?

Here is what a Airbus A380 looks like:

and it is just a little less than twice the size of a Airbus A340, and example of which an A340-600 is standing right behind the 380 in the picture.

Where do you count eight? That aint no B-52!

Perhaps six, if you include a pair of APU's.

 

[jis]

this ain't a380, this one has 4 engines, so its a340!

So would you say that the 380 has 8 engines perhaps?

Here is what a Airbus A380 looks like:

and it is just a little less than twice the size of a Airbus A340, and example of which an A340-600 is standing right behind the 380 in the picture.

Where do you count eight? That aint no B-52!

Perhaps six, if you include a pair of APU's.

Whose counting 8? Do I have to explicitly state "This is all in jest" in addition to putting a ?

Well if a 340 has 4, shouldn't a 380 have 8? Of course it has only 4. Then again by that logic a 330 should have 3 but has only 2 . Oh well.... there goes that theory

Just to make sure that the obvious is not missed This is a joke

 

[GG-1]

this ain't a380, this one has 4 engines, so its a340!

So would you say that the 380 has 8 engines perhaps?

Here is what a Airbus A380 looks like:

and it is just a little less than twice the size of a Airbus A340, and example of which an A340-600 is standing right behind the 380 in the picture.

Where do you count eight? That aint no B-52!

Perhaps six, if you include a pair of APU's.

Whose counting 8? Do I have to explicitly state "This is all in jest" in addition to putting a ?

Well if a 340 has 4, shouldn't a 380 have 8? Of course it has only 4. Then again by that logic a 330 should have 3 but has only 2 . Oh well.... there goes that theory

Just to make sure that the obvious is not missed This is a joke

Well are there 380 people in that picture? Oh well maybe then that plane has 38 engines. No guess the real answer is 380 laughs. Mahalo and Aloha

 

[Ryan]

That is one Hugh Jass plane!

 

[Trogdor]

So that means the A300 was just a glider.

 

[saxman]

So that means the A300 was just a glider.

:lol: That was funny.

I guess the CRJ is still being held by the NTSB. The company really hasn't said much else about the incident.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Color me impressed though, that Airbus stopped on a dime.

I noticed that too, impressive.

I can picture the situation in the cockpit as words like "merde" and "mon dieu" reverberated across it.

IREF to Ryan's earlier comment I found the YouTube video with the radio transmissions. At first I found it odd that AirFrance was quiet-- then I realized that the priority was to keep the channels open for emergency traffic. Still, those couple minutes in between check-ins must have been interesting conversation.

Note: I find it funny that the A380 is just a "super". A380's Super-Jumbo, Super-Service, Super-fender benders.

EDIT to add video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjuCI2yAVD8&NR=1

 

[George Harris]

I have a feeling that all occupants of the Airbus cockpit will be in the cabin for a long period of time, if not permanently.

 

[DET63]

I've never understood the numbering scheme for jetliners. Why do the Boeing series planes use the 7-7 pattern? Why did the McDonnell-Douglas planes have the DC- designation? Somewhere in engineering or marketing at each corporation there is some sort of logical answer, I'm sure.

 

[railiner]

I've never understood the numbering scheme for jetliners. Why do the Boeing series planes use the 7-7 pattern? Why did the McDonnell-Douglas planes have the DC- designation? Somewhere in engineering or marketing at each corporation there is some sort of logical answer, I'm sure.

Each manufacturer used there own naming/numbering system--sometimes an internal use number and also a different public use number or name. Really no different than automobile, bus, truck, or even locomotive practice.

Douglas started out with Douglas Commercial 1 (DC-1) and continued consecutive numbers up to the DC-10, with subtypes such as DC-9-10 or DC-9-50, etc. When they merged with McDonnell, they modified it to MD-11, etc.

Boeing early on had models such as the Boeing 247, the 377 (also known as the Stratocruiser), the 314 flying boat. When the first commercial Boeing jetliner came out, it was internally the 367-80, but was called publically the 707. Later derivatives were the 720, the 707-320, then the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and now the 787, with many subs of each type.

Lockheed had 749 Constellations, and derivatives, L-188 Electra's, L-1011-385's, L-1011-500's etc.

Each of these aircraft when built for the military had a separate military designation such as VC135 (707's built for Air Force One usage).

Convair had CV240, 340, 440, 580, 600, 880, and 990.

Martin had 202's, 404's.