A380 clips CRJ7 at JFK

[swiftus27]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/11/new.york.plane.incident/index.html?iref=NS1

[Ilyushin]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/11/new.york.plane.incident/index.html?iref=NS1

I bet this incident caused so much delay that it had a significant impact on their CI.

[mtnlion]

I bet they have to do an additional C-check.

[Ilyushin]

I bet they have to do an additional C-check.

No, you must mean EXTRA MAINTENANCE, because the condition reduced a lot...

They will see lower LF% the coming few weeks.

[Curse]

I'm not wondering about it's an Air France plane. :>

[SACEO]

There's a senior pilot who probably won't be flying for Air France ever again .

[swiftus27]

There's a senior pilot who probably won't be flying for Air France ever again .

Sorry, but I bet he gets off without much penalty.  Everything that affects Air France is never their fault... I.E. How they are holding Continental Airlines liable for manslaughter for the Concorde crash.

[GEnx]

This probably also shows that most airports are not quite ready for the massive wingspan of the A380.

[LemonButt]

"The tail of Comair Flight 6293, a Delta Connection flight that had recently arrived from Boston, was struck by the Air France aircraft while waiting to park at the New York airport, said Delta spokeswoman Betsy Talton."

...and that folks is why you should remain seated with your seatbelts fastened until the captain turns off the fasten seat belt sign.

[swiftus27]

...and that folks is why you should remain seated with your seatbelts fastened until the captain turns off the fasten seat belt sign.

Is that because the contents of the overhead bins may have shifted during the flight?

[slither360]

Wearing your seatbelt would likely be a bad idea, since  it's tougher to evacuate if your stuck to the seat

[Tujue]

Sorry, but I bet he gets off without much penalty.  Everything that affects Air France is never their fault... I.E. How they are holding Continental Airlines liable for manslaughter for the Concorde crash.

I disagree with you. If the metal part that came off the Continental DC-10 aircraft wasn't on the runway, that accident had never happened. The reason why Continental is blamed is because they used a part that wasn't FAA approved, explaining why the metal part was found on the runway. (Continental is guilty here). Also to add, Air France isn't responsible for keeping the runway clean, so another reason why Air France isn't liable for the accident.
Finally, the metal part damaged some wires and hit the fuel tanks, the sparks coming off the wires ignited the fuel leaking from these tanks. This is clearly relating the design of the aircraft, again you can't hold Air France liable for that.
Conclusion: Next time if you want to blame an airline, please choose a better example

Wearing your seatbelt would likely be a bad idea, since  it's tougher to evacuate if your stuck to the seat

I will use this argument to defend myself if the police stops me because I'm not wearing my seat belts while driving

[swiftus27]

Tk, I dont want to try to go into semantics, but British Airways and Air France basically co-engineered the Concorde.  There were suggestions to reinforce the fuel tanks well before that sad day.  

Also, I saw this on a news clip from today:

"JFK ground control communication records show that, at about 20:05, the A380 was given instruction for runway 22R, and was cleared to turn left on taxiway A and hold short of taxiway E.  After another aircraft called to request clearance to taxiway KD, the A380 was told to give way to opposite direction traffic, which the crew acknowledged."

I dont have a good chart for KJFK so I cant see where Echo is instead of Mike, but could come back to hurt them? 

[Frogiton]

Somebody's hogging slots with their CRJ-700s...

[flightsimer]

I disagree with you. If the metal part that came off the Continental DC-10 aircraft wasn't on the runway, that accident had never happened. The reason why Continental is blamed is because they used a part that wasn't FAA approved, explaining why the metal part was found on the runway. (Continental is guilty here). Also to add, Air France isn't responsible for keeping the runway clean, so another reason why Air France isn't liable for the accident.Finally, the metal part damaged some wires and hit the fuel tanks, the sparks coming off the wires ignited the fuel leaking from these tanks. This is clearly relating the design of the aircraft, again you can't hold Air France liable for that.
Conclusion: Next time if you want to blame an airline, please choose a better example
I will use this argument to defend myself if the police stops me because I'm not wearing my seat belts while driving

Tk, I dont want to try to go into semantics, but British Airways and Air France basically co-engineered the Concorde.  There were suggestions to reinforce the fuel tanks well before that sad day. 

I will though and I'm raising the BS level to BS level 2

Where to begin...

Correct, the strip came off the CO jet
Correct, the strip was made of titanium instead of the normal aluminum and was not a "FAA Approved" part
Incorrect, Per AF operating procedures, it was required that before every Concorde operation that a runway FOD inspection was supposed to take place. On that day one was not carried out prior to takeoff.

Now to expand... Here are all the contributing factors that came from Air France and were conveniently ignored by the BEA. Concorde was over 1 ton overweight on that flight when it took off. Because of being over weight, its center of gravity was out of its aft limits. A Spacer was missing from the left gear assembly which caused the gear to swivel 3 degrees to either side. It was proven that Concorde was swerving left when it ran over the metal strip on takeoff roll by a long 4 tire skid mark left on the pavement before the impact area. It also took off with the wind instead of into it.

Some eye witnesses also claimed that it had taken off past the normal point that it would have lifted off. Also, the point of impact with the metal strip was further down the runway than the normal takeoff point was for Concorde.

Now on to what happened. When the tire ran over the mettle strip, it instantly ruptured. While rupturing, rubber blew everywhere. two large pieces did heavy damage. One struck the power lines to the gear retraction mechanism while the other large piece impacted the left wing. The impact of the wing sent a shock wave through the fuel tank and caused a fuel cap to rupture open on the underside of the wing. A few moments later, the severed electrical lines made contact with each other and made a spark igniting the fuel. At that point of time, Concorde was doomed.

Now lets talk about her design. In 1979-81, 4 incidents occurred all with Air France in the USA with tires exploding. The NTSB sent the BEA information on the issues that had occurred and stressed their concern that an imploding tire on the Concorde would do just what it did on that day. It was recommended that the underside of the wing be reinforced with a thicker skin and that better tires be made for Concorde due to the higher speeds she takes off at. It wasn't until after the accident did the BEA mandate the changes were done.

So Air France is just as liable as every other party involved with this tragic event. I mean after all, they were the ones that also had to operate Concorde for a less just because of their national pride. If it was any other plane that ran over that strip, the outcome wouldn't have been the same.

[flightsimer]

As for this incident, i cant stop watching the video. It amazes me how the CRJ is just tossed like a toy.

[Frogiton]

It amazes me how the CRJ is just tossed like a toy.

That was exactly my thought word for word. The A380 didn't even seem to budge. Not even a wiggle.

[JumboShrimp]

As for this incident, i cant stop watching the video. It amazes me how the CRJ is just tossed like a toy.

First, I was surprised that the tail of the CRJ didn't bend or break.

But then, if you think about it, the the rear (wing) wheels of the aircraft are near the center of gravity.  There is not that much weight on the front wheels.  So it does not take as much force to spin the aircraft as one might think.

[swiftus27]

Plus, imagine the stresses that plane must endure

[RushmoreAir]

Plus, imagine the stresses that plane must endure

Yeah, I wonder how many landings that stress is equivalent to.

Does the aircraft have to be scrapped?

I know planes are built to handle vertical stresses, but is the structure of the CRJ now compromised because of the hard impact?