# A380 vs. CRJ-700



## saxman

Looks like some passengers and crew went for a wild ride before pulling into the gate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2StZVDUck9M


----------



## the_traveler

Were you the pilot, Chris?




Be honest - you planned to do that!


----------



## jis

the_traveler said:


> Were you the pilot, Chris?
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest - you planned to do that!


Nah! He just put his friends upto it


----------



## saxman

the_traveler said:


> Were you the pilot, Chris?
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest - you planned to do that!


Well I don't work there anymore so it wasn't me. Plus I never flew the -700 model. (It would have been fun on my last day though. :lol: )

Seriously though, I can easily see it happening at that very spot. I parked at those spots a few hundred times and its a tight squeeze. The longer CRJ-700's only park right next to the taxiway in which the A380 was taxiing by. He wasn't pulled all the way in because he has to make a sharp left hand turn to get into the parking spot, and pulling up any further would have brought him too far up.


----------



## GG-1

saxman said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you the pilot, Chris?
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest - you planned to do that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't work there anymore so it wasn't me. Plus I never flew the -700 model. (It would have been fun on my last day though. :lol: )
> 
> Seriously though, I can easily see it happening at that very spot. I parked at those spots a few hundred times and its a tight squeeze. The longer CRJ-700's only park right next to the taxiway in which the A380 was taxiing by. He wasn't pulled all the way in because he has to make a sharp left hand turn to get into the parking spot, and pulling up any further would have brought him too far up.
Click to expand...

Aloha

Then did the tower err by allowing the air bus to go behind without clearing the smaller plane. It does look like it almost made it.


----------



## rrdude

Pays to "keep your seat belt fastened until aircraft is parked at the gate, and the pilot has turned off the 'fasten seat belt sign'.........." No kidding, you coulda got whiplash.

I can hear the ambulance-chaser attorneys now...........


----------



## jis

GG-1 said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you the pilot, Chris?
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest - you planned to do that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't work there anymore so it wasn't me. Plus I never flew the -700 model. (It would have been fun on my last day though. :lol: )
> 
> Seriously though, I can easily see it happening at that very spot. I parked at those spots a few hundred times and its a tight squeeze. The longer CRJ-700's only park right next to the taxiway in which the A380 was taxiing by. He wasn't pulled all the way in because he has to make a sharp left hand turn to get into the parking spot, and pulling up any further would have brought him too far up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aloha
> 
> Then did the tower err by allowing the air bus to go behind without clearing the smaller plane. It does look like it almost made it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The tower really has no way of knowing for sure. Usually they'd say something like "Let that CRJ across on Mike and then proceed on Alpha" or some such. After that it is ultimately the responsibility of the PIC to ensure they don't crash into things.

In this case I think FAA might have a little explaining to do on why they gave JFK a waiver to allow operation of the 380 in those tight quarters. The taxiway spacing there does not meet FAA's own standard and hence the need for waiver.


----------



## GG-1

Aloha and Mahalo Jishnu

What do the initials PIC mean?


----------



## AlanB

saxman said:


> Well I don't work there anymore so it wasn't me. Plus I never flew the -700 model. (It would have been fun on my last day though. :lol: )


You of course immediately popped into my mind when I saw that video last night on the 11 PM news, they got a copy just before signing off for the evening, so I had already seen the vid in the first post.


----------



## AlanB

rrdude said:


> Pays to "keep your seat belt fastened until aircraft is parked at the gate, and the pilot has turned off the 'fasten seat belt sign'.........." No kidding, you coulda got whiplash.
> 
> I can hear the ambulance-chaser attorneys now...........


Even with a seatbelt on you probably still could have gotten whiplash from that. That was a very sudden, violent, and unexpected movement.

Any fool who didn't have their belt still on and were already standing almost certainly did go flying!


----------



## AlanB

GG-1 said:


> What do the initials PIC mean?


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


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you the pilot, Chris?
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest - you planned to do that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't work there anymore so it wasn't me. Plus I never flew the -700 model. (It would have been fun on my last day though. :lol: )
> 
> Seriously though, I can easily see it happening at that very spot. I parked at those spots a few hundred times and its a tight squeeze. The longer CRJ-700's only park right next to the taxiway in which the A380 was taxiing by. He wasn't pulled all the way in because he has to make a sharp left hand turn to get into the parking spot, and pulling up any further would have brought him too far up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aloha
> 
> Then did the tower err by allowing the air bus to go behind without clearing the smaller plane. It does look like it almost made it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily. The tower really has no way of knowing for sure. Usually they'd say something like "Let that CRJ across on Mike and then proceed on Alpha" or some such. After that it is ultimately the responsibility of the PIC to ensure they don't crash into things.
> 
> In this case I think FAA might have a little explaining to do on why they gave JFK a waiver to allow operation of the 380 in those tight quarters. The taxiway spacing there does not meet FAA's own standard and hence the need for waiver.
Click to expand...

Well for better or for worse, one thing we can be assured of is a whole new set of rules whenever one of these oversize jumbo's taxis. Perhaps, a more restricted taxi speed, or Port Authority "pilot" vehicles or even in the extreme, wingwalkers to guide the aircraft through these tight quarters.

Whatever it is, it will result in more delays and disruptions.

Safety First!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

My inner armchair NTSB agent says it looks like the Airbus pilot's fault... looks like what happens when a semi-truck driver makes a turn and underestimates the length of his rig-- and clips a car. He probably thought it would clear, the pictures of the damage to the A-380s wing should tell the story.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

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


----------



## the_traveler

AlanB said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do the initials PIC mean?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing, but Pilot In Command. Or maybe if you prefer, Pilot In Charge.
Click to expand...

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!


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do the initials PIC mean?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing, but Pilot In Command. Or maybe if you prefer, Pilot In Charge.
Click to expand...

Yep. Pilot In Command.


----------



## rrdude

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


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


I noticed that too, impressive.


----------



## jis

rrdude said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Color me impressed though, that Airbus stopped on a dime.
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that too, impressive.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## DET63

jis said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Color me impressed though, that Airbus stopped on a dime.
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that too, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can picture the situation in the cockpit as words like "merde" and "mon dieu" reverberated across it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that a lot more colorful language, only in a language we all speak and understand, could have been heard in the cabin of the smaller plane.


----------



## Ryan

Although I was impressed that the radio transmissions were calm and professional.


----------



## jis

On the air what was spoken from the cockpit of the CRJ was something like "Send out the truck. We have been hit by Air France".


----------



## Ryan

Exactly (I think his exact words were "Roll the emergency trucks...").

I would have been "Holy *BLEEP* that *BLEEP* *BLEEP* just *BLEEPING* hit us!!!"

Edit: I also hear that the first words out of the cockpit of the Air France was "We surrender!", but I might just be making that up.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

jis said:


> On the air what was spoken from the cockpit of the CRJ was something like "Send out the truck. We have been hit by Air France".


More like "we just got flipped with 90 degrees we didn't want"

This is an airport fender-bender... I wonder what kind of damage you could expect, broken hydros, tears in the tail, those landing gears will probably need checked, and the vomit bags replaced :lol:

I'm guessing that Airbus got pulled off the tarmac for NTSB inspection, poor pax probably had to wait for AirFrance to try and get another plane out.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

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


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> This is an airport fender-bender... I wonder what kind of damage you could expect, broken hydros, tears in the tail, those landing gears will probably need checked, and the vomit bags replaced :lol:


The tail saw a fair amount of damage; such that it will need some major repair work before its fit to fly again.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I'm guessing that Airbus got pulled off the tarmac for NTSB inspection, poor pax probably had to wait for AirFrance to try and get another plane out.


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.


----------



## leemell

the_traveler said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do the initials PIC mean?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing, but Pilot In Command. Or maybe if you prefer, Pilot In Charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
Click to expand...

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

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> 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

AlanB said:


> 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

railiner said:


> 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

assa said:


> 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

jis said:


> assa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> assa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you count eight? That aint no B-52!
> 
> Perhaps six, if you include a pair of APU's.
Click to expand...

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

Well if a 3*4*0 has 4, shouldn't a 3*8*0 have 8?  Of course it has only 4. Then again by that logic a 3*3*0 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

jis said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> assa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you count eight? That aint no B-52!
> 
> Perhaps six, if you include a pair of APU's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose counting 8? Do I have to explicitly state "This is all in jest" in addition to putting a  ?
> 
> Well if a 3*4*0 has 4, shouldn't a 3*8*0 have 8?  Of course it has only 4. Then again by that logic a 3*3*0 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*
Click to expand...

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

Trogdor said:


> 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

jis said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Color me impressed though, that Airbus stopped on a dime.
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that too, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can picture the situation in the cockpit as words like "merde" and "mon dieu" reverberated across it.
Click to expand...

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

DET63 said:


> 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.


----------

