Two planes collide on the tarmac in Atlanta

[2005jettatdi]

The latest report is Delta will sell it to Spirit and throw in some JB Weld and a roll of duck tape.

 

[MolaKule]

A delta A350 made contact at wingtip with a CRJ basically snapping CRJ tail down on taxi way at Atlanta.

Is the CRJ junk or can they fix key structural element of a plane:

View attachment 239942

I think it may be repairable but at what cost?

Much depends on how much damage was done to the internal mechanical, empennage structure and are structural member replacements still available. I believe Mitsibushi owns the design and parts inventory?

https://www.abbottaerospace.com/aa-...esign-methods/22-14-55-empennage-stabilizers/

Also, Delta has to consider replacement of the control systems such as cables and hydraulic lines, piping, and electrical cable runs.

Repair by qualified A/P labor is not cheap. And then a complete documentation package of the repairs must be made available to the FAA.

Hopefully the APU was not damaged but if so, that will be a major cost item as well. The APU provides bleed air at 56 psi for main engine starting and environmental control, and 45kW of electrical power.

APU RE220 RJ photo by Honeywell. Copyright Honeywell, used under the fair use provision.

 

[kschachn]

I think it may be repairable but at what cost?

Exactly. Considering this aircraft was repaired and returned to service, almost anything can be if enough time and money is spent.

 

[fdcg27]

Cramped Regional Junk

Kinda harsh and I like flying on these and ERJs. No middle seats and quick on and off.
Of course it could be repaired but its current value would not likely support that course of action.

 

[CourierDriver]

The latest report is Delta will sell it to Spirit and throw in some JB Weld and a roll of duck tape.

If that was the damage, big deal, the news nuts said colided, now that over play, mercy such drama............of course thats my ten cents worth..........................

 

[y_p_w]

Exactly. Considering this aircraft was repaired and returned to service, almost anything can be if enough time and money is spent.

Didn't Qantas fix up a 747 at a cost greater than buying a used replacement, just so that they could avoid declaring it a hull loss?

 

[MolaKule]

Exactly. Considering this aircraft was repaired and returned to service, almost anything can be if enough time and money is spent.

Wow! Now that was a high sink rate and did you see the fuselage flex as the wheels hit the runway?

 

[MolaKule]

Kinda harsh and I like flying on these and ERJs. No middle seats and quick on and off.
Of course it could be repaired but its current value would not likely support that course of action.

I have flown on the CRJ900 a number of times and it is fast and efficient. My only complaint was that the seat pitch on this airline was not comfortable for a 6'3" dude, but that is not a complaint aimed at the airframe maker.

 

[Astro14]

If that was the damage, big deal, the news nuts said colided, now that over play, mercy such drama............of course thats my ten cents worth..........................

I have no idea what you are saying.

“Such drama”?? The airplane is totaled. No injuries, but totaled.

If your kid did that to the family car - there would be drama.

 

[Astro14]

Didn't Qantas fix up a 747 at a cost greater than buying a used replacement, just so that they could avoid declaring it a hull loss?

Yep. This one:

QANTAS 1 - failed to stop on the runway. Pilot error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1#Flight

 

[4WD]

Yep. This one:

View attachment 240032

QANTAS 1 - failed to stop on the runway. Pilot error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1#Flight

Loved the ole’ 400 - but LH has been unreliable with that flight from here - not sure if it’s just getting hard to support compared to the B777. I have been on BA flights where UA bailed them out (777) before take off …
I just cancelled LH for UA a day early and will overnight at FRA …
(big meetings I can’t miss) …

 

[burbguy82]

Exactly. Considering this aircraft was repaired and returned to service, almost anything can be if enough time and money is spent.

was that a test of some kind? Looks kind of old, long before everyone had cameras in their pocket.

 

[Astro14]

was that a test of some kind? Looks kind of old, long before everyone had cameras in their pocket.

It was McDonnell Douglas conducting a certification test. The pilots exceeded the intended test sink rate. The airplane was brand new, just starting production.

So, it was worth fixing, as it had no time on the airframe, and all the jigs, fixtures and parts and technicians were right there and ready to go.

The airplane in the collision is not worth fixing. It’s no longer in production, so the jigs, fixtures and parts would all have to be created at enormous cost.

 

[burbguy82]

It was McDonnell Douglas conducting a certification test. The pilots exceeded the intended test sink rate. The airplane was brand new, just starting production.

So, it was worth fixing, as it had no time on the airframe, and all the jigs, fixtures and parts and technicians were right there and ready to go.

The airplane in the collision is not worth fixing. It’s no longer in production, so the jigs, fixtures and parts would all have to be created at enormous cost.

makes sense, hope test pilots make some big bucks

 

[kschachn]

Wow! Now that was a high sink rate and did you see the fuselage flex as the wheels hit the runway?

Yes there was a lot of damage on that landing.

 

[kschachn]

It was McDonnell Douglas conducting a certification test. The pilots exceeded the intended test sink rate. The airplane was brand new, just starting production.

There were only a few people on board including the FAA. Someone got injured but not seriously.

I saw that aircraft much later in Long Beach. It had been used as the UDF test aircraft (a really cool program but not successful) and I saw it parked after that program had ended. It was scrapped in the 1990s. I believe the NTSB report is on-line if anyone wants to read it.

 

[y_p_w]

It was McDonnell Douglas conducting a certification test. The pilots exceeded the intended test sink rate. The airplane was brand new, just starting production.

So, it was worth fixing, as it had no time on the airframe, and all the jigs, fixtures and parts and technicians were right there and ready to go.

The airplane in the collision is not worth fixing. It’s no longer in production, so the jigs, fixtures and parts would all have to be created at enormous cost.

There might be a few of these in boneyards. Not sure how that would work though if they went that route. Maybe cannibalize for parts?

 

[wpod]

Sitting is a 747 cockpit which I have several hours of and close to getting mu coffee drinking rating [ drinking coffee and talking BS.] It is close to looking out of a mail slot. The skill level is beyond my comprehension !

 

[fdcg27]

Way off topic, but does anyone else find the use of the term "tarmac" irritating?
"Tarmac" refers to a specific method of paving not used at any airport today.
The gates and alleys, taxiways and runways are almost always concrete.

 

[john_pifer]

Way off topic, but does anyone else find the use of the term "tarmac" irritating?
"Tarmac" refers to a specific method of paving not used at any airport today.
The gates and alleys, taxiways and runways are almost always concrete.

Could be one of those terms that has gotten popularized mostly by the media.

Nobody I know in aviation uses that term.

In fact, every time I hear it, it’s in a news article or the like.