Ground collision - 3 x RJ

[ChristiaanJ]

I also believed "ground collision" usually referred to what happens on runways and taxiways, or to the messes caused by soused (errr... that should read 'clumsy') tug drivers, not to what happens when RJs dance a jig inside a hangar.
I may be wrong...
Rainboe, your opinion?

[cwatters]

Just out of interest.. Who shut it down afterwards?

[Rainboe]

I was wondering what 'chalks' were, but I thought better keep your trap shut and don't show your ignorance! Is my understanding correct that aeroplanes stored in hangars never have their brakes on, or is that a light aeroplane thing only? Bigger planes with equipment attached would obviously have parking brake set?

I don't know what to call it. Ground collision is one thing, but when you get incidents like the Saudia 747 under tow, the Astraeus 737 at Gatwick last winter, and this, it's hardly a 'ground collision' I think. When you are driving something and it hits something else, that's a 'collision' Wild things, out of control......any offers?. 'Hangar balls-up'?

[Boss Raptor]

'total $100 million' ?! - I think not - assuming it is a CRJ100 or 200 then each is worth a max of $12-13 mil hull value (and as low as $3 mil) with a probable insured max of $17-18 mil - therefore about $50-60 mil max for 3

[Rainboe]

I can't help thinking the damage is possibly quite superficial. They must have been slow collisions of very light aircraft. It all depends on the current values of the airframes, but I wouldn't be surprised if on further examination and revue, they decided at least one was repairable. However the CRJ doesn't seem to be flavour of the month commuter-wise, so this will count against repair.

[PaperTiger]

I can't help thinking the damage is possibly quite superficial.

You saw the photos, I take it? I wouldn't call a CRJ with half a wing missing exactly superficial.

[Rainboe]

One of or newspapers the other day had an interview with a mole that had had an actress removed (Sarah Jessica Parker). So this half wing has had an aeroplane removed? I was just suggesting that one or the other could have the rest replaced. Quite badly damaged aeroplanes can fly again. I won't bring up the pictures of it being done again! I have seen too many 'that's a write off' aeroplanes that got airborne again to rely on immediate inexpert judgements.

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by Rainboe

Quite badly damaged aeroplanes can fly again.

I have the impression both you and I come from an era where "file to adjust, bash to fit, rivet to fix, paint to finish" were still valid ways to get an aircraft back in the air. And Queen Mary's were still plentiful.

With present-day wages (to rebuild), insurance premiums, book-keeping methods, and a certain urge to get less-than-pristine assets off the books ASAP, the mentalities may have changed...

Cheers,

CJ

[Rainboe]

I think a big problem for repair (apart from the actual damage) is that CRJs don't make money anymore. Write-off values are far more attractive at the moment! But wings can be replaced quite easily, fuselage damage ditto. When the Classic 747s were returned to Boeing to have the upper deck converted with more windows, I was told Boeing simply took a saw to the fuselage and hacked the whole upper deck off. Nothing to metal workers!