BA Plane slices through building
BA Plane slices through building
Author
Discussion

Roadrunner23

Original Poster:

545 posts

224 months

fatboy b

9,665 posts

245 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Just love Sky reporting calling it a crash to dramatise it.

The Nur

9,168 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
fatboy b said:
Just love Sly reporting calling it a crash to dramatise it.
So what do you call it when a vehicle hits something else?

Eric Mc

125,606 posts

294 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Direct quote from the Sky News website.

"British Airways Plane 'Crash' In Johannesburg

The aircraft was manoeuvring the runway when it collided with a building, slicing part of the way through its top floor".

Using a 747 to "manoeuvring the runway" seems rather ambitous.

knight

5,235 posts

308 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
There a a few photos of the damage over on pprune

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/530468-british-...

croyde

26,298 posts

259 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Bet he had that same awful feeling that I had when I knocked that wall down with the boss' van.

Butter Face

34,698 posts

189 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Jesus.

I bet the pilot was gutted when that happened!

Eric Mc

125,606 posts

294 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
You don't realise how big these aeroplanes are until they do something like this.

fatboy b

9,665 posts

245 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
The Nur said:
So what do you call it when a vehicle hits something else?
99.99% of the population associate the words "plane" and "crash" in the same sentence with something a little more catastrophic. But then you knew that.

onyx39

11,349 posts

179 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Butter Face said:
Jesus.

I bet the pilot was gutted when that happened!
(according to PPrune) the aircraft has done 109,000 hours and may well be a write off...

oops....

0000

13,817 posts

220 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Sign47 said:
They kept us on board for over an hour after the collision and the message we were getting most was to turn our electronics off. This is because the captain and crew knew everyone was taking photos and posting to social media from their seats.
Ha. hehe

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/22012805-post32.htm...

The Nur

9,168 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
fatboy b said:
99.99% of the population associate the words "plane" and "crash" in the same sentence with something a little more catastrophic. But then you knew that.
bks. That plane has clearly crashed in to that building. Just because it was taxiing instead of flying makes no difference, IMO.

Do we have different words for car crashes at different speeds? No.

davepoth

29,395 posts

228 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
The Nur said:
bks. That plane has clearly crashed in to that building. Just because it was taxiing instead of flying makes no difference, IMO.

Do we have different words for car crashes at different speeds? No.
Ah, but we do have different words for planes, because it makes a bit of a difference. If it had nose-dived from 30,000 feet into this building at 600mph it would be different to a ground handling incident, even though it seems to have been travelling at a fair speed in this case.

The Nur

9,168 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
davepoth said:
Ah, but we do have different words for planes, because it makes a bit of a difference. If it had nose-dived from 30,000 feet into this building at 600mph it would be different to a ground handling incident, even though it seems to have been travelling at a fair speed in this case.
Fair enough, what is this called then? Not taking the piss, genuinely interested.

My earlier post, whilst not the most eloquently put, was more a reaction to obtuse_b's quip of "but you already knew that" as if that is the be all and end all statement required to prove that one is unequivocally correct. I appreciate that in the industry there may be official terms that relate to incidents that happen in individual circumstances but to the vast majority of people, when a vehicle hits another, it is a crash.

Simpo Two

92,680 posts

294 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
'Struck' would seem to solve the dispute. As in 'The aeroplane struck the building'.

0000

13,817 posts

220 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
'Struck' would seem to solve the dispute. As in 'The aeroplane struck the building'.
Struck it taxiing past or in a dive from 30k feet?

croyde

26,298 posts

259 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
biggrin

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

213 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Collision yes, crash no.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Verb

1. [no object] (of a vehicle) collide violently with an obstacle or another vehicle.

MitchT

17,114 posts

238 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
The Nur said:
Do we have different words for car crashes at different speeds? No.
Yes we do. We tend to call collisions 'bumps' or 'scrapes' when they happen as at low speed.

IanMorewood

4,309 posts

277 months

Monday 23rd December 2013
quotequote all
Whoops wouldn't want to pay the excess on that little bump.