Aircraft was a A300-600RF, delivered in 2003, with mere 11000 hours in the air. Plane was reported to be on fire already before the crash and three explosions had been heard by witnesses.
At the time the story was originally published, it was early morning and still dark, so it was unclear what type of cargo plane it was. I think the term "jumbo cargo plane" was used quite generically in this particular instance.
Some early reports from other news outlets said it was a 747.
Latest report as of late yesterday states that due to the tail section still smoldering, they have been unable to recover the cockpit voice or flight data recorders.
---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 AM ----------
At the time the story was originally published, it was early morning and still dark, so it was unclear what type of cargo plane it was. I think the term "jumbo cargo plane" was used quite generically in this particular instance.
I think it is simply confusing to use a term with both no clear definition (Since the expert knows no jumbo cargo plane) and a clear definition (The layman will only call the 747 a jumbo jet)
"Large cargo aircraft" would have been better. Also air traffic control and flight tracking homepages would have known which type of aircraft this one was, it is pretty apologetic to suggest that these sources might be unable to read the strip, so it is OK to make things up, instead of being a journalist and ask.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.