OK gentlemen, yet another robust discussion.
A couple of points that warrant further investigation.
Looking at the scar on the fence, the wing appears to have been travelling (pivoting?) forwards when it struck.
Yes indeed the wing does appear to have been pivoting forward after it struck?
Can anyone gauge from the picture exactly how far and with how much energy said wingtip pivoted against the fence? Perhaps some of our more learned friends can come up with some calculations to determine how long the wingtip was scraped against the fence and with how much force before it came to the attention of either the flight crew or ground staff?
From this we should be able to determine the cumulative hours of log book time in the flight deck and the approximate ages of each flight crew member.
But before I jump to any conclusions...
Also..
There are a couple of simulator manufacturers who produce 3 screen push back simulators. The screen can be customised to show views of the stands and backgrounds at the airport of operation to increase the realism. It is also possible to show the view from above, the side, as well as from the tugs cab.
I have been advocating pushback simulators for years now!
With the available technology there is no excuse to expect that ground staff involved with a push back shouldn't be trained to the highest standard.
IMHO this should involve endorsement on ground equipment which includes a mandatory simulator syllabus using the "3 screen push back simulator" and recurrent training on type to ensure proficiency.
Of course I'd expect only the brightest and best to apply to be trained for such positions and they may presume to be remunerated accordingly... but by mitigating such a risk and avoiding such "fence scrapes" in the future adding only a few dollars to each ticket, well worth the money spent, wouldn't you say?
My two cents..