Excel B767 and bmibaby B737 collision at Manchester

[Ranger One]

Wife just called - Bloomberg reporting 'a collision at Manchester airport'... any more known?

R1

[distaff_beancounter]

ITV News Channel just reported:-

"Two aircraft collided at Manchester Airport"

[ManofMan]

Not confirmed with my own eyes but i believe that a Excel aircraft has collided with a BMI aircraft causing damage to the tail of the BMI. Also understand that it has been declared a major incident and has closed runway 24L.

Mom

[ajamieson]

PA-GENFAX18:44GMT
Two planes collided on a runway at Manchester Airport today while taxiing to take off.
The tail of a Boeing 737 with 79 passengers on board clipped the wing of an Excel Airways 767 with 255 passengers on board, a spokeswoman for the airport said.
Both aircraft were on the ground preparing to depart on runway two at 4.27pm.
There were no reported casualties, the spokeswoman said.
Emergency services were scrambled and passengers from both planes were evacuated.
Air Accident Investigation Branch officials are at the scene.
Excel Airways flight XLA 340 was departing to Goa. The other plane – bmibaby flight WW3007 – was on its way to Belfast International.
“All passengers have been taken off the planes by the steps and bussed out to a lounge,” the spokeswoman added.
There was no disruption to any other services.
mfl
..
re/o
A spokesman for bmibaby said: “We can confirm there was an incident at Manchester Airport which involved a bmibaby aircraft being damaged.
“We are not aware of any injuries to passengers or crew.
“The incident is currently being investigated. Passengers have returned to the terminal building and an alternative aircraft is being arranged to take passengers to their final destinations.”
mfl

[gordonroxburgh]

no casualties reported.

passengers from both planes were removed and the emergency services are trying to establish the circumstances surrounding the collision, which happened on the ground

[distaff_beancounter]

ITV News Channel update - now reporting:-

" two planes collided at Manchester airport. All passengers removed from both planes. No reported injuries."

[Diabolus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3983795.stm

[Localiser Green]

BBC News Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3983795.stm) says the aircraft "collided while taxiing on a runway".

I assume they mean taxiway? Arrivals and departures don't seem to be affected.

Edit: Diabolus beat me to it!

[st.elmo]

As per Sky News 1758:


Two planes have collided at Manchester Airport, it has been reported.

Initial reports say there were no casualties sustained in the crash, which happened at about 5pm.


Emergency crews are at the scene attempting to establish the circumstances surrounding the collision.

A spokesman for Manchester police said: "It was not serious.

"There were no reports of injuries. About 70 people have been evacuated from one of the planes.

"The other is now being evacuated."

[rodan]

BBC News Report says the aircraft "collided while taxiing on a runway".

I assume they mean taxiway? Arrivals and departures don't seem to be affected.

Why? It's entirely possible to taxi on a runway...

[mmeteesside]

BBC News reporting that it was a Baby 737 to BFS (79 pax) and an Excel B767 to Goa (255 pax). They are reporting that they clipped wings.

[cwllpl]

heard from a good source that it was excel, don't know who else was involved tho.

[M.Mouse]

The tail of a Boeing 737 with 79 passengers on board clipped the wing of an Excel Airways 767

What was the 737 doing going backwards without looking?

[Krystal n chips]

Incoming rant !
First point please. I do not wish to detract from the Aviation related aspects of this incident and my post has nothing to do with whatever has transpired. The facts will be ascertained in due course.

Second point. Sensationalist journo's :mad: Watched Granada Reports and the presenter spouting that "two aircraft have crashed at Manchester Airport" followed by equally vacuous reporter saying that one was an Excel and one a BMI baby--two hitherto unknown types then ??--and that they had not actually crashed--such an emotive word--has much more impact ( no pun intended ) than collide after all--and, both here and in subsequent reports and you could palpably feel the frustration in their voices--there were NO casualties---oh, and one report that no disruption to other services etc or that the Airport was closed.

I really get :mad: off when these self important and well paid :mad: "reporters" feel that whenever Aviation is involved they have to be as dramatic as possible to present the report.

Journo found with active brain. Journo found with factual report. Journo manages to link both together. It'll never happen !.

[Established Localiser]

I see the press are jumping up and down about it !

I Quote BBC

"this is not the first incident" "are they ATC issues at the airport"

They dont half make a song and dance about these things without having all the facts !:*

Suppose it's their job!!!:yuk:

[ajamieson]

Journalists would be less likely to get over-excited about these things if over-excited 'aviation enthusiasts' with scanners didn't constantly phone up with breathless accounts of mysterious collisions at busy airports. That is exactly what happened with the Air Malta at GLA the other week and exactly what happened here. These people don't help the aviation industry and they make it more difficult for airport press officers to communicate the actual facts.

[geraintw]

Surprisingly, it's not necessarily spotters who call up. It could be anyone, from airport staff, police/fire/ambulance people who usually have good contacts with the press.

Knowing the media as well as I do, it's more likely to come from them, than from a spotter. Credible newsrooms always check with an official source first. :)

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Whatever may or may not have occurred here, I'm pretty sure that aviation enthusiasts are not to blame for it! And the media do tend to notice when an emergency services turn-out occurs. Many of the finest people in this industry started out as aviation enthusiasts. Pompous, self-righteous gits who try to exclude the public from our airports do this industry a gross dis-service.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Spotters don't need to ring the papers - many monitor the frequencies themselves. At a place where I once worked, a PBX operator used to phone a daily paper with details of emergency turn-outs as soon as they happened!!

"Spotters" might well be professional people, considerably more qualified than those on here who criticise them. It would be as well to keep that in mind!

[quixeven]

Great post, Heathrow Director. Thank you ;)

Cheers,

Nicola

[WAIF-er]

Been flicking through all the 24 hour news channels over the last hour or so.

From the lack of even a mention of any "near disaster" at MAN, I assumed straight away that it was yet another "breaking news" story with no real substance at all, but would fill out that boring part of the afternoon when very little seems to happen, apart from "Glaswegian granny spills cup of hot tea" or "tigger the overweight tabby finally passes away at the age of 12".

What gets up my nose about the whole sensationalism is that what if you were a relative of some passenger, driving back home after dropping them off for their long awaited holiday to GOA, then heard a "newsflash" on the car radio saying that "2 holiday jats have crashed at manchester airport". These numbskull journos are gonna give some poor beggar a coronary one day. I can see the headlines now:

"man suffers fatal crash into tree at 60 mph whilst in shock over sensationalist, inaccurate, inarticulate news report.

:zzz:

[Bearcat]

my biggest fear and nightmare and so bloody easy to happen......couldnt give a crap about 35kt crosswinds but the easiest thing in the world is to clip an object in a tight space taxying.......even on a pushback when one confirms the ramp is clear and the ground crew push you into something....who's ass is hung out to dry?....the Captain and nailed to boot.

i feel so sorry for all involved......the Bear

[Prince Buster]

Landed on 24R just before 18:00lt. Looked like the baby was at holding T1 and the excel clipped the tail when tried to pass to V5.

[pilotwolf]

Surprisingly, it's not necessarily spotters who call up. It could be anyone, from airport staff, police/fire/ambulance people who usually have good contacts with the press

Well as one of the 'ambulance people' I not sure I d risk my job to call the press... the services I ve worked for expressly forbid speaking with the press.

Emergency services' managers will/do spend an incredible amount of time looking for evidence to stitch up their staff.

Oh yes I do have one press contact - but she works for a weekly free paper! Not sure that there are many of us that have a hotline to The Sun...

PW

[EZYboy]

Hey guys

I was actually on the bmi Baby flight to Belfast. We were just sitting waiting to depart, when the Excel airways flight just came along and shunted us forward. Was huge shock, didnt know what was going on at first.
Pilot came on told us there was no need to be alarmed and that he was shutting the engines down. 20mins later we were told to get off the plane few at at a time. This was because the plane has pushed forward quite a bit, the front wheel was damaged and therefore it had a risk of collapsing. We got off the plane into field and the coaches met us. it was a while before the excel passengers were picked up.
the irish blokes on the flight said that the back of the plane was lifted up for a bit, dunno as i was at the front.

was all a bit mental.. but the bmi staff were very helpful
an experience not to be forgotten in a hurry!!!

[320DRIVER]

From the Airport's website:

Latest Information On The Excel Airways/bmi Incident


Time of issue
5.30pm

Date of incident
Thursday 4th October 2004

Airlines
Excel Airways and bmibaby

Flight Numbers
Excel – XLA340 Boeing 767 from Manchester to Goa
Bmibaby - WW3007 Boeing 737 from Manchester to Belfast International

Flight Types
Scheduled (bmi) and charter (Excel Airways)

Departure/Arrival times
The scheduled time of departure for the bmi flight was 16.15.
The scheduled time of departure for the Excel Airways flight was 15.30. The Excel Airways flight arrived at Manchester from Gatwick at 14.45 with passengers who were flying from Gatwick to Goa.

Number of People on Board
On the bmibaby Boeing 737 there were 79 people on board - 74 passengers and 5 crew. The Excel Airways had 255 passengers on board.
The passengers have been taken off both aircraft.

Nature of Incident
At 16.27 the tail of the bmibaby Boeing 737 and the wing of the Excel Airways 767 came into contact while both aircraft were on the ground. Both aircraft were preparing to depart.

Latest Update
We are not aware of any casualties.
An Air Accident Investigation Branch team is at the scene.
There is no disruption to other services.

Press Enquiries:

bmi – Mike Pooley - 01332 854 687

Sue Lister, PR Consultant, Excel Airways – 01883 624015 and 07850 852357 (mobile)

Manchester Airport Press Office – 0161 489 2700, 0161 489 3446, 0161 489 2727


11/4/2004

[matblack]

I've just had a look at it from the pax window on the oslo-man flight. It looks like the left wing of the excel has clipped the tail of the bmi. The planes seem to be at 90 deg to eachother with the bmi some distance from the excel. The floodlights were on and people were crawling about both planes. It seems a strange incident.

[geraintw]

Well as one of the 'ambulance people' I not sure I d risk my job to call the press... the services I ve worked for expressly forbid speaking with the press.

You may not, but rightly or wrongly, plenty do, risk or not. I suppose the lure of a few notes always helps.

Also, when dealing with major incidents a lot of the emergency services put the details on their 'press' answerphone service for the media to get information.

[Hawkley]

The post complains about journalistic sensationalism and rightly so but every time an "incident" such as this occurs there is a mad scramble to post every bit of information immediately - regardless of whether it is accurate or not.

The post started by someone saying his wife had just phoned him and did anyone have any details - why was it that important.
The full and correct story comes out in the fullness of time - can't he wait.

This site is accessed by a lot of people who only have a fringe interest in aviation (including journalistics) so please stop scrambling for tit bits and therefore stop feeding the journos.

Keep the responses serious with factual information.

[Flap Speed]

Sadly the aviation industry is not being singled out in this case... tasteless as it is nevertheless.

Just take time to listen to the news on the radio or tv and see how they sensationalise and speculate on outcomes. TV and radio are just as bad as each other and no better than newspapers in this regard. They all ask the question of their "man at the scene" (maybe "person" is a better term?).. "So tell us.. all this media attention must be exacerbating the speculation even more. How is this being handled?"

They try to hide behind responsibility and then continue for the next 20 mins speculating and throwing around rumours?

Good example.. Arafat. Is he dead or isn't he? They spend hours talking about it.... based on rumour and guesswork. Not fact... but then the facts are often boring aren't they and hardly to be considered "news"...

maybe I'm just cynical :confused:

[Eff Oh]

Why oh why does this need to descend into a thread on journalists and who may or may not have reported the incident to them? Can we please stick to the facts of the incident instead of the same old arguments? We have a job to do, and so do they just accept it. Admittedly the do go over the top sometimes (not always) but that is the nature of the beast. Imagine the headline..... TWO AIRCRAFT COLLIDE A LOW SPEED, NO INJURIES AT ALL. Do you think people would be interested? We as aviation professionals and enthusiasts would be, but not your average Star or People reader. Their job to sell papers and that is how the go about doing that!
As for it being a crash, if you stick to the Oxford English Dictionary definition, it was a crash. Cars crash on the ground why can't aeroplanes?

[ck4707]

According the the Daily Mirror,

"We had been taxiing around for ages before we finally got on to the runway and began to accelerate to take-off speed.

"About half way down the runway we smashed into the other plane."

Paul Murray, on board the 737, told how their aircraft was hit from behind as it waited for clearance to take off


Now I am no expert in any way but even I can work out that if this had of happened there would have been far more damage and many people seriously injured.

If the event is as previous posts implied then this is a disgraceful piece of reporting.

[M.Mouse]

I couldn't make a link work so from the the mirror.co.uk website:

TERROR AS JETS CLIP WINGS AT TAKE OFF Nov 5 2004


Passengers in runway drama

By Paul Gallagher And Patrick Mulchrone


A PASSENGER jet smashed into another plane yesterday as it was taking off.

The packed Boeing 767 was accelerating to take-off speed when its wing hit the tail of a waiting BMI Baby Boeing 737.

No one was seriously hurt but the 737 was badly damaged in the incident at Manchester Airport.

Passenger Steve Harris - among 255 on the Excel Airways 767 bound for Goa, India - said last night: "People were screaming. It was terrifying for a while.

"It felt like we were going down a giant pothole. The plane was skidding from side to side and everybody lurched forward.

"It was as if someone had picked up the plane and was shaking it around."

The 767 and the smaller Belfast-found 737, with 79 on board, were kept on the runway for hours as fire crews ensured they were safe. Both aircraft were later evacuated.

The planes crashed at 4.27pm on the airport's Terminal Two runway.

Comedian Steve, 37, of Warrington, Cheshire, said: "We were already delayed by an hour-and-a-half, so people were getting impatient.

"We had been taxiing around for ages before we finally got on to the runway and began to accelerate to take-off speed.

"About half way down the runway we smashed into the other plane."

Steve, heading for a two-week break in Goa, said people calmed down once the plane came to a stop.

He said: "Nobody seemed to be injured and we were laughing and joking about it afterwards. But that's only because we all thought the worst when the planes collided."

Paul Murray, on board the 737, told how their aircraft was hit from behind as it waited for clearance to take off.

Paul, 37, of Belfast, added: "Our tail might have been overhanging the runway when it was struck by the other aircraft.

"There was an almighty jolt and people were frightened.

"We were kept on board for about 15 minutes before being taken off. A bus took us into the terminal.

"People have been checked for injuries but there doesn't seem to be anything worse than sore necks."

The BMI passengers were put on a later flight to Belfast while the Excel passengers stayed overnight in hotels.

An airport spokeswoman said: "The tail of the BMI Baby 737 and the wing of the Excel Airways 767 came into contact while both were on the ground. All passengers were safely evacuated. No one had to use emergency chutes."

In August 1985, 55 passengers died when a British Airtours Boeing 737 with 137 aboard burst into flames during a failed takeoff from Manchester.

[simfly]

noooooo please tell me I didn't just read the above post!!!!!!! let's just not talk about it any more and wait for the investigation, PPPLLLEEAASSSEEE!!!!!!!! :mad:

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

Always thought the Mirror was C**p but this takes the biscuit

Golf India Bravo

[MAN_Dispatcher]

I can't believe the b*******t coming from not only the press, but some passengers, it would appear! They make it sound like the XLA 762 struck the WW 733 on its take-off roll. I think they'd have known about it if it had, but probably not for long....

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the conclusions of the investigation are. The 733 , G-ODSK, ain't in good shape though...

[Seloco]

At this risk of spoiling things for everyone, has anyone actually got any FACTS on this incident, such as:
[list=a]
Was the 767 really on its take-off run when the collision occured?
Why did the 737 have its tail adjacent to the runway if it was waiting for departure? (but thank goodness it was not the other way round...)
[/list=a]
Both if these, if true, would appear to make this rather an unusual event and therefore, dare I suggest, more newsworthy than if the collision had occured during the course of normal taxying.

[The Southend King]

Just been sent some pics...the 737 damage suggests the 767 was going at a fair speed at the time of collision

767 wing (http://www.marcusware.com/modpix/data/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_altanta1.jpg)

737 tail (http://www.marcusware.com/modpix/data/1_multipart_xF8FF_6_4.jpg)

737 nose wheel (http://www.marcusware.com/modpix/data/1_multipart_xF8FF_8_6.jpg)

[moggiee]

You don't neccessarily have to be going fast in an aeroplane as heavy as a 767 at take off weights - the momentum is pretty significant.

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

I have been led to believe that the accident happened on the North side of 24R , is that right

Golf India Bravo

[dannyo]

Here here mog!

The damage doesn't look that bad to be honest.

You have to remember that planes are big creatures and won't get "barged" out of the way if something runs into them. Things will have a tendancy to "go through!!" Causing a not inconsiderable amount of damage.

Right, that's it, let's wait for the full report

[sammypilot]

I've seen worse damage caused by "hanger rash."

[MANTHRUST]

Golf India Bravo

No , youv'e been led the wrong way.

[neovo]

I cant believe you people talking so much rubbish.

Do any of you actually know anything about aviation,......aircraft....or even this accident????

.....I think that some of you have a little too much time on your hands..

[The Southend King]

I think my view on the damage to the 737 centred around the sideloading on the stabiliser, as shown by the side loading on the gear.

The external damage might appear a little superficial, the hidden damage could be significant.

[Ranger One]

Hawkley,

The post started by someone saying his wife had just phoned him and did anyone have any details - why was it that important.

That would have been me. Wife called, nothing on news, checked pprune, nothing there, so posted. Figured:

a: I'm more likely to get accurate non-sensationalist info here than from mainstream media and

b: There was an aviation story of some small significance breaking (since I'm of the old school who believe that 'there's no such thing as a 'minor' collision') which was worth a heads-up to any of us who might be reading the board.

That's why it's called 'rumours & news', old bean.

R1

[The Human Factor]

To Justin Abeaver

You might be interested in some facts:
Air Atlanta has many ex BA and Britannia Captains plus experienced F/Os who have many command hours with companies that have gone bust - such as Ansett. We could never be classified as anything other than professional and experienced Aviators.

How are the Excel pilots 'being sold down the river'?

The TF registered aircraft operated for Excel Airways by Air Atlanta are being put on the UK register and operated under the Air Atlanta Europe AOC.

I was once involved in a ground collision. The subsequent inquiry determined that the airport authority was at fault as the 747 we hit was too big for the marked area. If you fly out of Heathrow, you will also be aware of the warning of insufficient wing tip clearance at the holding points. From the pictures, the damage doesn't look too bad.

Instead of speculating, I suggest everyone waits for the official inquiry report.

[Danny]

Just to try and help clarify some things based on 'probable' information, if the accident occurred with the B737 holding at Tango and the port wing of the B767 hitting the tail of the B737 I have mustered up a bit of a diagram. Hopefully this will quell the alarmist and pathetic comments and suggestions coming from a few posters on here who obviously have little or no idea of the layout of Manchester airport. The diagram shows (approximately to scale) the B767 turning from taxiway Delta onto taxiway Victor towards holding point Victor 5 (V5) with the B737 stationary on taxiway Tango at or some way before holding point Tango 1 (since verified that it was at holding point Sierra 2 which explains the lack of wingtip/tail clearance)

http://www.pprune.org/images/manapt1.gif

As for the press reporting that passengers told them that they were on their take off run :rolleyes: well, let's just say that their creative staff writers should go into script writing for Hollywood thrillers. This accident was the equivalent of a 'rear end shunt' that happens every day at traffic junctions. Obviously the consequences are more dramatic considering the number of people on board, the fuel and the cost of repairs but it certainly wasn't anything along the lines of other runway collisions such as at Linate and Paris. This was a taxying accident and neither aircraft was "on the runway" at the time.

Just goes to show you that the quoted passenger lied for their 15 minutes of fame. Either that or the journalist is a consumate liar. Which do you trust? Still, brings the newspaper down for the lowest common denominator. Says is all really! :rolleyes: :yuk:

[roach]

No knowledge of the facts and this is just a comment.
There have over the years been a few incidents like this. I have always said that No. 1 at the hold should be as far forward as possible to allow A/C to taxi behind. Maybe on this one the 737 was still moving and the other A/C just misjudged it. As in a car the one at the rear always gets the blame.

[SLFguy]

Having zero tech knowledge I apologise in advance if my question is laughable....

How far is the damage on the wing from any fuel?

[HON]

I agree with the post above the last one, at last someone has seen some common sense!
It appears that every time someting like happens the press and public (who for the mnost part know NOTHING about the subject they are talking about) are always the first to rear their ugly heads.

[SLFguy]

In the midst of all the Journo bashing, before all are tarred with the same brush, The Times piece was very low key...

"The tail of the Boeing 737 and the wing of the other aircraft came into contact and they both came to a stop"

Fair enough reporting?

[sammypilot]

In the latest TV news reports 10 passengers are reported as having suffered whiplash. We really do live in a litigation conscious society.

[BOAC]

SLFGuy - you are 'excused' - not laughable at all. From the photo link on p3 it looks as if the damage was mainly to the outboard leading edge devices and some way from the fuel tanks, but a harder impact (a bit further inboard I suspect) COULD have ruptured a tank. If it had struck the BMI 737 around the APU and APU fuel lines at the back of the tail it could have been worse.

Someone's no-claim bonus will go!:D

[outofsynch]

And in a turn a 767 wingtip would be going a bit faster than the fuse.

Pity it all happened in 1997.... didnt it? :E

[MAN777]

The "press" are still milking this minor incident for all its worth. Tonights Manchester evening news headlines.

"PROBE INTO RUNWAY COLLISION"

presumably to get ones attention, they then actually tone down the incident in the text.

In an earlier post a passenger claimed the 767 was at take off speed, I can see how a novice could be confused as the 767 had just crossed 24R, this crossing sometimes takes a fair bit of thrust to get a widebody over the hump !!

[FunkyMunky]

its sounds as any dummy can be a pilot these days

Would that make you suitable for the job then, EXBO? :D :rolleyes:

As for the Mirror, that story on this incident has to be the biggest load of tripe I've ever read. I suppose selling papers will always stand in the way of actually putting anything useful and non-sensationalist into them. "Takeoff speed" and planes feeling like they were being "picked up and shaken about"? Please......

Funny that the story mentions they were kept on the runway for hours, when it seems pretty obvious that they were both on a taxiway, and the 767 was nowhere near takeoff

Edit: Nice diagram btw Danny :cool:

[racasan]

Not Much Damage!!! Seen bigger hangar rash, so no engineer then. I would not be suprised to see 737 written off with amount of damage that must of been caused internally to horizontal stab torque box. Look at leading edge inboard end for amount of movement impact caused.
Think of the overtime guys for the fix.

[Stall-Warner]

I don't believe either aircraft commander was to blame here - assuming the 73 was in front of the runway taxi holding position.

The airport authority should have proceduralised - probably through NATS - the types and categories of a/c which could hold at the taxiway holding points, and those which could pass behind. It would appear that this has somehow broken down, resulting in the collision.

Interesting to hear MA's view on it - they're not normally slow at making comment on PPP!

Pleased to hear no-one was injured whatever the reason.

SW

[Alberts Growbag]

I don't believe either aircraft commander was to blame here

Stallwarner get a life!. Whatever clearance the commander of the 767 received to proceed to Victor Alpha, he still has the job of ensuring that he has sufficient clearance from those lined up at Tango one to proceed safely. In other words there is no excuse for hitting anything in a 767 from a lampost to a 737.

I understand that the 737 is write off and fit only for scrap due to the torsional distortion caused by the bending in the fuselage.

Woudn't want to be BMIBaby's insurers, or the 767 Captain right now!

[bagpuss lives]

I don't think apportioning blame is appropriate until the AAIB report is available.

[alterego]

Aren't we all missing the point.

EVERYONE on both aircraft is okay.

What actually happened will come out in the enquiry.

Who cares about Piers Morgan and his 'News'paper.

[acbus1]

I don't think apportioning blame is appropriate.......
Try telling that to the "management" of one of the companies involved. (sorry, can't say Which Wone). Guilty until proven guilty could be the motto.

[High Wing Drifter]

Thanks Danny.

The incident seems similar to something I covered in during my ATPL theory studies called "Swept Wing Growth". A Human Factors phenomenon due to the pilot's eye position relative to the wing resulting in wing clearance distances being incredibly difficult to judge with the general effect that the distance is usually under estimated.

[NigelOnDraft]

Roach... There have over the years been a few incidents like this. I have always said that No. 1 at the hold should be as far forward as possible to allow A/C to taxi behind. Maybe on this one the 737 was still moving and the other A/C just misjudged it. Disagree somewhat. Some Holding Points are extremely close to the runway, and the variables of Weather and crews / types, mean I for one am sometimes content to "hang back" a few yards.

Assuming Danny's diagram is correct, then the 737 has the "right" to stop wherever he wants - after all he might have a problem and need to stop. ATC structure taxi patterns on aircraft size, and therefore know what can (and cannot) get past. But at the end of the day, it is the pilot's judgement whether he can get past.

If you want to pontificate about this all day study:
AAIB Report (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_501130.hcsp) where a Gulf Air (I think) A340 made an A340 winglet shaped hole in a BA 757 Rudder at LHR. Specifically:Measurements taken after the incident showed that the nose landing gear of G-BIKG was 23.6 metres (along the taxiway centreline) behind the CAT I stop bar and 8.6 metres ahead of the CAT II/III stop bar. Profiles of the two aircraft imposed on a plan view of the taxiways and holding area are shown below. The diagram shows that, with G-BIKG in its measured position and A40-LB in its final position, the contact measured on the winglet and rudder would have occurred with A40-LB on its taxiway centreline at the point of contact. Ten minutes before the collision, the Boeing 757 had been instructed to "HOLD FOR BLOCK 18". The co-pilot parked the aircraft with the flight deck beyond the Cat II/III hold line but short of the Cat I hold line. The commander was content with this parking position. He stated (correctly) that the hold line represents a limit not a target and no part of the aircraft should protrude over the line which was painted diagonally across the taxiway. He was also anxious not to get too close to the runway because aircraft departing from the full length would pass close to his aircraft and, should they encounter any directional control problems, he would be unable to get out of their way. The AAIB were unable to find any UK documentation requiring or encouraging pilots to pull forward to the limit of a holding position. Those "blame" merchants who want someone to hang / criticise on here will be disappointed that nobody got shot after this - just a load of recommendations, one of which we shall hear for evermore about wingtip clearance on LHR ATIS. And which we will presumably shortly also hear on MAN ATIS :(

[MOR]

Alberts Growbag

Perhaps you need to get a life! If you have a clearance to proceed along a taxiway, it is implicit that you have the room to do so unless advised otherwise - particularly where there is SMR in operation. The only exception to this should be when the ground controller advises caution when taxiing due to other aircraft - THEN the responsibility passes to the pilot. Otherwise, the ground controller is responsible for separation. Maybe LHR Director can confirm.

You try and judge accurately, in the dark, the relative positions of your wingtip and another aircraft's stabiliser. It is virtually impossible.

Can you even see the wingtip from the cockpit of a 767?

[Max Angle]

There are some responsibilities that we as aircraft commanders cannot avoid I'm afraid and ensuring the clearance of your aircraft as it passes another on the ground is one of them. Assuming there was no technical failure of the steering etc. then unfortunately, regardless of the clearance, taxiway markings and position of the other aircraft etc. the Captain of the moving aircraft has to take responsibility for it, it's what you sign up for when you sit in the left seat and there is no getting away from it.

[Danny]

A reliable 'source' has informed me that the B737 was actually holding at Sierra 2 (the CATII/III hold) and not at Tango 1 as I depicted in my original diagram (since updated). So, we can deduce that the B737 was NOT at the T1 holding point which would have allowed enough clearance for the B767 to pass behind.

Not sure which type of B767 was involved but I know that the wingtips of the B767-300 are NOT visible at all from the flight deck.

[NigelOnDraft]

Danny...

I seem to remember we could see the 767 wingtips on the -300? The 757 (-200) not so according to the book, but in fact just visible - but not from a point of view of assessing a collision risk... And I think some spotter pointed out that the 757 cockpit interior changed at some point altering this. And you can always open the window if in doubt and lean out. This was BA SOP at BAK for a short while (2 x Marshaller / Wing tip walker, P2 hang out of window to avoid the IL-whatevers).

Whatever, I don't think it's relevant. Whether you can see them or not, it's still your responsibility if you clout something. See the AAIB report above for the woolly regs.

I'm all for not casting blame, but one person looks a little like #1 candidate to discuss matters with. I just hope the AAIB can come up with a nice "nobody's fault" like the AAIB report above :)

[ATCO Two]

MOR,

You are way off the mark. The Ground Controller is responsible for assisting in preventing collisions between aircraft moving on the apron and manoeuvring area, whether Surface Movement Radar is available or not. A clearance to proceed along a taxiway does not imply that there is sufficient room for aircraft to safely pass each other. The ultimate responsibility for avoiding ground collisions must always belong to the pilot. How can Controllers situated several hundred metres away be expected to judge safe wingtip clearances? Max Angle is spot on.

[GLADTOBEONE]

Here I am sat in the hotel foyer and surfing Pprune when my faith is restored.

Quite often on here I ask myself why some threads disintergrate into (what I consider) unprofessional trash and back biting.

Then I come across some contributions of the standard above. Professionals discussing their thoughts on an incident with a down to earth and considered attitude.

I sometimes wonder why I bothered to join the professional flying community, but knowing there are the likes of some wise owls who have contributed above makes me glad I have.

Sorry if its off the subject but I felt like saying it.

Cheers:O

[G-BEJE]

An interesting fact or two from my "source" :

The BMI 737 was instructed to hold "in turn at T1", behind another aircraft. When that first aircraft lined up 24L, the BMI did not seem to pull forward and was most certainly not at the T1 stop bar when the impact occurred, as it should have been. So, technically speaking, the aircraft was holding T1, not S2 or anywhere else for that matter.

The crossing XLA was on it's way to V5 as Danny has shown in that excellent diagram.

ATC cannot be expected to ensure wing clearance is given on every part of the airfield, that responsibility falls surely to the aircraft commander? The clearances given in this case were, I feel, safe.

The holding point at T1 is easily separated from the adjacent taxiways for the aircraft types in question.

The AAIB went to town on the scene, releasing the runway back to us only at 2am-ish, so expect a nice, clear, report from them, as usual. I'll withold any final conclusion or comment until then as, frankly, we all make mistakes :)

[CAT1]

The 767 was a -200. The wingtips are not visible from the flight deck. It was taxiing at 6 knots when the wing hit the 737, and it's nosewheel was to the right of the taxiway centreline, further from the 737. It was also turning, giving the impression that the gap between the aircraft was increasing. The Captain ot he 767 is highly experienced. Rather than trying to blame anyone, the company wants to find out how and why and it happened.
Why people like Justin Abeaver think this is a good oppurtunity to have a dig at Air Atlanta is beyond me. Perhaps they wouldn't give him a job? Air Atlanta Europe is a seperate operation to Air Atlanta Iceland, although all 757/767 crewing is handled by Excel. Calling people "Icelandic pikeys" shows the author to be racist, xenophobic and historically ignorant.

[Norman Goering]

Quote by MOR:

"Alberts Growbag

Perhaps you need to get a life! If you have a clearance to proceed along a taxiway, it is implicit that you have the room to do so unless advised otherwise - particularly where there is SMR in operation. The only exception to this should be when the ground controller advises caution when taxiing due to other aircraft - THEN the responsibility passes to the pilot. Otherwise, the ground controller is responsible for separation. Maybe LHR Director can confirm."

Absolutely NEVER does responsibility pass from the aircraft commander to ATC or anyone else, on the ground or in the air. A commander can coose to ignore ATC altogether if there are circumstances which he/she feels would put safety at risk, otherwise, as has been said should you just fly into that high ground/taxi into that aircraft etc., the last words on the CVR being "I told you he/she was wrong!" because ATC said to do so? ATC are there to advise and give direction and you'd have to have good justification to ignore their instructions but a commander always has that choice.

ATC at MAN are superb on all frequencies and they do their very best but it would be impossible from the tower to see what transpired let alone control it. Similarly, there are always other factors to take into account - anyone (who actually flies commercially) remember the "Swiss Cheese" from CRM? Rest assured there will not be a straight forward - "He's to blame", nor should there be.

The main point has been made - everyone is okay. Next point, what can be learned to avoid this happening again? Final and least important point, did anyone ignore ignore procedures already in place?

Regarding the press, they are indeed a fact of life, love them or loathe them.

As a final note - it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for an aircraft taking off from 24L to hit an aircraft's tail with its LEFT wingtip, as has been shown by Danny. Also, what the diagram doesn't show is that the taxiway intersections end just to the left of Danny's drawing so again, "We were halfway down the runway" is physically impossible and pure fiction. As for "skidding all over place" - errrm, I don't think so as Anti-skid brakes prevent that too!

Just my 2p worth. And yes, I am a commercial aircraft commander so I do know a bit about it.

[CAT1]

2p is about all that was worth.

[High Wing Drifter]

Perhaps you need to get a life! If you have a clearance to proceed along a taxiway, it is implicit that you have the room to do so unless advised otherwise
How do ATC determine of there is sufficient room?

[Darbo]

I landed on 24R after the incident. For what it's worth, the 73 looked to be short of T1, but who can tell for sure except those actually on the scene? Perspective / angles etc. Thank goodness there were no injuries that we know of. Danny's diagram looks to be almost spot on.

Let's just wait and see what the inquiry brings.


If it's a bus though, it hardly raises an eyebrow in the press, even though there were injuries (allegedly.....):

From May 1998:

"A bus ferrying passengers between a plane and Terminal Two collided with a plane, injuring several passengers. The wing of the Onur Air MD88 broke the windscreen of the bus, missing the driver's head by inches. Airport authorities the didn't know how the accident had happened, and said an inquiry into the incident will be launched. Thank goodness the accident was only minor - the injured passengers, taken to Wythenshawe Hospital, were only slightly hurt."

[scanscanscan]

After a ground collision between two aircraft such as this the QRH and company SOPs says to do What?
Wait to be told one or both of you are on fire then evacuate?
Or Immediately evacuate to give your passengers extra time before the fire develops?
Evacuate 255 and crew pus the 737 and crew into a busy area close to the active runways and mix them into the arriving fire trucks?
Popular opinion is pilots are just drivers they plug in the autopilot and actually do nothying, the ground staff are incharge on the ground and you are airborne.
ATCservice of years past by necessity is today air trafic control and this influences pilots to think that like so many aspects of the job today you only need to follow instructions to the letter to be safe. Individuals who think airmanship independently outside the box seem to be progressively being screened out.
Captains should realise basically everyone out there and the system is trying to kill them and it is the one they do not see that gets them.
What a lot of luck you need in this job...A captain is legally responsible to the extent of his worldwide wealth for the safety of his flight. Glad I invested mine in wild women,booze,and slow horses,the rest I wasted!

[MOR]

Norman Goering and others

The design of the taxiways and hold points is such that clearances are ensured for the aircraft that use them. The point of the yellow line you follow, is that if you are on it, lateral clearances are ensured - assuming that everybody else is doing as they are told.

Or do you perhaps believe that the taxiway you are pushed back onto may not ensure that you clear the tails of all the aircraft that you pass as you taxi out? The idea is clearly absurd.

Now, please explain to me how, if you cannot even see your wingtip, you can ensure a lateral clearance? Do you send the F/O out with a tape measure?

And finally, for those who do not seem to know the rules, I offer the following:

CAP493 1.2.2

"In order to execute his duties an aerodrome controller has authority over aircraft, vehicles and personnel on the manoeuvring area and aircraft moving on the apron."

In other words, a taxi clearance is essentially no different to a takeoff clearance .

Nobody is suggesting blindly taxiing into collisions... that is absurd.

See also CAP168 7.6.1 for an explanation of taxiway clearances, if you can be bothered.

High Wing Drifter

The controller doesn't need to know per se , it is the inbuilt clearances in the design of the manoeuvring area markings that ensure lateral clearances (if everyone is going where they are told to go).

So, for example, if you are taxiing at CDG on the parallel taxiways (such as B and Q), you know that no matter what is taxiing the other way, as long as you are both on your centrelines, you can't hit each other. Controllers know if there is a clearance issue for certain types on specific taxiways, and separate them accordingly (Birmingham being a good example). See CAP168 7.6.1, as mentioned above, for more info (or if you have trouble sleeping).

[G-BEJE]

As I said in my post, the BMI 737 would have been more than adequately seperated from the taxiing 767 if it had of pulled forward to the T1 stop bar.

Instead the 737 had indeed stopped some way short of the holding point for whatever reason - when the aircraft ahead lined up the 737 did not fully pull forward.

[High Wing Drifter]

MOR,

Thanks for your explanation and I will check the CAP.

Cheers,
HWD.

[millerman]

Why is it that when anything happens someone always tries to blame the controller???

[IcePack]

Not sure if this has already been said.

When manouvering your Aircraft you should know if you have room to get past any obstruction. If in doubt STOP request assistance. PERIOD

[Sir George Cayley]

Been doing some maths. Using freely available data concerning the wingspan of a B767, the length of a B737-300 and the physical characteristics of the clearance distances at a licensed airport. I’ve taken the latter from CAP168 Chapter 3.

Firstly the half wingspan of a B767 is 23.8m
The length of a B737-300 is 33.4m

S2 protects Taxiway V so is 47.5m from the TWY V centreline.

Assuming 1m collision overlap 23.0 plus 33.0 = 56.0

Minus 47.5 = 8.5m the length the bmiBaby’s nose may be over S2


It’s a further 75m approximately from S2 to T1 and 75m more to the centreline of 24R
Manchester’s runways are 395.0m apart and Taxiway V is midway e.g. 197.5m from the two runways.

Regarding many posters differing views on what constitutes a clearance maybe CAP 168 helps again.
The Code E taxiway strip should be 95m. Within this area there should be no fixed objects that an aircraft of the maximum wingspan can collide with.
However an aircraft, or vehicle, is a temporary obstacle so cannot be assumed to comply with the foregoing.

If as has been said the crew were cleared to hold at T1 and there was an aircraft already there I would be interested to hear why the crew of the bmiBaby a/c elected to stop 66m, minus the aircraft ahead, from the T1 stopbar.?

This meant that 24.9m of their a/c was inside the taxiway V strip.

No doubt the AAIB will do their usual thorough investigation, however the Swiss Cheese safety analogy is already looming in my mind. Several seemingly unconnected events joining up to breach the layers of defence normally in place.

Some questions.

Could this incident have occurred previously?
If nothing is changed , could it happen again?
What needs to be changed to ensure it won’t?
What parallels at other airports can be drawn?
What solutions on a wider basis can we introduce to reduce the risk?

Sir George Cayley

[rhythm method]

Completely correct...

The captain has ultimate responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and all persons onboard. (I am not here implying liability in this incident because none of us have the FULL facts).

If I am being marshalled onto stand and am worried about colliding with a ground obstruction, be it a vehicle or an incorrectly parked airbridge, should I blindly obey the instructions of the marshaller and wait for the bang. Then say "He told me to continue"?. NO. If you are in doubt, STOP and request assistance. How can you be sure the marshaller or controller can see what you feel may be a hazard?

Obviously in this incident, there was no marshaller. Likewise NO controller can have blame apportioned to them, because they are not responsible for separation on taxiways. They can request ground assistance if they foresee potential conflicts if, for example, an aircraft is pushed back farther than normal and may overhang another taxiway.

One of the most important aspects here is that too many people are trying to lay the blame too quickly. What has CRM taught any of us yet? Accidents and incidents should be used to learn. Find out what happened, then why, then develop means to avoid any recurrence.

As said earlier, no deaths or serious injuries, so wait for the facts to emerge before tying the noose.

[MOR]

You are partly right. The only time a controller does not have any responsibility for separation on a taxiway or manouevering area, is when he or she can't see the aircraft, in which case the taxi clearance will have a clearance limit or a caution attached to it.

In any case, my point is not to apportion blame to a controller, rather to NOT apportion blame to a pilot.

Your marshalling example is spurious as well. A marshaller has little training and does not issue clearances. More to the point, if you are being marshalled onto stand, your protection is in the white lines to either side of you that ensure your clearance from fixed objects.

Now, if we are sitting in our 767, and a vehicle that we can't see drives into the way of the wingtip that we also can't see, and we hit it... how can you possibly lay the blame with the pilot, who was unable to see the problem? You can't stop and ask for assistance if you are unaware of the problem, and if the marshaller doesn't advise you.

In this case, marshallers are often held responsible in that they lose their jobs on the spot.

If you want to see an example of controllers ensuring separation, look no further than LVP's. That is a clear illustration of where responsibility lies when on the taxiway.

Sir George Cayley

At many airfields, aircraft are expected to hold in a "block", which has a single yellow line to signify the rear of the block. Holding in the block ensures your clearance. I don't know if Manchester uses these, but if not, they should.

I agree with the swiss cheese analogy, because if the 737 had been at the holding point, it wouldn't have happened... and if the controller had KNOWN that the 737 was holding a way back from the hold point (which is hard to understand), he or she would no doubt have passed a "caution the 737 holding" advisory... and so on and so forth.

[Val d'Isere]

I fail to understand why the baby 737 was holding at S2 when it had been cleared to hold at T1 for "some time". "Some time" seems to have been enough time to comply with the ATC instruction.

Holding a few metres short of the allocated point is one thing, but this was tens of metres.

-----------------------------------------

In general, unless the taxiway centerline ensures clearance from all aircraft types holding where instructed then this sort of incident will proliferate. The centerlines and holding point markings should serve to assure of adequate clearances provided that pilots use them as instructed in the Air Pilot or as instructed by ATC. Non-compliance equals negligence, does it not?

The "Heathrow Getout Anouncement" just is'nt good enough. It's becoming impossible to judge wingtip clearance from the cockpit on some types.

[NigelOnDraft]

Vd'I

In general, unless the taxiway centerline ensures clearance from all aircraft types holding where instructed then this sort of incident will proliferate. The centerlines and holding point markings should serve to assure of adequate clearances provided that pilots use them as instructed in the Air Pilot or as instructed by ATC. Non-compliance equals negligence, does it not? Please provide the quote from the 'Air Pilot' or whatever that says exactly what you must do in order to hold "at" a particular point? And what is the prescribed distance from the Holding Point at which you must be?

If you actually read the AAIB report I gave a link to above, and even provided an extract from, the AAIB confirmed that (then anyway) they could find no reason why a pilot must go "right up" to a holding point - and supported a pilot who again was "10s of metres from his cleared point".

In short, there are countless possible reasons why the BMI aircraft did not move forward... and they should not result in a collision (risk).

You seem to be advocating the sort of people who, if they have a green light on the road, feel it is in your right to drive and deliberately hit the car that has intentionally or accidentally crossed the red light.

Fortunately, most drivers, and hopefully all professional pilots (maybe yourself excepted if you are one) allow for unforeseen events, and don't taxi with not a care in the world and expect ATC and procedures to cover you. I am not suggesting the 767 pilot(s) were doing this - there are countless possible explanations for why they ended up hitting the 737. The causes are determined by the AAIB... not here.

[Sleeve Wing]

Despite some very sound posts on this subject, what the hell are we doing here, guys ?
What happened to the old adage of " no comment until we've heard the results of the inquiry,"

All we doing here is to feed the press with informed(?) analysis, good or bad, for which they would normally pay a fortune.

How about backing off until we know more ?

It was dark'ish. Crews were maybe tired / pi**ed off already, with a long night ahead (again). Delays.

There, but for the grace of God etc......... ?

Sleeve. :confused:

[Nineiron]

The captain has ultimate responsibility is often quoted. This is responsibility for decisions made from information and observations which he is reasonably expected to acquire from the machinery and environment.

Surely when a Clearance is issued, based on information which the captain does not have, responsibility is taken for the captain's actions. Any override would only be because of conflicting data.

An interesting situation arises when connected to a tug during pushback into a busy taxyway, especially when English is not the first language.

[MOR]

NigelOnDraft

The "Air Pilot" (guess you must be one of those old pilots! ;) ) doesn't specify "exactly what you must do in order to hold "at" a particular point" because it doesn't need to. Some things in aviation, believe it or not, are assumed. If you are cleared to the holding point, the assumption is that any competent pilot will arrange his aircraft to be at, but not over, the prescribed point. This is what we call airmanship .

In the same way, it is assumed that when you receive a takeoff clearance, you don't taxi down the runway for a bit first, and then take off. This is because we are all taught to use all the available space, from an early point in our career. It is simple common sense.

The alternative is to legislate for ever possible aspect of aviation, which then opens the door for a very high level of scrutiny and subsequent penalties.

We all know that "hold at the holding point" means as close as you can reasonably get to the line without crossing it. Anyone who doesn't understand that, needs to go back to PPL school and start again.

What possible reason could there be for not pulling forward to the holding point (in general terms, not this specific case)?

[Arkroyal]

MORWhat possible reason could there be for not pulling forward to the holding point (in general terms, not this specific case)? Well I, for one, rarely pull right up to the CAT1 holds for 27L at CDG, as having my hair parted by the wingtip of a landing big jet is even less appealing than having my tail removed by a taxiing aircraft.

At many airfields, aircraft are expected to hold in a "block", which has a single yellow line to signify the rear of the block. Holding in the block ensures your clearance. I don't know if Manchester uses these, but if not, they should. Didn't ICAO get rid of blocks in favour of the system of holding points we now use?

I don't want to comment on this accident before the AAIB conclude their investigation. However I will say that if I taxi my jet into a stationary object, I will not be feeling too fireproof.

[stickyb]

The "Air Pilot" doesn't specify "exactly what you must do in order to hold "at" a particular point" because it doesn't need to. Some things in aviation, believe it or not, are assumed.

I was always told that assume makes an ass of you and me. Is it really true that some things are not specified but just left as assumptions in this day and age? I find it hard to believe

[Mick Stability]

Some things in aviation, believe it or not, are assumed.

But in most cases, any doubt in an instruction is queried and verified before being complied with by very cautious and suspicious pilots. What was it that makes an ‘Ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’?

. . .you don't taxi down the runway for a bit first, and then take off

You do on 24L, the first 100m is not available as part of the take-off roll.

FWIW I’ve always disliked Boeing’s practice of putting the white nav lights on the wing tips, and not the tailcone, obscuring the extremities of the aeroplane in darkness and poor vis. I’ll never forget coming arse to face with the tail of a 757 in my little jet when it just loomed out of the murk. I’d like then to use all available lighting in poor conditions.

Look forward to several months of scribbling down ‘Pilots are to exercise caution when manoeuvring in the runway holding areas as wing tip clearance is not assured.’

[NigelOnDraft]

MOR

I wish you'd actually read the thread instead of making a pr*t of yourself:
1. You'll see the reference to Air Pilot was from a post by Val D'Isere - not me. I made it a quote for that reason - I don't know what it is either :)
2. We all know that "hold at the holding point" means as close as you can reasonably get to the line without crossing it B*llocks. Read the thread. I have quoted from an AAIB report where another pilot held 10s of metres short of his clearance, justified it, and was supported by the AAIB who said they could find nothing to indicate why he should be right up to the Holding Point. He also had his tail clouted!

What possible reason could there be for not pulling forward to the holding point (in general terms, not this specific case)? Plenty - can't be bothered to recite them all here - I've already quoted some above (the pilot referred to above) - but since you can't be bothered to read them up there, I doubt you'll be bothered to read my reply.

As an aside, at LHR, say crossing 27L from the V's I am very reluctant to go to the CAT 1 hold with landing traffic. It is just plain commonsense with 100s of tons of landing aeroplances under varying degrees of control due weather and maybe tech problems, not to try and park yourself right in the line of fire.

This is not the issue however. For some reason that is not really relevant, the 737 might have been cleared to T1, and might have been well short of it. Whatever, even if he was cleared to T1, and was at S2 (?), it does not mean he deserved having his tail hit... i.e. not being at T1 sounds maybe only a (minor) contributory factor. The major factors I'll leave to the AAIB to determine.

[MOR]

NigelOnDraft

I have read the thread, and you have missed the point (again).

No, there is no specific instruction as to exactly where to hold. Now, please show me the specific instruction in any CAA document that tells me what speed I must taxi at? Or perhaps you could show me where I am instructed by the CAA in the precise method of establishing the risk of a birdstrike?

The fact that not every single possible permutation of maouevering an aircraft is written down, does not absolve the pilot in command from using good judgement. To use the AIB report to try and justify holding a long way short of the holding point is simply doltish.

I am very reluctant to go to the CAT 1 hold with landing traffic. It is just plain commonsense with 100s of tons of landing aeroplances under varying degrees of control due weather and maybe tech problems, not to try and park yourself right in the line of fire.

That is such a load of crap that it barely justifies a reply. However, if you feel that the published clearances are inadequate for you, feel free to make up your own. In fact, why not just stay at the pier, you should be safe there.

Has it never occurred to you that the holding point positions are arrived at after a very long risk assessment process? And that if somebody is far enough off track to hit you whilst you are sitting at the hold, it wouldn't really matter where you were on the taxiway system - you would still be at risk? An aircraft that out of control in the approach is going to end up a fireball, and a few metres back from the hold will almost certainly make no difference whatsoever.

Do please grow up.

Arkroyal

Didn't ICAO get rid of blocks in favour of the system of holding points we now use?

No, Edinburgh (for one) still uses them. Or did last time I was there.

[NigelOnDraft]

MOR

We'll have to disagree... I don't understand what you mean by: To use the AIB report to try and justify holding a long way short of the holding point is simply doltish. - AAIB reports are investigations into incidents / accidents whose sole purpose is to "learn" and prevent future similar occurances. I for read them, and take note of that they say and don't. Whatever, I will believe them before you!

However, you are still again missing my point. Just because the 737 was (maybe) not where he was cleared to, does not consitute the sole or major cause of the incident i.e. not being at T1 does not give the 767 the right to taxi past regardless (not that I am saying he did). The old RAF adage "Don't Assume - Check" springs to mind...

[jettesen]

any pics of the damage anywhere?

[Oshkosh George]

For pictures,look at Southend King's post on page 3 of this thread!

[MOR]

Just because the 737 was (maybe) not where he was cleared to, does not consitute the sole or major cause of the incident i.e. not being at T1 does not give the 767 the right to taxi past regardless (not that I am saying he did). The old RAF adage "Don't Assume - Check" springs to mind...

I never suggested that it did, in fact I agreed with the "swiss cheese" analogy.

[Sparticus]

Hi
There are so many pilots who like to think that "it would never happen to me im far too clever." Why didn't the crew do this or that? I find the pilot community quite depressing on occasion. Most professions try to stick together.

I had a birds eye view of the incident. I can tell you the bmi could not have pulled forward of S1 as there was a 146 at T1. This did not take off untill well after the incident.

[MOR]

wrong on both counts, as usual

[hobie]

quote from sparticus

"I had a birds eye view of the incident. I can tell you the bmi could not have pulled forward of S1 as there was a 146 at T1. This did not take off untill well after the incident."

This certainly narrows down the possible reasons for this incident
:(

[Pilot Pete]

Just a few reasons why you might not want to pull 'right up to the holding point line' that I can think of. Strangely they are all due to airmanship , that one quality that some are advocating as a reason to pull as close as you can.

1. Aircraft in front at the hold in question. We pull up 'right' behind and get a cabin full of burnt jet-A1 fumes. Not nice for the punters, or us.

2. Uphill taxiway leading to the runway (D1 hold point short of 24R at Manchester springs to mind). You pull up at the hold point in a heavy 767 (or many other types I would suggest) and you need a great handful of thrust (above the manufacturers recommended limit) to get the ship moving again. Not nice for the poor old traffic taxying behind, free sandblast ready for repaint though.:ok:

3. Continuation of point 2. When ATC ask for us to expedite crossing, it can actually be quicker to start from the flat and get some momentum before going uphill to cross the runway.

4. Perhaps after the aircraft mentioned in point 1 lined up the crew were busy with a task that required the commanders full attention, and just perhaps he felt that it would be safer to remain stationary during this period.

So, no blame, no presumption, just a few ideas to counter the 'myth' that airmanship dictates that the commander should ensure that his aircraft is as close to the 'cleared' holding point as it can be. Certainly, on some occassions airmanship may mean that the commander DOES get his aircraft as close to the holding point as he can.......but there ain't no requirement for him to ALWAYS do so.

PP

[kick the tires]

What a load of tosh on here!

The 76 guy thought he could squeeze by and he couldnt. end of story.

[anoxic]

kick the tires

Finally someone gets to the crux of the incident. I couldn't agree more. Well said. :ok:

[Arkroyal]

MORNo, Edinburgh (for one) still uses them. Or did last time I was there. Didn't two days ago when I was there
Mick:You do on 24L, the first 100m is not available as part of the take-off roll. Isn't that a displaced landing threshold??

[Scottie Dog]

ArkRoyal

Correct, 24L has a 150M starter strip.

[spud]

From memory, both the UK AIP and Jepp plates give TORA including the starter extension. (I should get out more, I know!)

[fragul]

Just a wee thought - going back to earlier posts re ATC's responsibility for preventing collisions on the manoevring area.

Yes ATC are responsible for preventing collisions between aircraft on the MA, but let's go to the logical conclusion. If you given TAXI instructions to taxi to a holding point (NB- not a clearance ! clearances are only for crossing, line-up or landing on RUNWAYS ) then how often can you remember being told that there is an aircraft in front of you on the taxiway or at the hold ??

So yes, ATC will be normally responsible for preventing crossing confliction type collisions but as for "shunt" type occurrences - which I believe covers this case - I think most pilots will accept that they should be aware of what is "in front" at the hold , even if this means at a small angle separated away from the direction of travel of their aircraft. Still the Swiss cheese theory holds water...........or not as the case may be.

[normal_nigel]

Well

PPrune at its best yet again.

MOR

The responsibility not to hit someone is that of the Captain. If you think differently then you are either not a pilot or a crap one.

LHR ATIS, every broadcast

"Pilots are advised to use caution in the runway holding areas as wing tip clearence is not assured"

And that is whether or not you can see it. You don't use tape measures you use your judgement. If in any doubt you stop and you never assume that the aircraft ahead is where he is cleared to.

On this occasion it would appear that there was an error of judgement but lets wait and see.

And you can't see the 767-300 wingtips.

NN

[tdol]

Call yourself professionals?! Can we all just take one second to imagine what we would be going through if we were in that commanders shoes now. What ever the truth!!!!

msg to the LHS of the XL 767-200

I sincerely hope that YOU are ok. I hope that the decisions awaiting do not hold any bad news for you and your family. I would like to comment on the fact that there is not a man more undeserving of bad gossip.
Good luck for the future

[threestable]

tdol,
Well said.
Rumours and news, no drama. No 'O' for opinion in PPrune is there? That wouldn't be very 'professional' would it.
My peer group sometimes sickens me.
:yuk:

[MOR]

Just to finish off then:

normal_nigel

The responsibility not to hit someone is that of the Captain.

I absolutely agree. However, the point remains that the captain has the right to expect that clearances are adequate if he has been cleared along a taxiway by a controller, particularly if he cannot see his wingtip. That is why the clearances exist in the taxiway system, and if you bother to look up the CAP references I provided above, you will see the specifications for yourself.

So, please explain to me, in the case of an aircraft hitting a vehicle that neither of the pilots could see, with a wingtip that neither can see, why the captain is at fault?

At the end of the day, the 767 pilot will no doubt shoulder some blame. Maybe he was trying to squeeze past and muffed it, who knows? However, there are other failures in this incident as well, and to simply dump it all on the 767 captain is missing the point in a big way.

[look you]

I've got to say that having "been there and done that" my thoughts are with the 767 Capt. It is a sickening feeling, and i hope it turns out ok for you.

Anyone out there who has never made a mistake, or even commited a slight error of judgement, feel free to apportion blame...otherwise thank your lucky stars that it wasn't you, THIS TIME.

[terrain safe]

Back on topic

Pasted from the CAP 493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1)

2 Responsibilities
2.1 Aerodrome control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft
under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to
assist pilots in preventing collisions between:
a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the aerodrome traffic zone;
b) aircraft taking off and landing;
c) aircraft moving on the apron;
d) aircraft and vehicles, obstructions and other aircraft on the manoeuvring area.
2.2 In order to execute his duties an aerodrome controller has authority over aircraft,
vehicles and personnel on the manoeuvring area and aircraft moving on the apron.
2.3 Aerodrome control may be divided into air control and ground movement control.
Air Control shall provide services for a) and b) and has absolute authority over
all movements on active runways and their access points.
Ground Movement Control shall provide services for c) and d) except on
active runways and their access points.

Section 2 Chapter 1 subsection 2

I think the main point is "to
assist pilots in preventing collisions ". This is the ATC get out clause i.e. it's all your fault if you clang another a/c. The only completely safe way is to taxi to intermediate holds, and when the next hold is vacated move forward, a bit like Lambourne on the ground. To me this seems like an accident that is very unfortunate but just that. An Accident. Could happen to anyone at anytime. End of story.

[MOR]

The other main point is "has authority over".

If you take the "assist" line, you also would have to say that ATC can only "assist" you in avoiding collision in the ATZ. Therefore, if you are on the ILS and have been handed over to the Tower, although you are still in the clag, the Tower guy can only "assist" you in avoiding a collision with that 172 doing some scud-running just in front of you...

[Arkroyal]

terrain:This is the ATC get out clause i.e. it's all your fault if you clang another a/c So, are you implying that this is wrong?

Short of driving the thing to the holding point for you, what more can ATC do?

[MOR]

Short of driving the thing to the holding point for you, what more can ATC do?

They can ensure separation, just like they do in the sky. Just like they do under LVP's.

That is half the reason for having SMR, or a conditional clearance, or a pair of binoculars.

[tightcircuit]

Well said Arkroyal. The ground control freq at Man is busy enough already. If the poor old ground controllers had to instuct every a/c every step of the way to the holding point then gridlock would ensue. They already have to deal with a ridiculously complex apron environment with the one way system in and out of terminal 2.

Apart from anything else the 767 would have been on the 24L tower freq at the time having had two frequency changes in very quick succession. For those who don't know he would have changed from ground to 24R tower freq just before crossing that runway and then over to 24L tower at around the time the collision was about to happen. He had probably been asked to expedite across 24R as well just to add to the causal factors. The FO would have been sorting out those frequency changes whilst the captain is taxying and trying to find his way to any one of a number of different holding points that he would have been cleared to at a very late stage as he was hurrying across an active runway.

I am sure the AAIB will have a field day with this one.

MOR get real!

[MOR]

You know, people like you can learn from the French. At CDG, they recognised the inadequacies in their system, and put in a second tower and a second layer of ground controllers. They are also very good at making sure you are aware of other aircraft, and making sure they don't clear you past a point that they know is clear (well, most of the time, anyway).

I know it doesn't work like that at MAN, but it should. The lessons of the past tell us that stuff like SMR saves lives and metal. We MAY not have positive control on the ground (depending on how you interpret the CAP), but we should.

[Arkroyal]

MOR At CDG, they recognised the inadequacies in their system, and put in a second tower and a second layer of ground controllers. They are also very good at making sure you are aware of other aircraft, and making sure they don't clear you past a point that they know is clear (well, most of the time, anyway). (sic)Now I know you are just trying to wind us up.

Speaking in French keeps us all aware, does it? Tell that to my friend John Andrew's family:yuk:

[tightcircuit]

Some of us are lucky enough to operate into a wide variety of airfields around the world. At many, including a large selection of regular European destinations it is common to be instucted to taxi past a/c at runway holding points. PMI 24R, ALC 28, IBZ 24, TFS,08 to give a few examples. Having been instructed to pass it is the crew's responsibility to decide if it is safe to do so or not. The idea that a ground or tower controller is responsible for preventing you from driving the expensive bit of metal into something solid at any time is just laughable.

You are right MOR the airfield design at MAN is not good which is even more reason for crews to exersise their responsibilty and be extra vigilant whilst taxing.In saying that I am not trying to apportion blame in this accident. As you will see from my earlier post I believe there would have been a whole host of mitigating factors.
Your attempts to persuade us that following a controllers instructions regardless of the consequences because you think they have the responsibility just beggars belief.

[terrain safe]

Arkroyal

I completely agree with you what more can ATC do.

MOR If you are flying an ILS and a C172 hits you again ATC cannot physically fly the plane. They can give traffic information even avoiding action, if it is noticed, but we usually have more than one plane to watch at a time. Any ATCO if they spotted a possible nasty would of course yell, but SMRs are not great at spotting how tight a gap is. Get real...

[MOR]

OK well getting bored with this now, so a quick response and then I'll shut up.

Arkroyal

Speaking in French keeps us all aware, does it? Tell that to my friend John Andrew's family

Apart from the fact that the language spoken is outside the control of ATC, they still do a better job of managing ground traffic there because they have, as a result of such accidents, sorted themselves out. More than can be said for some UK airports.

It occurs to me that taxiing into the path of an aircraft on the takeoff roll is even more of an own-goal than hitting a stationary aircraft. If a captain is responsible for not hitting another aircraft on the ground whilst taxiing, he is sure as hell responsible for making sure the runway is clear before leaving the holding point. Or is that somehow different?

tightcircuit

Your attempts to persuade us that following a controllers instructions regardless of the consequences because you think they have the responsibility just beggars belief.

If you bothered to read the thread, you would see that I never said any such thing, in fact I said the reverse.

terrain safe

MOR If you are flying an ILS and a C172 hits you again ATC cannot physically fly the plane. They can give traffic information even avoiding action

Really? Then answer me this. Is an aircraft in the final stages of an ILS approach under a positive control service? Is a 172 in the ATZ under a positive control service? If they both are, who is responsible for separation? Particularly when the aircraft on the ILS may be IMC?

SMRs are not great at spotting how tight a gap is. Get real...

Of course they aren't. I am not suggesting for a minute that SMR can discriminate that effectively. However, seeing a possible conflict allows the controller to issue a conditional clearance ("subject the 737 at xx, cleared to continue to xxx"), or, better yet, "Hold position until the 737 has moved up to the holding point".

If the pilot of a 767 can't see his wingtip, he can never be completely assured regarding separation, can he? Now, what is ATC for? To keep aircraft from bumping into each other, from memory.

I can't quite understand why so many people, who have spent their careers being separated by ATC in the air, have such a problem with being separated by ATC on the ground.

I also find it noteworthy that nobody has seen fit to answer the questions I have posed. Too difficult, I suppose, given the assumptions many of you seem to make. Just in case anyone has the intellect to answer, I'll ask them again:

If an aircraft, the pilots of which cannot see the wingtips, taxys into a vehicle which neither pilot could see (as it was next to the wingtip), who is to blame, and why?

What is the point in a system of taxiways that are defined in accordance with a set of specifications that establish lateral clearances, if the pilot cannot assume that those clearances will protect him? In fact, what is the point in having clearances at all?

Why, when a controller issues a taxi clearance, is that clearance somehow not really a clearance, but rather a bit of advice? Given that a clearance implies that it can be safely carried out.

Why is separation on the ground assured under LVP's, but not under any other condition?

If anyone can answer those four simple questions intelligently, I'll be most impressed. "Get real" doesn't count.

I repeat, this incident is about more than just one pilot. Try thinking outside the square a bit.

[cargo boy]

Won't answer all the points being made by MOR but in an attempt to get him to give the majority of us a break from his insistence that an unconditional ATC taxi clearance is in some way responsible for the B767 not having enough room to pass behind the B737. I'll just say that whilst the pilot may not be able to see the wingtips of the B767 they certainly would have seen the B737 holding at S1 before they started their right turn onto V. Even after starting the turn onto V the Captain would have been able to see the B737, or at least the front half of it.

I am not apportioning any blame here because we don't know all the facts about what was going on on the flight deck at the time but what is possible is that it is totally wrong to assume, as MOR has done, that just because you are cleared to a particular holding point doesn't mean that you are able to reach that holding point unhindered. Even a runway crossing clearance doesn't absolve the crew from double checking that the approach is clear.

The constant argument put forward that if you don't see a vehicle that is about to hit your wing you are somehow absolved of responsibility just doesn't wash. When you taxi onto stand you should still be looking and checking that what may be in your field of view doesn't appear to be infringing on the path that your wingtips are going to take. If there is any doubt you should stop and ask for whatever assistance is available, whether from ATC, other a/c or ground personnel. There are cues on the B767 and no doubt all other a/c that give you an idea where your wingtips are going to pass over. I remember that on the B767 it was about halfway up the DV window frame. You used that as a reference and if you were unsure the old adage that discretion was a better part than valour in such circumstances.

Manchester has SMR and having seen it in action it is good but it isn't a tool that is used by the GMC unless LVP's are in force. As for positive ground control, get real. Even with positive air control, responsibility is not removed totally from the pilots. As in the Asiana B747 and the Southwest B737 incident on another thread on here, the Asiana pilot made the decisionto go around even though he was cleared to land. You never, ever, assume that the clearance you have been given by a controller is sacrosanct. Human error is always a possibility and because of that the flight crew have to be extra vigilant, especially if they can see an obstruction before they start their turn. The AAIB will eventually produce a report with detailed descriptions of each slice of swiss cheese and then the PPRune vultures will be free to descend on the carcass and rip it to shreds with their sanctimonious offerings of hindsight. :rolleyes: The rest of us will try and learn from it.

[tightcircuit]

Nicely put Cargo Boy. Hopefully MOR's shovel will soon wear out. Its already dug a very big hole.

[Arkroyal]

MOR
It occurs to me that taxiing into the path of an aircraft on the takeoff roll is even more of an own-goal than hitting a stationary aircraft. If a captain is responsible for not hitting another aircraft on the ground whilst taxiing, he is sure as hell responsible for making sure the runway is clear before leaving the holding point. Or is that somehow different? Since you claim to know CDG so well, tell me how the captain was supposed to see what was behind him, and being cleared, in french, to begin its take off roll, whilst the same controller had cleared, in english, the shed to line up. Controller cock up, plain and simple, cretin:(

[MOR]

cargo boy

it is totally wrong to assume, as MOR has done, that just because you are cleared to a particular holding point doesn't mean that you are able to reach that holding point unhindered.

I'm not saying it DOES, I'm saying it SHOULD.

By the way, the real reason you don't want to answer the four questions, is that you don't have the answers.

Arkroyal

tell me how the captain was supposed to see what was behind him, and being cleared, in french, to begin its take off roll, whilst the same controller had cleared, in english, the shed to line up.

And you call yourself a professional? So, according to you, our 767 captain is at fault because he didn't ensure that he could pass the 737, but your mate, who made no effort to check that the active runway was clear, is not?

The facts are that it is easy, in a shed, to turn enough to check the runway is clear whilst staying within the bounds of the taxiway. In an aircraft that size, you can easily park yourself at the hold at an angle to ensure that you can see. I used to do that in a 146 for gods sake. Knowing that the runway is clear is one of the most basic pieces of airmanship there is, especially when joining the runway at an intermediate hold.

Language was an issue, but the real issue was not looking - plain and simple.

Since we now apparently qualify the causes of accidents according to who you know and who you don't, I will - in some disgust - leave you to it.

[RatherBeFlying]

Looking at the diagram supplied by Danny raises the question of just how do you check for approaching landing traffic when entering from a holding point which has that traffic 135 degrees behind your heading.

If there's not enough room to turn the a/c to look over the approach path, do you open the cockpit window, stick your head out and have a look behind -- or do you entrust the lives of you and your passengers to ATC?

In case of collision with landing traffic when entering the active from a blind holding point in accordance with an ATC instruction, who is responsible? -- bearing in mind that determination of legal responsibility where there's loss of life is a bit of a hollow exercise:(

[BusyB]

Use your TCAS for commercial traffic.

[Stand 22]

mocoman

If you re-read the BBC article, you'll find it refers to an incident earlier in the year involving an MYT A321 and a Ryanair 737 (Not Aer Lingus as stated!) and is not releated to the XLA/WW collision.

Regards,

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

I`m not aircrew but it`s like driving a car
you never trust anyone or anything else, always check for your self then you only have yourself to blame if it goes wrong ie traffic lights maybe on red but who is going to stop someone jumping them?

Golf India Bravo

[055166k]

I am not qualified offer an opinion on this, but it has a parallel with Area Control.
You are cruising at FL370 and I clear you to FL270...sometimes I may say "descend" FL270.....a common response to the latter is "now or at pilot's discretion?"
In earlier years there was a difference but this has been eroded by time. Now I have to add a qualifier, such as "descend now" or "cleared when ready".
One is an executive instruction, one is a clearance [permission].
So when you are issued with a ground movement clearance do you pilots believe that you have been given a clearance to do something i.e. at your discretion/when ready ..or do you believe that you have been given a mandatory instruction i.e. compulsory.
The meaning of ATC words should not go through a transformation depending on whether you are in the air or on the ground.
If a pilot is "cleared" to a certain holding point, does he have to go all the way up to that point without delay?

[NigelOnDraft]

MOR et al...

The AAIB have reiterated, in a report today, the "responsibility", whether or not you can see your wingtips:Like the towing crew, it might be expected that ATC should have predicted the collision and provided forewarning to the crew towing G-BNLK. However, the vantage point provided to the ground controller only enables the identification of obvious potential collisions and therefore the onus for obstacle clearance must rest with the person responsible for the aircraft, be it the towing crew or flight crew. This is borne out by the instructions in CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services in which an ATC service is provided to assist in preventing collision between aircraft on the manoeuvring area.

[Arkroyal]

MOR,

Firstly, I apologise for the language in my last night's post. End of a long day and all that.

And you call yourself a professional? So, according to you, our 767 captain is at fault because he didn't ensure that he could pass the 737, but your mate, who made no effort to check that the active runway was clear, is not?

1, yes I do. 2. The 767 captain (who I have not blamed for anything) was taxying past an object which was stationary. The Shed at CDG was cleared to line up from a high-speed turn off and was struck from the 4 o'clock position by an aircraft aproaching take off speed. Note; I don't blame the MD crew either.

If you can’t see the difference, then there’s not much more to be said

but your mate, who made no effort to check that the active runway was clear, is not? You know this do you. A little insensitive, might you agree? Can I join your next séance.

Since we now apparently qualify the causes of accidents according to who you know and who you don't, I will - in some disgust - leave you to it. Calm down old chap. And do try to remain detached and professional.

[Stick Flying]

Arkroyal,

Generally I am in agreement with all you have said on this thread. I must add though I do not agree that the CDG incident was completely ATC's fault. I think the crew of the Shorts (putting aside the tragic outcome for a moment) still had a part to play in the events. Regardless of what language the Take-off clearance was issued in, I believe if you are at an intersection departure point and are cleared to line up "number 2", you should make sure you know whereabouts of number 1. If they are not in sight (in this case in front of them) a rat should be smelt.

I believe they where suffering, for whatever reason, from a dose of reduced situational awareness that we can all take as a wake up call.

[Hotel Mode]

They believed number 1 was an aircraft that just passed in front

[sharpshot]

I'm not current with MAN, other than looking at aerodrome charts. We have heard the argument about being cleared to a holding point and you might be number xx in the queue; so, in turn, you eventually make it to the hold without further ATC instruction.

I presume the 767 was cleared via V to another Hold point. What was ahead of the 767 on V? Therefore, excepting the arguments put forward, one might assume that V was clear, subject any traffic ahead on V itself....not on S.

Assuming 24R was the landing runway and the 767 had crossed 24R, where did it physically have to get to (tail in particular, bearing in mind the height), to clear the ILS critical area?

If any of this relates to the fact, was there in fact any space for the 767 on the south side of 24R to have been cleared to, bearing in mind the location of the 737? If not, perhaps you need to go back and ask why it was cleared to cross in the first place.

I have seen incidents in the past that relate to ATC clearances and inappropriate use of hold bars. I once saw an aircraft vacate the active following an emergency stopping the wrong side of a uni-directional runway stop bar and disgorge pax whilst the rwy remained active.

[Anne.Nonymous]

I agree with Arkroyal and NOD.

There is nothing that absolves a Commander from ensuring the safety of his aircraft - irrespective of size. The final responsibility rests with him.

It wil be interesting to hear some of the peripheral aspects in the error chain. Were the numerous freq. changes taking one pilot out of the loop? Were they on a tight slot? That is where the AAIB excel.

Anne :O