QF B767 and United B747 Taxi Collision at Melbourne

[Mustangbaz]

About 30 minutes ago a Qantas B767 and United B747 both full of pax touched while taxiing, the United 747's wingtip sliced through the Qf 767's hori stab about 1-2 foot from the o/b end (all second hand info)

[blueloo]

Any updates or pictures? Flight numbers/regos?

[Mustangbaz]

Just got off the phone from my Mel source, the qf 76 was GE powered and the United 74 was most probably united 840 to LAX via SYD, from his vantage point the planes are quite a distance away from the terminal both were taxing outbound for takeoff, sorry this is all I have at the moment.

[Robot]

ABC Online
"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) will investigate an incident involving two jets at Melbourne airport this afternoon.
The Qantas and United Airlines aircraft clipped wings while one was taxiing and the other was stationary.
There were no injuries.
Airport operations have not been affected.
Qantas says all 155 passengers on board its plane will be transferred to alternative flights."

[Howard Hughes]

As usual I was tooo slow!!;)

Anyone got anymore info? ie: which aircraft was taxying and which was stationary?

[planemad_bk]

First of all, let's hope that everyone is ok! :ok:
Now, having said that, I hope that the 76 was one of the RR's! We're keeping them until 2012? :yuk:

whats wrong with RR 76's?

[Pedota]

ABC news has reported that the United aircraft was taxiing and the Qantas aircraft stationary.

[Howard Hughes]

ABC news has reported that the United aircraft was taxiing and the Qantas aircraft stationary.Thanks, Pedota.
OUCH!:{ That's gotta hurt....

[shortandsmelly]

Bet that sounded expensive....:ouch:

Looks like a pretty hard ding to me.

[apacau]

VH-OGH involved so I hear. Any more info on damage and any photos?

[Hempy]

They were both sitting rather forelornly on the taxiway at 1:30 local when I got to work, they've both been moved now. I couldn't see any visible damage to either

[shortandsmelly]

Then you didn't look close enough!!!
Some pretty serious damage to the right horiz stab of OGH, and the winglet of the 747 looks pretty mangled....

That's gotta hurt.

[Hempy]

I didn't get up close and personal, just a look from the tower side. Some red faces I expect

[numbskull]

I believe that OGH was waiting to takeoff on a taxi way and the United aircraft taxied behind it causing previously mentioned damage.

[Fris B. Fairing]

Hopefully you meant to say:
I believe that OGH was waiting on a taxi way prior to takeoff and the United aircraft taxied behind it causing previously mentioned damage.

[Mr. Hat]

The news said 99 pax on the 747. Is that normal? Pretty low load factor or do they go via somewhere else to get more pax?

[*Lancer*]

'Spose they were getting Qantas back for the -400 bingle in LAX last year? :}

[Bumpfoh]

Second hand info from a reliable/credible source.
QF 767 holding on Echo for a departure off 16, United 744 taxiing north on Alpha. 744 seen to swerve to the right to avoid the 767 to no avail, ensuing "explosion" of composite fibres etc from impact.
Damage to 744 L/H wing tip leading edge and winglet, 767 R/H aft hori-stab trailing edge and tip, both substatial.:{
Tech crew (and some pax) on an arriving QF 737 observed the incident and advised ATC.:ok:
And only a day after UA climbed out of Chap 11!:ouch:

[Capn Bloggs]

Bumf,

Please check with your source that the taxiways mentioned are the correct ones. It seems to be a bit hard to taxi "north" on Echo.

[vee1-rotate]

The news said 99 pax on the 747. Is that normal? Pretty low load factor or do they go via somewhere else to get more pax?

Aircraft was operating via SYD first then to LAX, hence low pax numbers...

Here's a pic of UA wing...nasty stuff...OGH didn't look much better when she was being towed past down to the maintenance base...

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSC01107.jpg

[Bumpfoh]

Bloggs

Apologies. Source good, poster questionable!
North on Alpha sounds better.

It must be late.:ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

No worries bumpf.

That's only a flesh wound. Cut the fliptip off and launch.

Surely the 767 wouldn't have had it's rear end dangling close enough to A to get clobbered by the wingtip of a jet taxiing on A? Was s/he holding behind another aircraft?

C'mon you Victorians, what's the goss??!! :}

[wing surfer]

looks like a touch worse than the one which the QF engineers did when B744 under tow into the side of H96, looks like maybe a few probs with nav lights and maybe the mount points for the wing tip

[Mr McGoo]

The mental picture of the incident I have formed has the 767 facing west on Echo either as No 1 or 2 at the Echo holding point for a departure on Rwy 16. The United 744 is taxiing for a departure off the full length of Rwy 16 and is either:
1. South of Echo taxiing north on Alpha. In this case the 744s left wing tip would impact the 767s left stab.
2. Heading west on Echo and turning right to head north on Alpha. In this case the point of impact would depend on the relative geometry of the turning 744 but it is feasible that it's left wing tip could strike the 767s right stab.

[Mustangbaz]

during my shift got to see some up close color pics of the stab, damage confined to o/b wingtip with the 747 slicing though the leading edge and taking most of the skin and some spar with it. The elevator got dinged at it's outermost edge maybe an inch or so, from the lwr side it looks quite okay but from the top the skin is torn open with large cracks and ripples throughout.
Could be a job for the Boeing AOG team, depending on the full extent of the damage.

[1DC]

I like the way you guys stick to the facts when discussing this kind of thread. The same topic in 'rumours and news' had,as usual, sunk into a domestic about facts, correct reporting, off topic arguments etc. etc., by the third or fourth post..

[wing surfer]

i'm sure syd heavy maint could do with some more work maybe they could do the job.

[Capt Claret]

Tea and bikkies, any one? :eek:


said furtively as one pounds the wooden table. :\

[rammel]

The story I heard today second hand was that UA was off the centreline, main gear almost on the asphalt. They realised they were too close and tried to correct the problem, which as we know caused a bigger problem. I heard the QF B767 was behind another aircraft also, so they may have been obstructing the taxiway a bit also. As I said I heard this second hand but does sound plausible.

[john_tullamarine]

.. my airports design mates assure me that one should keep the nosewheel on the taxi line and that they have done all the calcs to keep everything sweet ....

[theflyer1735]

Aircraft was operating via SYD first then to LAX, hence low pax numbers...

Here's a pic of UA wing...nasty stuff...OGH didn't look much better when she was being towed past down to the maintenance base...

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSC01107.jpg

Fantastic photo V1.

anyone know how long they expect the A/C to be out of action? :\

[shortandsmelly]

Could require up to a third of the wing replaced for UA (and no hangars big enuff for a 744 in MEL!); OGH expected to be out for about three weeks.


.....or so my source tells me;)

[Buster Hyman]

no hangars big enuff for a 744 in MEL

Not big enough to get the tail in & shut the door you mean...Don't forget, 747's were never going to come to MEL!;)

1DC I wondered why that thread disappeared.

[MELKBQF]

How about the AN 767 hangar in MEL, that can fit a 747 with the doors shut!

[vee1-rotate]

UA 744 was nose in, in a hangar down at the maintenance base tonight...not sure which one...
a few more pics
http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSCF0963.jpg

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSCF0964.jpg

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSCF0965.jpg

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSCF0966.jpg

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSCF0967.jpg

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSCF0968.jpg

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSCF0969.jpg

http://mozza.rwy34.com/albums/misc/DSCF0970.jpg

[Buster Hyman]

I think you'll find it cannot fit a 747 MELKBQF. 3 767's but a 747 is too long.

[AN LAME]

Buster

As part of ANs AOC for the B747 they had to demonstrate access to a hangar for the aircraft. Hangar 145 underwent significant modification of the upper door track to allow the tail of a B747 to pass through with the nose then angled into the NW corner such that the aircraft was then totally enclosed. It was never used as such.

Cheers

[Keg]

This from news.com.au

Jumbo clips taxiing Qantas jet
Carmel Egan and Jenny McAsey
February 03, 2006

A SHUDDERING jolt ran through a Qantas jet as it was hit from behind by a United Airlines 747-400 on the tarmac at Melbourne airport yesterday.

The left wing of the Los Angeles-bound jumbo sheered off the tip of the right tail winglet on the Qantas Boeing 767.

The accident occurred as both planes taxied towards the runway in preparation for take-off just after 1pm. None of the 155 passengers and 11 crew on the Qantas jet and 99 passengers and 14 crew on the United Airlines flight was injured.

But for athlete Anna Worland, the accident almost resulted in her missing the Commonwealth Games selection trials in Sydney.

When Worland eventually made it to Sydney for her 1500m heat, after being delayed several hours, losing her luggage containing running gear and being stuck in Sydney traffic, she was relieved to hear the heats had been cancelled and that she would go straight into tonight's semi-finals.

The captain of QF434 described the incident as a clip from behind by another aircraft.

"We were going out as normal and all of a sudden there was this giant shudder through the whole plane," said Peter Kirk, who was on the domestic flight. "You can see a little damage on the leading edge of the United plane's wing."

Rowan Frew, who was going to Sydney for a holiday, was sitting in the middle of the Qantas jet.

"There was a loud shuddering noise and a united gasp from the passengers," she said. "Nobody was terribly alarmed."

United said in a statement that its flight 840 from Melbourne to Los Angeles via Sydney "reported a wingtip touch with a Qantas aircraft as it taxied".

According to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, responsibility for aircraft movements on the ground is shared by airline pilots and air traffic control.

The CASA manual for air traffic standards says: "The pilot in command is primarily responsible for ensuring separation from another aircraft."

However, Air Traffic Control "must control runway operations with landing and take-off clearances and facilitate a high movement rate by providing traffic information and/or sequencing instructions."

Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators flew from Canberra yesterday afternoon to begin a report into the incident

After 8 1/2 years on the 767, I don't think I ever discovered the 'tail winglet'! :eek: Perhaps I needed to get out and do more walk arounds every now and then! :}

I will say one thing that surprised me about the article. Not one passenger felt that they were 'about to die'. So, one crap thing, one not so bad thing. The journo's are improving! :p

[redsnail]

Probably used the tailplane description for dummies. "The tail plane is a like a little wing".... So little wing gets translated to winglet. :confused:

[Buster Hyman]

Thanks for the clarification AN LAME:ok: I recall a number of times seeing 747 tails jutting out of the 767 hangar, but never one fully enclosed. I also remember the EK 773 sticking it's tail out of the old hangar when it blew a donk a few years back now.

Good to know though, could be a selling point.:(

[pakeha-boy]

those "J" lines are there for a reason,but as usual, yonited ,even as a visiting airline,still cant follow the rules......this has nothing to do with the fact they never hired me,.....no ...never entered my mind...

[Ron & Edna Johns]

With regards to time to repair the QF 767: the direct damage looks reasonably superficial so I guess it's a parts issue - being composite, from Boeing directly? Thankfully the elevator and associated linkages appear to have excaped impact. But more seriously, I expect they will have to check if there's been any damage at the root of the spar - they aren't exactly designed to take bending moments in the direction that the impact would have caused. Which means removal of the horizontal stab. And I'm suspecting that may mean removal of the vertical stab also? Can any LAMEs comment?

So it may be a few weeks before she's back online...

[numbskull]

You're right Ron, it will be a few weeks at best.

It is anything but superficial and tech services will obviously be involved directing proceedings. There will have to be a detailed inspection of the whole horizontal stab to check for any other associated damage.

The biggest problem will be manpower, parts and tooling. 767 Heavy maint is in BNE and SYD(experience anyway). I doubt that they will take the horizontal stab off (or the vertical stab)as I have never seen this done.

Manpower- probably send a team of heavy maint LAMES from Syd or BNE(that's if they can find anyone that isn't totally demoralised about their eminent demise)

Parts- hope that Boeing have them available and can send them ASAP.There's no way that QF will have the required panels/structure on hand.

Tooling- There may be tooling required that QF doesn't have. This sort of thing is never done, even in heavy maint. It will be a problem if they are required. Nothing can be done without the right tooling and the correct procedures.

It will be a ****fight for a few weeks at best.

[Mustangbaz]

latest info says boeing has the job and that due to the amount and complexity of a repair are looking at replacing the entire stab.

[Howard Hughes]

I bet she never flies straight again!!;)

[blueloo]

Hope boeing do a better job on her than they did on the JAL bird.

[Aussie Pete]

I love reading these forums to see what misinformation gets out there.

QAN 767 is being repaired by QANTAS at this stage. There's some chord and spar damage but nothing that the QANTAS guys can't cope with. One thing is the expertise that's built up within QANTAS is a godsend when things like this happen. Impact is relatively minor so rest of stab should come out okay after inspections. Wait and see. Tooling etc is really only a Jets truck away.....

UAL 744 status is unconfirmed but it looks worse than it is. Primary wing structure is relatively okay. Believe it or not the winglet itself is pretty much unmarked and most damage is to fairing type structure or panels outside of the primary wing structure (i.e. outside of the spar enclosures).

Amazingly there was three of these type collisions involving Boeing planes worldwide on the one day. Now that's not a good record!

[Buster Hyman]

One can only wonder where that expertise will be sourced from over the next few years...:(

[thadocta]

Amazingly there was three of these type collisions involving Boeing planes worldwide on the one day. Now that's not a good record! Well, they say that things happen in threes, that should be the end of the run then?

Dave

[Lord Snot]

I bet she never flies straight again!!Catering and the baggage monkeys took care of that years ago.... as they do with all brand new machines. That's why Boeing install rudder trim on jets.the expertise that's built up within QANTAS is a godsend when things like this happenYep highly-skilled..... on 747 panel-beating. But Qwantas owe the Grim Jet-Reaper a hull after they did a Frank N. Furter job on that jumbo that the boys parked on taxiway "Golf" in Bangkok a few years back after their cocked-up landing.

You owe for the flesh, Qwantas.

[Capn Bloggs]

If those silly Boeingites had put the tail light on the back of the aeroplane instead of the end of the wings, it wouldn't have happened...:}

[Aussie Pete]

If those silly Boeingites had put the tail light on the back of the aeroplane instead of the end of the wings, it wouldn't have happened...:}
If they put ground autopilot on the planes so they ran around on their own (no pilot input) it wouldn't have happened either :} ;)

As for the "QANTAS Bangkok Golf Open" that wasn't QANTAS doing the panel beating - rather the panel work was confined to the two boxing champs in the cockpit - heard the fight was a diversion from landing the plane. Umm, work prioritisation....

Anyhow, we all speculate on why something happened but the thing is the maintenance guys always pull the situation out of the swamp. Sometimes it just takes time and a lot of effort to make things happen. After planes are fixed I've never once heard of a pilot coming down and saying to the guys 'Sorry I stuffed up but I owe you guys a big thankyou for putting things right.' Wouldn't that be a great thing! Actually acknowledging everyone is on the same team. Instead what we see is them spending their whole time finding reasons why others were at fault (and again we go back to the Bangkok one - thrust reverser landing procedure my fundamental orifice).

[Aussie Pete]

Reading my previous post I acknowledge it sounds like I'm anti-pilot which is not the case. My apologies. What I'm anti is anyone who tries to blame someone else or shift the blame.

Thought I'd clarify that one! :O

[Capn Bloggs]

Just as well.:}

[Keg]

Instead what we see is them spending their whole time finding reasons why others were at fault (and again we go back to the Bangkok one - thrust reverser landing procedure my fundamental orifice).

The principles of a error investigation and a 'just' policy are obviously lost on some! :yuk: I hope you enjoy your CRM for engineers Aussie Pete, it's a good course and controlled by a good bloke. Make sure you listen to some of the lessons.

[Mr.Buzzy]

You've got my vote Pete.

Pilots - A huge but so very delicate ego!

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Hobo]

MELKBQF check your pms please.

[Bolty McBolt]

Got my vote too Pete.

Be careful of the delicate pilot egos as for OJH I agree with you there too.
Some of the best ass covering umbrella opening ever seen to blame procedures.
Lucky Q is an Old pilot matey club or blame may have been attributed somewhere else

[Aussie Pete]

The principles of a error investigation and a 'just' policy are obviously lost on some! :yuk: I hope you enjoy your CRM for engineers Aussie Pete, it's a good course and controlled by a good bloke. Make sure you listen to some of the lessons.
I'm not into vote gathering, nor am I into assumptions. Like the one you have blindly made about me having to attend a CRM course for engineers. I could assume you're a flight attendant judging by the fact you attended a CRM course.:p :{ := - but I won't.

As for 'just' policy I'll go on and use a perfect example of the 'just' way one particular airline works.

BKK Golf day:
primary CAUSE was undoubtedly pilot error. I haven't found anyone directly involved in this event who believes this wasn't the case. Pilot, despite his behaviour, is still running around with a QF staff number.

Ramp Event:
take a 737 and run a baggage belt loader into the side. Get the new name 'Roger Ramjet' from the press. despite other transgressions gues what - fired.

Who did the greater damage? Who lost their job?

I'm not saying Pilot should have lost their job. Quite the opoosite because I'd hazard to guess that with the training and learnings they'd be a great flyer now. But think about what 'just' actually means. Fact is in the aviation game you have three main protections: union, mates club, and union.

Finally, to move away from comments that led us here have a look at my postings. They're about how teamwork SHOULD be. Then have a look at reality and ask yourself whether what happens everyday is an airline that works together. Not many do.

[Keg]

I'm not going to bother discussing accident and incident investigation with people who have no idea as to how it operates- especially when you use a schoolyard definition of 'just' rather than the industry norm definition as it applies to accident and incident investigation.

I'm no expert but I know that the 'cause' of an accident is normally found in more than one area- and that most of those areas are outside of the flight deck environmnet. I also know that 'blaming' the last person prior to damage being caused is an extremally short sighted and dangerous game to play because it ignores the 101 other things that contributed to the damage in the first place. It also ensures that those things are still around to catch the unwary when the holes line up again.

For the record, there are mistakes made by a lot of people outside of the flight deck crew in the QF1 prang in BKK- a lot of them are pilots too. I'm not naieve enough to believe that pilots don't make mistakes or will always comply with policy but I'm also not stupid enough to believe that the person left sitting in the wreckage is necessarily the person to blame. Additionally, if your baggage handler was dealt with in a manner other than the 'just' policy then that is also deploreable.

So whether you're an engineer, a F/A, a pilot, an interested observer or none of the above doesn't matter. You're still wrong. :E

[Taildragger67]

Amateurs.

If you've got a 744 to play with, here's how to really take out another a/c:

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/asiana-anc/photo.shtml

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Pete... wasn't that ramp loader under the influence of some substance? Or have I the wrong incident?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Here's an analogy for you Pete.

Joe the ramp loader is about to finish a long shift. He has been awake for 20 hours and is about to unload the last flight of the night.

Management, in their cost-cutting zeal have removed the front set of brakes from his loader as an economy measure, This results in braking action of the loader being diminished but still deemed acceptable.

There is heavy rain on the tarmac. Unknown to Joe, there has been a small amount of oil spilled near where the aircraft will be parked. It almost caught out the last loader to operate at this gate but the leading hand thought it wasn't significant. Joe is waiting at his required position on the tarmac in the rain as the aircraft pulls to a halt.

Joe guns the loader towards the door. He is a good conscientious employee who tries to look after his employers interests by doing his job efficiently. He wants the passengers to get their bags in quick time and then he wants to go home.

The rain and poor light makes gauging distances difficult but Joe has done this many times and has always had good judgement. Just as he approaches the point where he would start to brake his foot slips for a second on to accelerator. Joe has an instant to decide whether or not to veer the loader away or to try and brake.

Based on his previous experience he tries to brake. However the combination of the contaminated tarmac and the reduced effectiveness of the brakes means that he is in a situation outside of his experience. The loader fails to brake properly and contacts the aircraft.

Now no-one will deny here that Joe was in charge of the loader and made an error of judgement. But tell me with a straight face that he is solely responsible, or negligent enough to be sacked?

History abounds with airline managements attempts to cover up their own shortcomings by blaming the poor slobs who were at the exit end of the swiss cheese holes. No-one wants to have an accident and there is hardly EVER a single cause. Try remembering that.

[Buster Hyman]

The subsequent investigation exonorated Joe, however, they sacked anyway because they found two biscuits in his pocket!

[Going Boeing]

Can anyone give us an update of the repairs to these aircraft? Thanks. :uhoh:

[AlJassmi]

ATSB Preliminary Report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/AAIR/aair200600524.aspx