PDA

View Full Version : QF and UA at YMML / Aircraft Clip Wings on Taxiway (merged)


Buster Hyman
2nd Feb 2006, 05:37
Minor collision at Melbourne Airport

02feb06

TWO passenger planes have clipped wings on the runway at Melbourne Airport, sparking an air safety investigation and delaying passengers.

A Qantas Boeing 767, carrying 155 passengers and 11 crew, and a United Airlines 747, carrying 99 passengers and 14 crew, were both due to leave the airport when the incident occurred about 1.30pm (AEDT).
Both airlines said no passengers were injured and alternative flights were being arranged.

Investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) were this afternoon on their way to the scene.

Qantas flight 434 was bound for Sydney, a Qantas spokeswoman said.

She said the plane "was clipped by a Boeing 747 operated by another airline at a taxiway at Melbourne Airport".

United released a statement this afternoon, saying its flight 840 from Melbourne to Los Angeles via Sydney "reported a wingtip touch with a Qantas aircraft as it taxied".

An ATSB spokesman said he could not provide information on the incident until an investigation had occurred.


More info on Dunnunda...

Hempy
2nd Feb 2006, 06:46
yeah they were both sitting there when I got to work at 1:30 (so it must have been before then), but they've been moved now. Couldn't see any visible damage

niceneasy
2nd Feb 2006, 12:47
Two passenger planes have clipped wings on the runway at Melbourne Airport, sparking an air safety investigation and delaying passengers.

A Qantas Boeing 767, carrying 155 passengers and 11 crew, and a United Airlines 747, carrying 99 passengers and 14 crew, were both due to leave the airport when the incident occurred about 1.30pm (AEDT).

Both airlines said no passengers were injured and alternative flights were being arranged.

Investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) were this afternoon on their way to the scene.

Qantas flight 434 was bound for Sydney, a Qantas spokeswoman said.

She said the plane "was clipped by a Boeing 747 operated by another airline at a taxiway at Melbourne Airport".

United released a statement this afternoon, saying its flight 840 from Melbourne to Los Angeles via Sydney "reported a wingtip touch with a Qantas aircraft as it taxied".

An ATSB spokesman said he could not provide information on the incident until an investigation had occurred.

- AAP

Safety Guy
2nd Feb 2006, 13:08
Qantas flight 434 was bound for Sydney, a Qantas spokeswoman said. She said the plane "was clipped by a Boeing 747 operated by another airline at a taxiway at Melbourne Airport".
United released a statement this afternoon, saying its flight 840 from Melbourne to Los Angeles via Sydney "reported a wingtip touch with a Qantas aircraft as it taxied".

In other words, they did not clip wings on a runway. The fact that the author doesn't know the difference (in terms of severity) only adds to our frustration with the media in their accuracy of reporting aviation incidents. :mad:

Final 3 Greens
2nd Feb 2006, 13:35
Safety Guy

Maybe you would prefer ......

Two aircraft, with 254 passengers on board, crash into each other at Melbourne airport. No one killed by fire, no local towns affected by explosions, no radioactive waste, biohazards or dangerous chemicals released into local rivers.

This is precisely correct from the story in the first post, but totally sensationalist, compared to the restrained reporting, with incorrect nomenclature, of 'clipped a wing.'

I think that you should give the reporter a break and zip it. Most of the general public don't understand the difference between a runway and taxiway.

Mark M'Words
2nd Feb 2006, 13:51
United 747 with 99 pax, perhaps there's a story on it's own.:hmm:

JP4
2nd Feb 2006, 13:53
Most of the general public don't understand the difference between a runway and taxiway.
In respect of other people, you should always be accurate in your reports. If somebody in the "general public" knows the difference, then you're loosing some of your credibility.
Would you appreciate your doctor having the same statement to you when trying to explain where your problem is...;)

Final 3 Greens
2nd Feb 2006, 14:04
JP4 there's accuracy and precision.

The 2 are not the same thing.

Dani
2nd Feb 2006, 14:23
UAL flight might be so empty because it's a feeder flight, landing in another city in the Pacific area and then make it's way to the US. Common procedure, nothing to worry about.

Dani

egbt
2nd Feb 2006, 14:31
nothing to worry about

rather sums up the thread, unless you were driving:bored:

Safety Guy
2nd Feb 2006, 14:50
The 2 are not the same thing.

Oh really? It's all about the severity. Which would you rather hear?

Mr. F3G, I am going to send you to a cardiologist because your ECG shows that you have a problem with your heart, or;

Mr. F3G, I've seen a minor discrepancy in your ECG. In my experience, it appears to be nothing to worry about, but just to be safe, I would like to send you to see a cardiologist.

A collision between two aircraft on a ramp or a taxiway indicates a low speed collision where the likelihood of severe injuries or deaths is extremely low. A collision between two aircraft on a runway could be far more serious (Tenerife and Detroit come to mind). And, don't sell the general public short. A good percentage of them are capable of understanding the difference in the implications between the two. It wouldn't hurt the author to be accurate, unoless of course they are trying to sensationalize a minor event to sell newspapers.

I certainly hope you apply more precision when you're flying.

Final 3 Greens
2nd Feb 2006, 15:17
Safety Guy

You haven't understood what I said at all.

Of these two statements ..... "Mr. F3G, I am going to send you to a cardiologist because your ECG shows that you have a problem with your heart, or;

Mr. F3G, I've seen a minor discrepancy in your ECG. In my experience, it appears to be nothing to worry about, but just to be safe, I would like to send you to see a cardiologist."

The first is more precise than the second, which is only opinion until confirmed by the cardiologist, at which stage the specialist will make an accurate diagnosis.

When I am flying, I strive for accuracy rather than precision. +/- 50 feet cleared altitude is accurate enough, 0 feet +/- of an inappropriate reference is worthless.

And this lot "A collision between two aircraft on a ramp or a taxiway indicates a low speed collision where the likelihood of severe injuries or deaths is extremely low. A collision between two aircraft on a runway could be far more serious (Tenerife and Detroit come to mind)" is no more than speculation, it is neither precise nor accurate.

UAL Furlough
25th Feb 2006, 12:57
UA flights from the west coast of the US to Australia are always full and overbooked. A couple years ago, they stopped the direct service from LAX to MEL and simply went via Sydney, thus the lack of pax between Melbourne and Sydney. Most either get off or on at Sydney. Hope that clears it up.