SriLankan/BA bent metal at LHR?

[shiftkeying]

Sky News reporting than an engine has been knocked off a BA 747 after a collison (while taxiing) with a Sri-Lankan Airlines aircraft.

[Super VC-10]

BBC news 24 said fire brigade confirm two aircraft have collided whilst taxying at about 2215 local time. One is said to be Sri Lankan, other said to be a BA 747. No reports of any injuries.

[Navy_Adversary]

Two planes have collided at Heathrow Airport, Sky News sources say.
Sky's Martin Brunt said the aircraft had hit each other while taxiing on the runway.
One of the planes belonged to SriLankan Airlines, while the other was a British Airways jumbo jet, he said.

One of them lost the tip of a wing, and an engine fell from the other craft, he added:eek:

[trolleydolly44]

no injuries reported

[Super VC-10]

Sri Lankan A340 & BA B747, which apparently has lost an engine. :rolleyes:

*edit - spelling*

[soddim]

Must be worth having four engines if you run the risk of losing one on taxying.

[shiftkeying]

London Fire Brigade report that there was a minor incident but no damage has been done.

SkyNews, never wrong for long.

[matt_hooks]

Sky's Martin Brunt said the aircraft had hit each other while taxiing on the runway.

I hope that's a bit of journalistic licence! :S

AFAIK they don't allow multiple aircraft on the r/w at Heathrow.

[silverelise]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046224.stm

[Gonzo]

AFAIK they don't allow multiple aircraft on the r/w at Heathrow.Oh yes we do!

[Leezyjet]

AFAIK they don't allow multiple aircraft on the r/w at Heathrow.

Oh yes they do. I watched in awe a couple of years ago as they backtracked over 20 a/c from 09R back down to 27L :eek: It was that day when that super cell t/s was sitting right over the airport for about an hour !!.

:\

[Shimrod]

Just got off the phone to my brother who is SLF on the BA flight.

BA aircraft was stationary when it was clipped by the Sri Lanken plane.

To give an idea of how minor it was, he was surprised it had been reported on the news. Passengers offloaded after a 2.5hr wait on the plane - which was left parked where the collision had occurred.

[matt_hooks]

Yes ok, backtracking is different, and with the ground radar it's fairly safe, but two aircraft on the runway close enough together to collide? :\

[turboshaft]

Stateside, Fox News is making this out to be something akin to Tenerife '77, with engines littering the runways, dozens of fire engines on scene and pandemonium ensuing. And you thought you had it bad with Sky News! :hmm:

[DA50driver]

Did they make it to LA?

[applevid]

good one DA 50

the press seems to be running away with this one...I'm sure as soon as actual pictures are published, the truth will win out.

anyone know the location on the airport where it happened? a diagram perhaps?

[TinBasher]

just to the left of the Virgin hangar as you look at it!!

[Airline Tycoon]

anyone know the location on the airport where it happened? a diagram perhaps?

BAW11 G-BNLL is still transmitting a mode S signal. The aircraft appears to be on Link 23 in the 27R hold.

[Max Angle]

I was there when it happened. No engine knocked off and it didn't happen on the runway, the (very minor and un-newsworthy) collision took place on the new taxiway complex leading to 27R. Looked like wingtip contact and nothing else. A big response from the fire service but when the call comes through they have no idea how bad the damage is and perhaps there is a huge fuel leak, upwards of 600 people involved so might as well throw everything at it until you know better. Most of what is on the news is total rubbish as usual.

[4potflyer]

BBC news story linked to earlier in this thread now has a photo of the damage. Looks like the 744 is in for a new wingtip. Need a different angle to see if the 'bus is damage free.

[gulf_slf]

AS ever the DT has their finger on the pulse ........ Sri Lankan has been the official name of the airline for well over 10years....!!

Planes collide at Heathrow airport
By Sophie Borland
Last Updated: 2:42am BST 16/10/2007



Two planes collided on the runway at Heathrow airport last night whilst preparing to take-off.


The incident comes as Heathrow airport faces growing criticism for long delays


Witnesses reported seeing part of the engine of a British Airways jumbo jet aircraft, Flight BA011, falling onto the runway whist the tip of the wing of an Air Lanka flight had come away. Nobody was thought to be injured in the crash but about 20 fire engines were called to scene.

The BA jet was bound for Singapore when it crashed into the Air Lanka plane which was heading for the Maldives at about 10pm.

The cause of the incident was not known but engineers were called to the scene and were investigating both aircraft.

Passengers were reported to be very shaken and distressed but were being told by their pilots over the intercom that there was no need to panic.

advertisement
Patrick Spink, spokesman for British Airways said: "The crash happened when the BA011 flight bound for Singapore hit the Air Lanka flight shortly after 10pm.

"We are not yet sure what caused the crash but it is thought that the British Airways jet collided with the wing of the other aircraft causing the tip of it to break away.

"Obviously under the circumstances the safety of passengers is paramount and all those on board both aircraft are being moved to the terminal buildings.

"Engineers have also been called to investigate the scene and a full inquiry will be launched to determine the exact cause of this incident.

"Nobody is thought to have been injured in the crash."

A spokesman for London Fire Brigade said that there was no serious damage to the aircraft and no reports of injuries.

Each year more than 64 million passengers pass through Heathrow airport and there are about 450,000 landings and take-offs.

The incident comes as Heathrow airport faces growing criticism for long delays and chaos caused to passengers.

Last month the airport was found to have the worst delays in Europe with some passangers being forced to wait on the tarmac for up to half an hour.

During one incident the airport's northern runway was blocked for more than 90 minutes after an Royal Brunei flight made an emergency landing

Statistics from the Association of European Airlines showed that more than one flight in three left Heathrow more than 15 minutes late.

The figures showed that Heathrow's performance from April to June was about three per cent worse than the previous quarter, with delays faced by passengers at check-in and security often continuing once they are on board.

The Daily Telegraph have also revealed how the Spanish operators of the airport, BAA, had to pay more than £144,000 to airlines for poor performance

[tezzer]

Congrats to the crew, for doing a first class job of avoiding the nearby school.

[Flying_Frisbee]

According to the Beeb, the passengers are thankful it didn't happen in the air. As you would be, I'd imagine. :hmm:

[llondel]

Interesting that most reports have the BA stationary and the Torygraph has it crashing into the other aircraft. I'm surprised the passengers weren't screaming in terror as the aircraft plunged several millimetres on impact.

[Doc Strangebrew]

'Reeter Skeeter' eat ya heart out...!

[QNH1013]

Yes there would have been Shock when that jolt was felt on impact. Was there Horror though?!:cool:

[Red Top Comanche]

Passenger on the BA aircraft said they were "slowly overtaking the other aircraft and the wing-tips touched"

BBC showing the tiplet cut in half and a small bit on the taxiway.

Fire services were on the scene for all of 5 minutes:\.

No one screamed in terror, fainted or crashed near a school/hospital small child!!

[autothrottle]

If its in the 27 R hold then its not surprising really....incredibly bad holding area design. Finished GMC 2 L/OP at 10 o'clock last night , very busy with T4 heavy traffic .

[Taildragger67]

What, no pilots grimly wrestling with the controls during the death-plunge? :eek:

[Orange Baron]

Can you believe that at a major airport the ATIS says - "WING TIP CLEARENCE IS NOT ASSURED AT THE HOLDING AREA", only a matter of time........

[airsound]

Red Top.

The SLF in the BBC report - a Danish journo called AnnaSofie Flamand - was on the Sri Lanka A-340. In her filmed interview, she said It looked like we were overtaking a British Airways plane..... Our wingtip just severed through [the tip of the British Airways wing] like butter.

airsound

[Nicholas49]

BBC News: "Thank God it was on the ground and not in the air"

Hmmmm, don't think there have been too many cases of planes scraping their wings against each other in the air. :)

[MileHigh76]

Dont know what happened or how it happened - was on the other side of heathrow, it just happened as we were just to cross 27L and were told to hold - until a change of rwy took place for the traffic coming from south - that was a good 20 to 30 mins. Good to hear no one hurt. Departures continued on 27R however.

[wobble2plank]

Can you believe that at a major airport the ATIS says - "WING TIP CLEARENCE IS NOT ASSURED AT THE HOLDING AREA", only a matter of time........

They have been saying that for years on the ATIS, great 'get out' clause.

Aircraft cross pollination seems to be on the up at Heathrow, good job we're not toooooo crowded at LHR :eek:

[TheOddOne]

I hang my head in sadness. To think that the Company that I was once proud to work for should continue to allow this sort of avoidable accident to still happen. There has been a drip-feed of these incidents over the years at LHR - why aren't the lessons being learned? Why LHR and not other aerodromes which handle more traffic per runway?

Heathrow's reputation is more or less rock-bottom these days.

I would seriously suggest that it's time to close the doors on the place and develop a proper 21st Century airport for London elsewhere. The fundamental problem is that the basic layout was designed in 1946 for a/c with half the current span and a quarter of the weight of present designs. The site simply isn't big enough and don't get me started on the infrastructure. The main road to the airport from the South goes over a railway bridge which was built 150 years ago for horse & cart and hasn't been widened since!

As to the loss of a wingtip on a 744, I once witnessed a BA 744 arriving at LGW with one winglet missing. It had had a tangle with another a/c at Caracas and following removal of the stub the a/c had dispatched with one winglet. Apparently it didn't make enough difference to the fuel burn to make any adjustments necessary. I expect there's a difference in MEL for an outstation departure compared with base, on the basis that another a/c would be available and that the a/c can be fixed at LHR but not CCS.

I just can't believe that the pax were held on board for 2.5 hrs, as reported. Did it really take Airfield Ops/BA that long to organise coaches???


TheOddOne

[Dude~]

Hmmmm, don't think there have been too many cases of planes scraping their wings against each other in the air.

How many is 'too many'?
...737 / Legacy over Brazil... Tupolev 154 / DHL 757 over Germany... 747 / IL-76 over India...

[slip and turn]

To those that have chosen to play down the seriousness of this, I would counsel that a really nice bloke I was proud to know was killed by a wingtip at a large European airport. He was strapped in his seat at the time, sadly just a bit closer to the point of initial contact than the lucky hundreds involved in this one.

PS Neither do I think there's much value in splitting hairs in these incidents between what's active runway and what is taxiway/apron at busy airports. The fact is that when the doors are closed and we're manoeuvring under our own steam we are talking about exactitudes of flight ops safety not the quick and dirtiness of ground ops.

[Just a spotter]

Can you believe that at a major airport the ATIS says - "WING TIP CLEARENCE IS NOT ASSURED AT THE HOLDING AREA", only a matter of time........

If that's the case now with "standard" sized wide bodies, just wait until they have a number of A380's running around the place!:eek:

JAS

[dontdoit]

If anyone's interested, A340-300 4R-ADC and B747-400 G-BNLL.

[anartificialhorizon]

Daily Torygraph,

How do you "investigate both aircraft"?

What a load of drivel being reported on this minor incident. Who wants to bet that the next baggage tug or airbridge that causes a dent or scratch to the paintwork at LHR makes frontpage / Sky News....in baggage dolly terror smash .............:rolleyes:

[forget]

Missing winglet? Not even a grounding item. Then again - home base - maybe.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/0983281.jpg

[TheOddOne]

Have a look for yourselves at the diagram in the UK-AIP AD 2-EGLL-2-5.

If the BA 744 was on Link23 abeam the junction with Link 21 and the Sri Lankan A340 was attempting to use Link21; there is a loss of separation between these 2 taxiways for code 'E' a/c. Assuming Link 23 is code 'E' then I would guess that Link21/Link22 can't be any more than code 'B'. Is there a stop bar at Link 21? I can imagine the Sri Lankan should have been routing Twy Bravo for TITAN then left for AY3 then A3 but went straight ahead after TITAN and was trying for Link 22 and A2? The diagram doesn't have a route East from TITAN to Link 21. Is this an error on the diagram or can you ONLY turn left or right after TITAN? There aer no stop bars illustrated on the diagram.

All the above is speculation. Anyone else got a more informed view?

TOO

[frangatang]

Nice to know that that ferking idiot simon calder managed to get his tuppence worth in on the debate on 5 live radio. Where would we be without him.

[autothrottle]

Slip and Turn,

Good point , also knew the gentleman you spoke of as I lived in Little Harrowden at the time, near Sywell.

It worries me whenever I see traffic manouvering in link 23,22 and 21 for A1,2,3.

[M.Mouse]

Apparently it didn't make enough difference to the fuel burn to make any adjustments necessary. I expect there's a difference in MEL for an outstation departure compared with base, on the basis that another a/c would be available and that the a/c can be fixed at LHR but not CCS.

If you don't know then why speculate?

A missing winglet is an allowable deferred defect, there is a fuel penalty and a weight penalty otherwise quite acceptable.

[autothrottle]

Most likely that BAW11 routed link 23 for A1 and Sri Lankan was routed Link 23 Link22 for A2. Yes there is a stop bar at Link21 , in fact there are numerous stop bars link21-B , Link21-A AND B-Titan. Remember the stop bars only provide separation if aircraft are fully over the bar and won't if the aircraft stops with part hanging over the bar.
Probably best wait for investigation to take place.:cool:

[TheOddOne]

Monsieur Mouse says:

why speculate?


Why not? This is a rumour site; surely speculation goes hand-in-hand with that.

Actually, in regard to the CCS incident, I wasn't. My only speculation was on current BA policy at LHR, compared with outstation.

TOO

[Yellow Snow]

The Odd One
I would definately caution speculation as to who is to blame, otherwise we lower ourselves to the dark depths that is Sky, BBC and the Daily Telegraph.
Yes the holding areas at LHR are badly designed, but in ATC we are aware of their limitations. If it was a situation of one holding L23 en route to A1 with another one being instructed to follow the greens L23-L22-A2, as is the the most probable route (Titan shouldn't have come into play for T4 outbounds), then we are trained to issue the taxi instruction to A2 with a caveat off 'when you have sufficient wing tip clearance, or something similiar, thus re-inforcing the ATIS message.
The only time we wouldn't bother with the caveat would be if it was obvious from the ground radar that the one ahead was fully over the stop bar and the one behind would have a full unimpeded route!
Whilst the tragedy off the incident in Paris where the skipper lost his life isn't lost on any of us, can we please excercise caution when comparing the two incidents. This was a very low speed scratch nowhere near a runway. We had one a few months ago when a BA 777 pushed into a unparked company airbus, and we've had plenty of similar incidents in the 27L RHA. Whilst, I'm not saying that any of them are acceptable, when you have an airport as small as LHR with as many movements there are bound to be a couple. These incidents happen at airports all over the world so to start slagging heathrow off as the cause, it's just jumping on the journo specualtion bandwagon. LHR is a stressful airport for a passenger, but it is getting better!
I'm quite frankly appalled at the over reporting by Sky news and other agencies on this and the fear mongering they generate.
Slow news day:yuk:

[Jetstream Rider]

I agree with Yellow Snow - there is a huge difference in operational terms between dinking a wingtip on taxi, and runway and airborne safety. The midair's listed above are not caused by pilots trying to pass each other with visual separation. Similarly a runway incursion is a very different matter. Its not "splitting hairs" although I can see how the unknowledgeable public can't see the difference.

Paris and Heathrow are very different kettles of fish, and the causal factors of the tragedy at Paris are very unlikely to be causal factors in this incident.

I think the taxiways could certainly be better at LHR, but if in doubt, stop and wait. There are very few times when stopping and waiting until you are sure will cause any significant problem - having said that, I don't know the causes of this incident and so don't want to speculate or suggest what could have been done better to avoid it.

[slip and turn]

Jetstream I can see how you prioritise. Dinking sounds like fun, but tell you what, you go your road and I'll go mine (and let's hope we are both on the one ball).

[skysod]

Surprised this incident hasn't been blamed by the BBC on global warming/climate change causing the wings to expand in length due to the higher than normal temperatures.:}

[TheOddOne]

Yellow Snow,

I'm sorry if my speculation as to the circumstances surrounding this incident may be mis-interpreted as 'blame'.

We strove for many years to generate a 'no-blame' culture to encourage honest and open incident reporting, especially with regard to Apron incidents. Only the most blatant cases of recklessness should be subject to draconian disciplinary action.

I'm a fan of the 'Swiss Cheese' accident theory, line up the holes and it happens. Post-accident, find out where the holes were and fill 'em in, so it can't happen again.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[Yellow Snow]

The Odd one,

I fully agree with your last post!

I guess it's watching too much Sky news and the blame culture that exists in the media that has me particularly wound up at the moment.

Cheers YS

[Jetstream Rider]

Slip and Turn - I don't mean to sound as if this is not serious, neither do I suggest that the accident at CDG wasn't a very serious, tragic and avoidable accident. I was upset when I read the accident report and am still angry that CDG is such an awful place to operate an aircraft. However, what I'm saying is that runway incursions, the use of two languages, take off clearances and other runway related operational practices are very different from two aircraft hitting as they taxi.

I'm keen to avoid these things, I'm just saying that the parallels drawn by some above are not strictly appropriate. By that I mean the listing of the midairs, the fact that someone said we were "splitting hairs" about the reporting or runway and taxiway and the "thank god it didn't happen in the air". The accident to your friend is very poingant, and worth remembering in a situation like this - its not necessarily the same thing - but it does remind one how an escalation can become very serious indeed. I mean no hurt or insult and if you feel upset by it, I will remove my post.

I'm just saying some people seem to be escalating a taxiing accident to the importance of a runway collision - if one were to choose a risk factor for this incident it wouldn't be the same as a runway collision.

[slip and turn]

JR, no need to remove your post. Your views are as airable as anyone else's ... I'm not upset by them. I just think that to deflect the seriousness based on some graduated spectrum of the relative hairiness of different bits of the live area and to stifle comparison by shooting a spoiling line indicating that unique external factors make all comparison invalid is not useful to anyone other than commercial risk takers with a need to justify expedience, and that I assume, Sir, is not what you is paid to be?

Aviation is supposed to be a non-contact sport. When 'certain types' of contact become generally acceptable/deemed minor by the players and commentators, then no-one can guess what factors will contribute next time nor how serious the next one will be. Surely the message is stay clear unless triple certain, not "oh well the worst I can imagine right here is a glancing dink".

Zero tolerance of potential conflicts is the rule and I don't see the usefulness or safety benefits of suggesting otherwise.

[Jetstream Rider]

Zero tolerance of potential conflicts is the rule and I don't see the usefulness or safety benefits of suggesting otherwise.

I almost agree - I would take out the "potential" as there is a potential for many things all the time, yet not necessarily in need of action. In my company, each accident or incident is assigned a risk factor or "seriousness" so for instance an aircraft pulling onto stand without guidance will be a lower risk factor than a full GPWS. My thoughts are that the CDG accident would get the highest "seriousness" as it involved loss of life and it could have been much worse. A taxiing accident would have a lower seriousness unless for instance an aircraft went full face into a terminal.

If you get a full GPWS flying into a hilly airport whilst following procedures to the letter - as an operator you might stop flying there until the problem is sorted out - with a clip of wings at the holding point you wouldn't stop operations until a fix was found. That's all - this accident doesn't need immediate and draconian fixes, but a runway incursion/rejected takeoff might. I just think the seriousness is lower than some of the comparisons stated above. What would you fix first, the clipped wings or the runway incursion? I'd go for the incursion first every time.

[MReyn24050]

Photographs here on the Daily Mail website.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=487834&in_page_id=1770

[Taildragger67]

Interesting shots in that Daily Mail article.

That said, they just couldn't help themselves, could they?

Passengers tell of panic as two planes collide on Heathrow runway

Passengers today told of the panic on board when their planes collided on the runway at Heathrow as they were waiting to take off.

A six-feet long wing section of a stationary British Airways Boeing 747 was sliced off

Not a wing, but a winglet. And looks like it lost less than six feet.

Rant selector switch moved to 'On' position

Clowns.

WHY do they do this?! :ugh:

Moreover, why do people pay to read this drivel?!

If the free papers in London have proven anything, it's that print 'journalism' these days ain't worth paying for.

Rant selector switch moved to 'Off' position

[Silver Tongued Cavalier]

The BBC news website has an article entitled "Two aircraft collide at Heathrow" It's currently the number 2 most read article.

The number 1 most read article is "Top Gear pipes anger anti-smokers"

Don't you just love it :}

[FMSData]

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Does my head-in reading stuff like this.

Since when did the 'runway' get involved!?

Idiots

FMS

[southern duel]

Hello Odd One Hows things
How things change !! and are still changing.
Regarding last nights prang and dont blame me because ! was not the man on duty !!
Sri Lankan was routeing Link 23 to Link 22 on cleared Green Route when it brushed the wingtip of the BA which was stationary but over sitting over the Red TB on Link 23 due to an aircraft ahead of him !!! which obviously means there was not enough wingtip clearance for the A340 to pass and route into Link 22. Should he have been given the green route ????
Intially the AAIB declned attendance and stated the aircraft could be moved as long as pics and relevent aircraft postions wee marked. The AAIB actually later turned up and removed the tapes etc.
It was BA higher management the stated the pax remain on board until interviewed by the police !!! A Bit OTT if you ask me.
There was delay regarding the UL pax because there was no suitable KLM ( Handler) staff on duty to arrange steps etc or even tow the aircraft back to T4. This is an ongoing issue at LHR ( 24hr international airport but the handlers all go home at 11pm) This was also the case with BA who stated there was only one tow crew available.
Oh the joys of LHR !!
Both aircraft wee actually towed back to T4 at 04:30am

[airsound]

Not sure if I’m being a bit slow here, but I’m wondering how widespread is the apparent misunderstanding about what a runway is. Presumably everyone on PPRuNe knows the word ‘runway’ describes only the place where aircraft take off and land. But do most people outside aviation think that any surface an aircraft travels on is ‘runway’, or is this just journalistic sloppiness?

airsound

[skiesfull]

The Odd One:-
Your earlier posting would suggest that you do not appreciate the purpose and logic of the MEL. I expect if you search on PPRuNe, you will find further information.
By the way, this is an 'accident' and not an 'incident', which is probably the reason for the involvement of the Airport Police and their requirement to obtain witness reports.

[eddyboog]

Soon to be on the LHR Dep ATIS.

"Pilots should exercise caution in the runway holding areas as wing tip retention is not assured"

[westinghouse]

just goes to proove that the airbus winglet is stronger than the boeing winglet. :E

[Just wondering]

"Pilots should exercise caution in the runway holding areas as wing tip clearance is not assured"

Why do we put up with this.... you can't see your wing tips on many aircraft. In this world of a** covering, risk assessments etc may be it's time for us to say, "OK, I won't push back and taxi until it is"

[GearDown&Locked]

They'd better fit new onboard cameras looking at those wingtips on the A380 (they have quite a few already installed, tail fin, undercarriage front and back, under the wing left and right front and back ...)

GD&L

[TheOddOne]

Skiesfull said:

By the way, this is an 'accident' and not an 'incident', which is probably the reason for the involvement of the Airport Police and their requirement to obtain witness reports.

Interesting point. Actually, the Police have an instruction from the Home Office not to use the word 'accident', happenings are 'crashes' as in Road Traffic Crash (RTC) instead of Road Traffic Accident (RTA) in HO-speak.

Actually, I prefer the use of the word accident, as defined here:

accident, an unexpected event which causes damage or harm.

BTW, yes, I am familiar with MELs, but I would hesitate to use the word logic in the same sentence, as other threads also seem to indicate. One of our aircraft MEL states that the landing light being u/s is a 'go' item for flight at night. Go figure!

Apologies for thread-creep.

TOO

[ACMS]

Westinghouse: The BA Winglet was sliced through by the leading edge of the Airbus wing, it looks to be just inside the tip. ( maybe 1 foot )
One would hope that the leading edge of the Airbus wing, being made of Aluminum, would be a little stronger than the Composite Boeing Winglet!!
The Airbus Winglet was not involved, it rode over the top of the BA wing.
Look at the photo again and you can see bent metal at the front of the Airbus wing.

[Capt.Tentacles]

Stateside, Fox News is making this out to be something akin to Tenerife '77, with engines littering the runways, dozens of fire engines on scene and pandemonium ensuing. And you thought you had it bad with Sky News!

FOX+SKY=Same Owner & identical/Exaggerated BS

[gas path]

Right! What a load of old crap is appearing here in the news AND in the states:mad:
An unfortunate accident and it mainly impacts on the pax who had to nightstop.
The BA011 was stationary with park brake set and the AirLanka was given permission to pass. It will be investigated fully as to exactly what happened. There was a coming together of wingtip leading edge of the A340 and the winglet of the 744. The 744 had (what was left of) its lefthand winglet removed IAW the MEL CDL and is now on its way to YVR.
End of!:ok:

[aviate1138]

At around 17:15 [UK] BBC 24 Hr News reporter says [in part] "Airline pilots are mindful of worst loss of life in Tenerife . That is an illustration why the question of ground safety at Heathrow needs to be addressed."
Words fail me.
BBC Breaking News ticker tape still talks about collision on Runway at Heathrow.

[slip and turn]

Gaspath, you surely have not seen the video of Annasofie Flamand describing the knife through butter ... personally I am waiting for the newsreel to complete a cycle so I can see her look in the camera and hear her say it again :ok:

http://itn.co.uk/news/462e98dc716e286a8c41677911d4eb78.html ... sorry, couldn't wait :O

[FlyingCroc]

LHR, and accident to happen :yuk: Everyone operating to LHR knew this will happen one day! A shame for you Brits, this at an international airport. Feel sorry for the crew who will be targeted and torn apart by these bureaucrats, the same twits that imposed the most stupid security control for crew on this planet! :yuk:

[forget]

Everyone operating to LHR knew this will happen one day!

A bent winglet! :bored:

[simonhk]

Hi all, just phoned the duty editor at News 24 and explained the difference between a runway and a taxiway, and that the captions could be more accurate, he said thanks and they would change it next time round...
SimonHK (@BBC World Service)

[airsound]

I did exactly the same, simon, and I see they have at least changed the ticker tape. I've also called Sky, Channel 4 News and the Today programme.

airsound

[Yellow Snow]

Flyingcroc
Everyone operating to LHR knew this will happen one day

It's been happening for the last 8 years I've worked here!
It's nothing new unfortunately.

If one good thing that comes out of this is the 'to camera' piece of Annasofie from Denmark then maybe not all journolists are so bad;):O

[El Grifo]

Hey OddOne, yer being quoted on Sky News

Intellectual rights and all that guff :}:ok::}

[PeePeerune]

sack the pilots i say!!!!!! :D

[TheOddOne]

Hey OddOne, yer being quoted on Sky News

Shame, haven't got it since Sky & Richard Branson fell out.

They can have that one for free.

TOO

[nippysweetie]

OK, winglet lost, no big deal unless you've been stuck in a hotel waiting for another flight.
But how much farther down the wing would the impact need to be before integrity of vent surge tank or main tanks was compromised?
Last night’s little bump shows Murphy’s Law applies at Heathrow (yes, I know it’s not the first time this has happened).
The important thing here is not whether reports were over-hyped but that the system failed. If that system can fail once, who’ll bet their house that it will never fail again?

[nomorethanbablue]

Can I also stand up for my profession, journalists?

Unlike some, I don't use PPRuNE to trawl for stories, or goad aviation professionals into saying things they don't want to. I use it to inform my coverage of aviation issues.

As I was on nights last night when this small incident occurred, I visited PPRuNE to check against what the newsagencies were saying - not to use it as a source of a good quote.

At no time did I allow my team to write that the aircraft had 'crashed on the runway'.

Just thought I'd put the case for the defence. Proximity to schools, deathly plunges or pilots 'wrestling with the controls' is not my thing.

BABlue

[Yellow Snow]

Nomorethanbablue

Very refreshing to hear, wish there were more like you!:ok:

Now can you get the Danish girls number or what, if you can, maybe someone on here can get you up to a silver card with BA;)

[nomorethanbablue]

Aw, a mere public employee such as myself could never accept such a gratuity... yeah, right!

Apparently Ms Flamand trained at the London College of Journalism, which goes someway to explain the tabloid-esque quote she gave... A graduate of my journalism school would never dream of such a thing!

BABlue

[L337]

So who designed the taxiway system short of 27R?

It is newly built and a total pigs ear. An accident waiting to happen. And guess what. It happened.

To my mind, the area should have been concrete from horizon to horizon, and yellow lines on it. It would have given flexibility and better safety. Now it is a rabbit warren of paths.

I suppose the solution was the "cheap" solution.

What I do know is that we are all going to have to live the spaghetti concrete short of 27R for the next 30 years or so.

[Leezyjet]

I suppose the solution was the "cheap" solution

Everything that is built at LHR is done on the cheap. Just look at the new control tower for example - they had a chance to build a landmark iconic building and that awful monstrosity is what we've ended up with !!.

:(

[WeatherJinx]

Now come on... You should know by now that in journo-speak, all areas of an airport are defined as "runway"; and at all times, aircraft "hurtle", "career", "charge" or "lurch".
...with the exception of the airspace above it; from which aircraft either 'spiral out of control' or, (my personal favourite), 'plummet'. ;)

[hoofie]

Quick comment from a non-pilot, but interested civvie.
I saw the first reports on news web sites here in Oz : "Runway collision at Heathrow" - jesus, not another tenerife being first reaction. "Engine sliced off" said another one - golly, engine is running, severed fuel lines : not good.
So I went to pprune for hopefully the correct information. It turns out to be a minor taxiway collision, not surprising seeing how narrow some of the taxiways look from inside the plane and how many aircraft are snaking towards the departure runway. [but thats another issue]
Then I saw the picture : 1 to 2 feet of a winglet removed and some damage to the front of a leading edge......
After all this, Sky News in Oz was STILL reporting a runway collision, engine hacked off, terrified passengers etc...
Needless to say, this is the latest in a long line of sensationalist, inaccurate and quite frankly junk reporting by the MAJORITY of news outlets now. I know some journalists try to get their fact rights, but you wonder why they bother when any old rubbish gets printed.
p.s. If its true the old bill kept all the passengers on the BA plane for so long I have to ask : why ? Or did a 777 really do it and then bugger off without leaving their details ? "Sorry Officer, I didn't get the registration, I don't know the make, longish with two wings perhaps"

[aviate1138]

hoofie -
IMHO all this garbage journalism is mainly as a result of 24 hour "Breaking News" journos desperate for copy, mostly inaccurate it seems. This morning the BBC says it is making cuts in their News Services employees - to save wages it can't pay, due to Government cuts - and as a result standards will drop!!!!!!! Surely not worse than it is now????
How I hate so called "Breaking News". :rolleyes:

[Froglet]

If the CVR of the BA pilots will ever get into the (semi) public domain?

Would love to hear it.....

F

[Danny]

I wonder... If the CVR of the BA pilots will ever get into the (semi) public domain?

I very much doubt it. However, I can tell you what may have been said, having experienced the incredulity of being marshalled into a docking pier in a previous life.

Aircraft moving forward very slowly... suddenly there is a bit of a 'thump' and a 'shudder' and a/c rocks gently, as though brakes had been applied suddenly

Captain: "What the f*#@*#@*?
Me: "Did you just jump on the brakes?"
Captain" "No"
Me: "Me neither"
Captain (looking to the left wingtip, now embedded in the pier): "Oh, for f#*@**# sake!"
Me: "You'd better look at this... the marshaller is still telling us to move forwards!"

The rest is mostly just more expletives interspread with things about the marshaller, the paperwork and disruption this is going to cause.

This incident between the B747 and the A340 which, whilst expensive and containing an element of risk due to any possible structural damage, was the equivalent of a minor scrape between cars queuing up at the traffic lights. The level of hysteria, at least in the initial mis-reporting, is so out of proportion with the scale of the incident that it would appear the editors in charge at the time had no option but to have the story hammed up to protect their delicate egos for sensationalising it in the first place! :rolleyes:

Someone had better let the Sky/BBC/ITN/CNN newsdesks know about a fender bender between a container juggernaut and a Morris Minor that just happened on the junction of the B1123 and the A14. :ugh:

[Rainboe]

5 pages on a simple wingtip clipping? And we get severe lectures on how archaic LHR is and the place should be closed? What about LAX? They have as many, if not more, ground collisions, often involving fatalities- should LAX be closed? One of my colleagues sliced a DC9 tail at the taxiway leading to 27L which is why they stopped using it years ago. It happens.

Please everyone- this was a simple, non-serious, wingtip clip. Nothing more. We don't have to discuss it to death. Cameras would not help. Let's just let it go- it happens occasionally. They had the opportunity at LHR to make the taxiways so 'wingtip clearance CAN be assured'. They chose not to take it. It will happen again. Nobody got hurt. I know this will be difficult for some, but hard though it is- let's just 'let it go'! 5 pages!

[cargo boy]

Hey Rainboe, aside from the armchair pilots, this is the greatest thing since sliced bread as far as us jet-lag induced insomniacs are concerned. I mean, we get to read about the incident with input from someone who was on board which dispels the media accounts of mass panic and terror and we get loads of anecdotal stuff too. Besides, what do you really care if it's 5 pages long? It'll eventually disappear down the list as interest wanes.

In the meantime, I'm having fun watching the media get slated for their mass hysteria inducing coverage. Just imagine the dilemma for them, they would love to refer to the pilots point of view on the incident on threads like this but can't because they have been ridiculed so much in the first place.

Ah, the joys of jet-lag and the interweb. :cool:

[GearDown&Locked]

What might have happened :8

It has all the details to look good on "breaking news". Let's see, word gets out that two big planes have collided wing to wing when they were ready to depart.
- fire brigade charging down (to meet the wrecks!)
- wings have enormous quantity of fuel (catastrophic fire!)
- 2 enormous planes full of people (mainly children for sure!)
- the collision fact itself (departing planes? has to be on the runway!)
etc.

It's easy to see what very little information and big assumptions can produce, fueled by the pressure to be the first to report it. What a sad profession.:hmm:

GD&L

[Groundloop]

So this was a newly designed taxiway layout that did not provide wingtip clearance between a 747 and an A340.

Wouldn't one have expected that ALL new taxiway work at LHR would have taken the clearance requirements of an A380 into consideration?

[Strimmerdriver]

Whenever the media report anything I do know about they are totally inaccurate so it seems logical to assume that they know sq root of FA about everything so why do with bother with newspapers apart from soduku?

[jb5000]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=487834&in_page_id=1770

"However, pilots' leaders expressed concern, pointing out that one of the worst accidents in aviation history happened when two taxiing aircraft collided in Tenerife in 1977."

:ugh:

[Gonzo]

For Gawd's sake people, regardless of how far apart parallel taxiways are, there will be points where taxiways meet (junctions, if you will......).

If one aircraft goes straight on at one of these junctions, and then stops just a little further forwards so the tail overhangs, or the wingtip isn't clear, and the aircraft behind makes the turn at the junction anyway, then hey presto, a ground collision.....it has nothing to do with how far apart the taxiways are...the new 27R holding area taxiways can manage any aircraft type. I'm certainly no fan of the taxiway layout up there, but this incident could have happened at any airport.

[slip and turn]

Oh gawd! Not more journo-bashing with headbanging for effect :rolleyes:

Look I know my views aren't quite how Danny summed up this incident, but I can see his point, and I know I had some dubious boys-will-be-boys fun at Annasofie's expense last evening to try to lighten the show, but I do believe that trying to suggest that this incident is of no real safety significance and therefore not newsworthy is a dodgy thing to present as an industry view.

Sure if the industry feels the need to and doesn't mind being seen to spin up the "safety is always number one and this didn't even come close" type message, then fine, that seems to be the current conclusion of the thread.

Personally I think it is dodgy to sarcasticly criticise the general public, journalists included, when they are involved in accidents and incidents, for not using the correct terms (which often are forgiveable misuses of our own industry jargon which we can't expect them to define as closely as we do unless we make far greater effort to communicate properly).

There's been a hell of a lot of splitting hairs to deny seriousness in this thread.

Yes we sadly know that the fatal Charles de Gaulle accident was a misunderstanding between Air Traffic and the crew of one ill-fated aircraft on the ground that had proceeded a distance past the hold point and was just too close to the runway path and wingtip trajectory of another which was just landing ...

And we know that the awful Tenerife accident was another complete balls up with one aircraft actually taxying on the runway head on with another that thought he had clearance to take off and would have succeeeded if he hadn't met the oher one half way down.

We also have had China airlines shockingly fast onset fire more recently which did not involve any movement whatsoever other than a foreign object penetration (a loose piece of aircraft jammed in the works) of part of a wing and fueltank causing a hole which was actually 1000 times smaller than the bit that broke off the Heathrow 747.

Now then. Can we be sensible about what we have learned from the Heathrow collision and from the other three?

Instead of arguing the toss about what's runway, what's taxiway, what's high inertia runway operation, what's a little dink, might it not be along the lines of "Another balls up about what aircraft is supposed to be where" coupled with "Yes actually we are lucky that no wing tanks were punctured which might conceivably have caused a rapid onset fire that no-one previously had dreamt of except possibly since China Airlines the other week?

Or is that sensationalist clap trap too??

I still think Annasofie said it all with her simple statement and her look to camera. I think she was saying "You boys with your big toys somehow cocked it up".

[Hand Solo]

Or is that sensationalist clap trap too??

Think you answered your own question there.

[UlsterPPL]

By the way, this has been broadcast on EGLL ATIS and data link ATIS
"PILOTS ARE TO EXERCISE CAUTION WHEN MANOEUVRING IN THE RWY HOLDING AREA AS WING TIP CLEARANCE IS NOT ASSURED"

[M.Mouse]

That message has been on the ATIS for a year or two now and refers to the holding areas NOT the taxiways.

[GT3]

Without wishing to comment on the incident in the thread I will note a few points.

That message has been on the ATIS for a year or two now and refers to the holding areas NOT the taxiways.

This has been on the atis for more than a year or two. I have been at LHR since the late 90s and it always has been on the ATIS. Also the runway holding area does include the location of the incident to which this thread refers.

As you were.

[Oilhead]

I think its time for a couple of :confused: wing walkers to hang out there. I can't see my wings, so how the hell do I know I have clearance in one of these "special" areas?

[M.Mouse]

GT3

I cannot recollect when it the message was added to the ATIS (I have been operating from LHR for 20 years) which is why I wasn't specific. The poster gave the impression that it had been added since the incident.

I always assumed it referred to the holding areas i.e. the large wide holding areas where aircraft can hold alongside each other. I was unaware it applied to taxiways.

Thanks for your information. Would you mind detailing the areas it does apply to.

[UlsterPPL]

My apologogy for giving the wrong impression on the message. It is true that the precaution message has been on EGLL ATIS for a while.

[GT3]

Would you mind detailing the areas it does apply to.

I would suspect it refers to runway holding areas as detailed on the AIP maps (we use BAA produced ones which are colour and of slightly differing detail level) but there is a thin black outline around the runway holding area. For example on the 27L holding area it would be LOKKI, MORRA, ETTIV onwards (to the north of the runway) and east of V (however this is a slightly grey area as there are stands on link 41).

In fact looking at an AIP map there is no outline here. (however interstingly the 27L holding area does have a note saying Avoidance of other aircraft in the holding area is the responsibility of the flightcrew involved. I would take the "holding areas" as those points beyond which GMC do usually not clear you (i.e. the 5 letter designators).

[Gonzo]

Yes, I believe 'runway holding area' is anything past ETTIV, MORRA, LOKKI etc for 27L, or SATUN, TITAN, PLUTO and AY1 for 27R

[overstress]

More fuss on here than a fox in a henhouse.
BA just checked the wing, undid the remaining bits of the winglet and flew the jet the next day.
But on PPRuNe,we pontificate for several pages :ugh:
As Rainboe says, why discuss it to death?

[westinghouse]

the sri lankan plane is back online. it flew back to male with passengers.
the relief pilot was sent back too. the operating crewe stayed back for the investigation.
the only way to see your wingtip is if you fix a video camera. but its ridiculous.


ACMS- sorry. us over here didnt know it was the wing. we thought it was winglet to winglet.

[Fragman88]

Just seen this as being doing sensible stuff. i.e. sailing for a while.
Viewing the pictures of the damage gave me cause for thought. Took me back to a time as a trainer in the RHS of a 747-2/300 doing command training with a Canuck. Airbus very new on tthe scene in our part of the world. Opened my mouth to draw his attention to something whilst taxiing, interrupted by "Yes I've seen the (Parked) Airbus isn't fully on it's bay, I'm easing out to miss it.............But it's only F.... plastic anyway!"! Liked his attention and style, the man has deservedly gone far.

Yet again on the evidence, F88 was wrong, the Frogs must use better plastic than Boeing, although the wings I believe are made in the UK at Woodford, winglets ??

Bugger--wrong again, what's new in aviation?

F88:ugh:

[Yellow Snow]

The last three times this has happened at LHR it was a A340-300 butterknifing other aircraft wings.

Sri Lankan 27R RHA
Turkish 27L RHA
Air Jamaica 27L RHA

And, they all hit Boeing aircraft!!!!

Is this some sort of secret Airbus ploy:O

[normally right blank]

Never heard of Annasofie before, or seen her TV performance, but her reports are getting chopped to fit the particular paper's taste:

International Herald Tribune:
2 planes in minor collision on runway at Heathrow Airport, no injuries
…The Sky News television, citing a witness, said the collision caused chaos among panicked passengers. Flamand said the mood among passengers aboard the Sri Lankan flight was calm.
"People didn't really notice it because of the noise of the engine," she said….

:hmm:

[Rainboe]

Please can we let this sorry tale die now? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along please!

[etrang]

part of a wing and fueltank causing a hole which was actually 1000 times smaller than the bit that broke off the Heathrow 747.


Actually it was "one thousandth of the size". 1000 times smaller would give it a large negative volume.

[slip and turn]

?? negative volume ?? Are holes anti-matter or some such thing in your book, etrang ??

[etrang]

No, holes are just holes.

[rick0]

Whats happened to the crew? anyone know? cant be bothered reading the whole thread.. most of which is arguments :) OR will there be some AAIB report into it?

[Two's in]

Please can we let this sorry tale die now? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along please!


Apparently not...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491527&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5


Passengers revolt after being told to fly on jet with its wing tip missing
By DANIEL BOFFEY - More by this author »

Last updated at 21:43pm on 3rd November 2007

Comments

An airline crew faced a rebellion when they told passengers they were going to fly on a jet that had lost its wing tip in a runway crash.

The SriLankan Airlines customers had been on the Airbus A340 a day earlier when it sliced through a wing of a stationary British Airways 747 at Heathrow, delaying departure by 24 hours.

So they were amazed to be boarding the same plane next day for the ten-hour flight to Colombo.

When cabin crew then admitted there was still a 5ft wing tip missing, there was "a minor revolt" as seven passengers demanded to be let off the aircraft.

A further two-hour delay followed as their baggage was removed before the aircraft could take off.

Club-class passenger Ian McKie, 54, from Loughton, Essex, said: "We were put up in hotels the night of the crash and next morning we were told we would be on a different plane that day.

"We only realised that we were actually going on the same aircraft when we got to the Club lounge and saw the plane but without its wing tip."

The former policeman, who was jetting off for a two-week holiday with his partner Gill Stone, 52, added: "On board, the cabin crew admitted that it was the same one as last time and that the tip had been ripped off.

"They assured us it didn't matter but a number of the passengers insisted that they would rather get on the next flight."

The collision happened shortly after 10pm two weeks ago when the BA011 flight to Singapore was waiting on a runway, followed by the SriLankan Airbus.

The SriLankan aircraft wing ripped through the BA flight's wing, tearing off a huge chunk and resulting in the BA jumbo being grounded.

SriLankan Airlines insisted there was no danger in flying without a wing tip.

It added: "They are purely for aerodynamics and to keep fuel costs to a minimum. There is no impact on safety at all. Safety is our absolute priority."

[normally right blank]

Unconventional solution: Saw the other tip off?

[QNH1013]

Ha Ha, well I understand the passengers concern and I empathise.

How should we expect them to know about CDL?

[sevenstrokeroll]

passengers revolted over the idea of flying on an airbus 340 that had winglet damage from a ground collision in england.

question: to you airbus 340 guys...we all know winglets are what they are...but is there a written provision to fly revenue flights without them?

I"m not speaking of a ferry flight with just the pilots.

[Wodrick]

Usually MEL, 10 days, small perf penalty, usually just one. No problem.

[sidestick driver]

Yes, I have flown the A340, minus 1 wingtip, a few years ago.

It is in the MEL and if memory serves me correct, only 1 winglet may be missing (not both), max take-off weight is decreased quite a bit, and fuel burn is increased. Performance degradation.

The aircraft may still operate safely, no major problems, although it just looks strange.

[747-436]

What is even worse than the Daily Mail article is some of the readers comments down at the bottom of the page!

[chrisbl]

It is easy to be scathing and witter on about MELs but to the uninitiated, the plane looks broken.

[gatbusdriver]

My Brother was one of 2 Captains on BA.

Standard response, AAIB, Police, they were all breathalyzed then sent to hotel. Left the next day. Fortunately made it back in time to go to Paris to watch England loose.

It was no great shakes.

Although,he did say the best decision he had made that day was to give away the sector to the other Captain who hadn't done much handling recently (apparently a little paper work is involved)

[xetroV]

That BA 747 also flew with one winglet after that accident (or does a damaged winglet classify as severe incident?):

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1285128/L/

[Bredrin]

It is not the first time, a few years ago a United 777 chopped off an Air Jamaica winglet. Remember..Wing Tip Clearance is not assured in the holding area, as the ATIS always says.