View Full Version : Air Canada DH3 hit by fuel truck at CYYZ

10th May 2019, 15:10

10th May 2019, 16:04
Reportedly hit more than once, tanker driver charged with dangerous driving. Some crew and pax taken to hospital with minor injuries.

10th May 2019, 16:09

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/480x270/avion_air_canada_collision_camion_aeroport_pearson_toronto_4 fbc148410a812f3167e7604bdfa16afb86befbf.jpg


10th May 2019, 19:34
That'll buff right out....


10th May 2019, 21:14
Are the prop blades on #1 damaged?

10th May 2019, 22:27
Sure are. As is the underside of the wing and the rear door.

10th May 2019, 22:37
Hit the front of the ac first, spun it and hit it again!

10th May 2019, 22:41
TSB picture from the hangar


Edit to add: C-FJXZ, original delivery March 1991.

10th May 2019, 23:05
Hit the front of the ac first, spun it and hit it again!

Lost in Saigon
11th May 2019, 00:54
Hit the front of the ac first, spun it and hit it again!

Reports are that it was hit three times......

Normally I would say that the aircraft was probably hit in such a way that it was spun around, and was hit again, and then once more.

But, because they refuse to name the driver of the fuel truck, my imagination is running wild.

11th May 2019, 06:54
Those damaged blades are above the level of the tanker. Was that engine running at the time? If so, one very lucky driver.

11th May 2019, 09:03
Shocking, though I didn't know Air Canada operated Otters (Somebody edit the thread title please!)

11th May 2019, 10:29
It's got Air Canada written on the side of the plane. It's therefore Air Canada, whoever is operating it.

11th May 2019, 10:50
More precisely, the Jazz Air DHC 8-300s, of which this is one, are operated for Air Canada Express. A number of them are soon to be retired anyway.

11th May 2019, 11:40
The otter reference is to the DH3 in the title. It-s a DH8-3 or DH8C if you want to be partiularly specific

11th May 2019, 15:58
DH3 is the IATA designator for a DHC-8-300, has been for many years. But I suspect the poster who complained knew that.

DH8C is the corresponding ICAO designator. I don't know WTF "DH8-3" is.

11th May 2019, 18:27
That I didn't know! (The DH3 bit - I thought the code referred to a DHC3 - hence the Otter reference!)

11th May 2019, 18:35
Am I the only thinking that this incident reads almost like a James Bond episode?

11th May 2019, 20:21
Same thought here.

11th May 2019, 22:27
Do you mean because of "make it look like an accident, 007"?

11th May 2019, 23:29
No, that would have been if it went BOOM!
And James survived.
After pulling his Martin Baker. Or some other pen based personnel survival kit.

13th May 2019, 08:01
Do you mean because of "make it look like an accident, 007"?

No, (just speculating here) - but someone who seems to have intentionally driven a fuel truck into the side of an aircraft.
This just doesn't come across as an 'accident'.

13th May 2019, 08:35
Jealous husband/boyfriend? Initial impact seems to be aimed at the cockpit area...

13th May 2019, 09:54
It would help if one looks at the photos.
Aircraft was hit by the front of the truck in the cockpit aerea, then spun and the aircraft tail hit the back of the fuel truck. So, two impacts.

2nd Sep 2020, 21:59
Worth the read.



Ascend Charlie
3rd Sep 2020, 04:21
Aircraft moving, wet tarmac, surprise control input by pilot after an almighty whack?

Ddraig Goch
3rd Sep 2020, 06:51
From the above mentioned link https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r.../a19o0063.html

Many passengers ignored the instructions from the flight attendant to remain seated and calm; some were gathering their bags from the overhead compartments, and some were escalating the panic by yelling that they needed to get out of the aircraft.

When will they ever learn!

3rd Sep 2020, 09:26
And one took her seat belt off after landing before the accident and she got hurt......they’ll never learn.....

3rd Sep 2020, 12:27
So the fueler hit the front of the plane which spun the plane 180° and the tail hit the back of the truck.

Not quite 180° - more like 120°, at which point the tail hit the back end of truck and the aircraft rebounded by about 20°.

3rd Sep 2020, 15:15
It doesn't appear that simple. The geometry of the front part of the fuel truck prevented the driver from seeing the aircraft that approached from his RHS before it was too late when traveling at 40 kmh. Fogging up or not, and definitely in the dark with other blinking lights around and in precipitation. Good thing that the vehicles now got cameras to show sideviews.

Tech Guy
3rd Sep 2020, 18:40
And one took her seat belt off after landing before the accident and she got hurt......they’ll never learn.....
One would hope her claim for compo is robustly refused.

3rd Sep 2020, 20:18
And one took her seat belt off after landing before the accident and she got hurt.....

Though she might well still have been injured had she kept her seat belt fastened - 10 other seated passengers were, plus a babe in arms that became a projectile.

4th Sep 2020, 05:23
This is why the service roads in Europe are between the terminal and the aircraft stands...

TopSwiss 737
4th Sep 2020, 08:26
There are many places all over Europe where your statement is most definitely not correct.

4th Sep 2020, 13:02
It is true for the larger and well designed ones... ;-)

4th Sep 2020, 14:39
from my first visit I've considered Toronto the worst airport in North America for road vehicle traffic. Trucks are everywhere on the ramps; moving at high speeds in different directions. It's clearly badly designed compared to other similar (and larger) airfields. Kamikaze tug drivers in LGA aint got nothing on CYYZ..

Pilot DAR
5th Sep 2020, 11:58
Trucks are everywhere on the ramps; moving at high speeds in different directions.

I had a driver's pass at YYZ for years back in the '80's, and I would see the police pull over drivers on the airside who were not in the specified lane, doing the appropriate speed. Watching from the lounge more recently, driving appears a little more "active"!

5th Sep 2020, 13:29
Of the 3 infants on board the aircraft, 2 were being held on the lap of a family member, and 1 was being held in a soft-structured baby carrier attached to her mother. Both unrestrained infants were ejected from the arms of the adults carrying them. One infant hit the seat in front of her before falling into the aisle, and received significant bruising. The other infant collided with the neighbouring passenger, but was not injured. The infant wo was held in the baby carrier was not injured; however, the infant's mother received injuries to her back and ribcage due to twisting forces resulting from the momentum of the infant strapped into the carrier.
It's about time that this utter madness stops. This is a relict from the 60ies of the previous century when cars had no seatbelts and one would put children asleep in the trunk of an estate. This all happened while taxiing @ 10knots!!! Infants must pay for a seat and the airline shall provide appropriate safety seats or at least allow automotive saftey seats to be used. Everything is better than this BS be it FAA certified or not.

5th Sep 2020, 21:04
Like most "Simple" solutions, the devil is in the detrail:
By the by, it is not simply up to the FAA, each country served would have to approve the seats and also change their laws to require them to be used. Then of course the travelling public (you know the ones who like cheap low cost carriers) might not be happy and would lobby their local governments .
Here is a link to what is being researched by Transport Canada. https://tc.canada.ca/en/mandating-child-restraint-systems-commercial-aircraft

7th Sep 2020, 12:38
Exactly. Report is clear and FAA came to same conclusion years ago (I believe it was an aftermath of DC-10 Sioux City crash, if memory serves me well):

Making car seats a requirement when flying could raise air fare prices by 45% according to an FAA study. In Canada, this would affect just under 4 million families with small children. Because family travel is among the most price sensitive, families would choose to drive to their destination rather than pay for a seat for their young child to be in a mandatory aircraft CRS.
Parents choosing to drive would add 164 million more vehicle kilometers of highway travel per year on Canadian roads. This would translate into at least 10 premature highway deaths in the next decade in Canada, but might save one infant life by air.

This of course holds up only when there is other transportation mode available (driving). Flying overseas might not - but twin aisle A/C should have a number of appropriate cots available and parents sat near these. (It works on several airlines, as I had a chance to see, but will work less and less as single aisle A/C are flying across the oceans more and more. I was really surprised few years ago to find out I`m gonna fly across the Pacific with my family from Christchurch to LAX in a 737! (with 3 stops in between - and longest leg was with MAX-gulp)
I believe the middle-way solution to this is additional loop belt, attached to adult`s belt.
When I travelled with my then 1 yr old son (10 yrs ago), I was well aware of these risks and demanded a loop belt.
Requiring babies to be put in a separate seat (with car seat/adapter) looks as an obvious solution, but on a wider perspective it is a wrong decision.

Regarding this thread topic: after 30 years in aviation may I say that the design of fuel truck involved was inviting disaster-human factor was left behind of efficiency/productivity. External cameras+screens are only a crutch to a user unfriendly design. (how much are cameras night capable (NVG/IR, near IR?, How are lens cleanliness ensured...?) And wouldn`t be better to install a modified FLARM warning device?