Excel B767 and bmibaby B737 collision at Manchester
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: manchester
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
There are so many pilots who like to think that "it would never happen to me im far too clever." Why didn't the crew do this or that? I find the pilot community quite depressing on occasion. Most professions try to stick together.
I had a birds eye view of the incident. I can tell you the bmi could not have pulled forward of S1 as there was a 146 at T1. This did not take off untill well after the incident.
There are so many pilots who like to think that "it would never happen to me im far too clever." Why didn't the crew do this or that? I find the pilot community quite depressing on occasion. Most professions try to stick together.
I had a birds eye view of the incident. I can tell you the bmi could not have pulled forward of S1 as there was a 146 at T1. This did not take off untill well after the incident.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote from sparticus
"I had a birds eye view of the incident. I can tell you the bmi could not have pulled forward of S1 as there was a 146 at T1. This did not take off untill well after the incident."
This certainly narrows down the possible reasons for this incident
"I had a birds eye view of the incident. I can tell you the bmi could not have pulled forward of S1 as there was a 146 at T1. This did not take off untill well after the incident."
This certainly narrows down the possible reasons for this incident
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few reasons why you might not want to pull 'right up to the holding point line' that I can think of. Strangely they are all due to airmanship , that one quality that some are advocating as a reason to pull as close as you can.
1. Aircraft in front at the hold in question. We pull up 'right' behind and get a cabin full of burnt jet-A1 fumes. Not nice for the punters, or us.
2. Uphill taxiway leading to the runway (D1 hold point short of 24R at Manchester springs to mind). You pull up at the hold point in a heavy 767 (or many other types I would suggest) and you need a great handful of thrust (above the manufacturers recommended limit) to get the ship moving again. Not nice for the poor old traffic taxying behind, free sandblast ready for repaint though.
3. Continuation of point 2. When ATC ask for us to expedite crossing, it can actually be quicker to start from the flat and get some momentum before going uphill to cross the runway.
4. Perhaps after the aircraft mentioned in point 1 lined up the crew were busy with a task that required the commanders full attention, and just perhaps he felt that it would be safer to remain stationary during this period.
So, no blame, no presumption, just a few ideas to counter the 'myth' that airmanship dictates that the commander should ensure that his aircraft is as close to the 'cleared' holding point as it can be. Certainly, on some occassions airmanship may mean that the commander DOES get his aircraft as close to the holding point as he can.......but there ain't no requirement for him to ALWAYS do so.
PP
1. Aircraft in front at the hold in question. We pull up 'right' behind and get a cabin full of burnt jet-A1 fumes. Not nice for the punters, or us.
2. Uphill taxiway leading to the runway (D1 hold point short of 24R at Manchester springs to mind). You pull up at the hold point in a heavy 767 (or many other types I would suggest) and you need a great handful of thrust (above the manufacturers recommended limit) to get the ship moving again. Not nice for the poor old traffic taxying behind, free sandblast ready for repaint though.
3. Continuation of point 2. When ATC ask for us to expedite crossing, it can actually be quicker to start from the flat and get some momentum before going uphill to cross the runway.
4. Perhaps after the aircraft mentioned in point 1 lined up the crew were busy with a task that required the commanders full attention, and just perhaps he felt that it would be safer to remain stationary during this period.
So, no blame, no presumption, just a few ideas to counter the 'myth' that airmanship dictates that the commander should ensure that his aircraft is as close to the 'cleared' holding point as it can be. Certainly, on some occassions airmanship may mean that the commander DOES get his aircraft as close to the holding point as he can.......but there ain't no requirement for him to ALWAYS do so.
PP
Just a numbered other
MOR
Didn't two days ago when I was there
Mick:
Isn't that a displaced landing threshold??
No, Edinburgh (for one) still uses them. Or did last time I was there.
Mick:
You do on 24L, the first 100m is not available as part of the take-off roll.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The rock
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a wee thought - going back to earlier posts re ATC's responsibility for preventing collisions on the manoevring area.
Yes ATC are responsible for preventing collisions between aircraft on the MA, but let's go to the logical conclusion. If you given TAXI instructions to taxi to a holding point (NB- not a clearance ! clearances are only for crossing, line-up or landing on RUNWAYS ) then how often can you remember being told that there is an aircraft in front of you on the taxiway or at the hold ??
So yes, ATC will be normally responsible for preventing crossing confliction type collisions but as for "shunt" type occurrences - which I believe covers this case - I think most pilots will accept that they should be aware of what is "in front" at the hold , even if this means at a small angle separated away from the direction of travel of their aircraft. Still the Swiss cheese theory holds water...........or not as the case may be.
Yes ATC are responsible for preventing collisions between aircraft on the MA, but let's go to the logical conclusion. If you given TAXI instructions to taxi to a holding point (NB- not a clearance ! clearances are only for crossing, line-up or landing on RUNWAYS ) then how often can you remember being told that there is an aircraft in front of you on the taxiway or at the hold ??
So yes, ATC will be normally responsible for preventing crossing confliction type collisions but as for "shunt" type occurrences - which I believe covers this case - I think most pilots will accept that they should be aware of what is "in front" at the hold , even if this means at a small angle separated away from the direction of travel of their aircraft. Still the Swiss cheese theory holds water...........or not as the case may be.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well
PPrune at its best yet again.
MOR
The responsibility not to hit someone is that of the Captain. If you think differently then you are either not a pilot or a crap one.
LHR ATIS, every broadcast
"Pilots are advised to use caution in the runway holding areas as wing tip clearence is not assured"
And that is whether or not you can see it. You don't use tape measures you use your judgement. If in any doubt you stop and you never assume that the aircraft ahead is where he is cleared to.
On this occasion it would appear that there was an error of judgement but lets wait and see.
And you can't see the 767-300 wingtips.
NN
PPrune at its best yet again.
MOR
The responsibility not to hit someone is that of the Captain. If you think differently then you are either not a pilot or a crap one.
LHR ATIS, every broadcast
"Pilots are advised to use caution in the runway holding areas as wing tip clearence is not assured"
And that is whether or not you can see it. You don't use tape measures you use your judgement. If in any doubt you stop and you never assume that the aircraft ahead is where he is cleared to.
On this occasion it would appear that there was an error of judgement but lets wait and see.
And you can't see the 767-300 wingtips.
NN
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north west
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call yourself professionals?! Can we all just take one second to imagine what we would be going through if we were in that commanders shoes now. What ever the truth!!!!
msg to the LHS of the XL 767-200
I sincerely hope that YOU are ok. I hope that the decisions awaiting do not hold any bad news for you and your family. I would like to comment on the fact that there is not a man more undeserving of bad gossip.
Good luck for the future
msg to the LHS of the XL 767-200
I sincerely hope that YOU are ok. I hope that the decisions awaiting do not hold any bad news for you and your family. I would like to comment on the fact that there is not a man more undeserving of bad gossip.
Good luck for the future
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sarf somewhere!
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdol,
Well said.
Rumours and news, no drama. No 'O' for opinion in PPrune is there? That wouldn't be very 'professional' would it.
My peer group sometimes sickens me.
Well said.
Rumours and news, no drama. No 'O' for opinion in PPrune is there? That wouldn't be very 'professional' would it.
My peer group sometimes sickens me.
Last edited by threestable; 9th Nov 2004 at 02:46.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to finish off then:
normal_nigel
I absolutely agree. However, the point remains that the captain has the right to expect that clearances are adequate if he has been cleared along a taxiway by a controller, particularly if he cannot see his wingtip. That is why the clearances exist in the taxiway system, and if you bother to look up the CAP references I provided above, you will see the specifications for yourself.
So, please explain to me, in the case of an aircraft hitting a vehicle that neither of the pilots could see, with a wingtip that neither can see, why the captain is at fault?
At the end of the day, the 767 pilot will no doubt shoulder some blame. Maybe he was trying to squeeze past and muffed it, who knows? However, there are other failures in this incident as well, and to simply dump it all on the 767 captain is missing the point in a big way.
normal_nigel
The responsibility not to hit someone is that of the Captain.
So, please explain to me, in the case of an aircraft hitting a vehicle that neither of the pilots could see, with a wingtip that neither can see, why the captain is at fault?
At the end of the day, the 767 pilot will no doubt shoulder some blame. Maybe he was trying to squeeze past and muffed it, who knows? However, there are other failures in this incident as well, and to simply dump it all on the 767 captain is missing the point in a big way.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to say that having "been there and done that" my thoughts are with the 767 Capt. It is a sickening feeling, and i hope it turns out ok for you.
Anyone out there who has never made a mistake, or even commited a slight error of judgement, feel free to apportion blame...otherwise thank your lucky stars that it wasn't you, THIS TIME.
Anyone out there who has never made a mistake, or even commited a slight error of judgement, feel free to apportion blame...otherwise thank your lucky stars that it wasn't you, THIS TIME.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on topic
Pasted from the CAP 493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1)
2 Responsibilities
2.1 Aerodrome control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft
under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to
assist pilots in preventing collisions between:
a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the aerodrome traffic zone;
b) aircraft taking off and landing;
c) aircraft moving on the apron;
d) aircraft and vehicles, obstructions and other aircraft on the manoeuvring area.
2.2 In order to execute his duties an aerodrome controller has authority over aircraft,
vehicles and personnel on the manoeuvring area and aircraft moving on the apron.
2.3 Aerodrome control may be divided into air control and ground movement control.
Air Control shall provide services for a) and b) and has absolute authority over
all movements on active runways and their access points.
Ground Movement Control shall provide services for c) and d) except on
active runways and their access points.
Section 2 Chapter 1 subsection 2
I think the main point is "to
assist pilots in preventing collisions ". This is the ATC get out clause i.e. it's all your fault if you clang another a/c. The only completely safe way is to taxi to intermediate holds, and when the next hold is vacated move forward, a bit like Lambourne on the ground. To me this seems like an accident that is very unfortunate but just that. An Accident. Could happen to anyone at anytime. End of story.
Pasted from the CAP 493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1)
2 Responsibilities
2.1 Aerodrome control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft
under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to
assist pilots in preventing collisions between:
a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the aerodrome traffic zone;
b) aircraft taking off and landing;
c) aircraft moving on the apron;
d) aircraft and vehicles, obstructions and other aircraft on the manoeuvring area.
2.2 In order to execute his duties an aerodrome controller has authority over aircraft,
vehicles and personnel on the manoeuvring area and aircraft moving on the apron.
2.3 Aerodrome control may be divided into air control and ground movement control.
Air Control shall provide services for a) and b) and has absolute authority over
all movements on active runways and their access points.
Ground Movement Control shall provide services for c) and d) except on
active runways and their access points.
Section 2 Chapter 1 subsection 2
I think the main point is "to
assist pilots in preventing collisions ". This is the ATC get out clause i.e. it's all your fault if you clang another a/c. The only completely safe way is to taxi to intermediate holds, and when the next hold is vacated move forward, a bit like Lambourne on the ground. To me this seems like an accident that is very unfortunate but just that. An Accident. Could happen to anyone at anytime. End of story.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other main point is "has authority over".
If you take the "assist" line, you also would have to say that ATC can only "assist" you in avoiding collision in the ATZ. Therefore, if you are on the ILS and have been handed over to the Tower, although you are still in the clag, the Tower guy can only "assist" you in avoiding a collision with that 172 doing some scud-running just in front of you...
If you take the "assist" line, you also would have to say that ATC can only "assist" you in avoiding collision in the ATZ. Therefore, if you are on the ILS and have been handed over to the Tower, although you are still in the clag, the Tower guy can only "assist" you in avoiding a collision with that 172 doing some scud-running just in front of you...
Just a numbered other
terrain:
So, are you implying that this is wrong?
Short of driving the thing to the holding point for you, what more can ATC do?
This is the ATC get out clause i.e. it's all your fault if you clang another a/c
Short of driving the thing to the holding point for you, what more can ATC do?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short of driving the thing to the holding point for you, what more can ATC do?
That is half the reason for having SMR, or a conditional clearance, or a pair of binoculars.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Arkroyal. The ground control freq at Man is busy enough already. If the poor old ground controllers had to instuct every a/c every step of the way to the holding point then gridlock would ensue. They already have to deal with a ridiculously complex apron environment with the one way system in and out of terminal 2.
Apart from anything else the 767 would have been on the 24L tower freq at the time having had two frequency changes in very quick succession. For those who don't know he would have changed from ground to 24R tower freq just before crossing that runway and then over to 24L tower at around the time the collision was about to happen. He had probably been asked to expedite across 24R as well just to add to the causal factors. The FO would have been sorting out those frequency changes whilst the captain is taxying and trying to find his way to any one of a number of different holding points that he would have been cleared to at a very late stage as he was hurrying across an active runway.
I am sure the AAIB will have a field day with this one.
MOR get real!
Apart from anything else the 767 would have been on the 24L tower freq at the time having had two frequency changes in very quick succession. For those who don't know he would have changed from ground to 24R tower freq just before crossing that runway and then over to 24L tower at around the time the collision was about to happen. He had probably been asked to expedite across 24R as well just to add to the causal factors. The FO would have been sorting out those frequency changes whilst the captain is taxying and trying to find his way to any one of a number of different holding points that he would have been cleared to at a very late stage as he was hurrying across an active runway.
I am sure the AAIB will have a field day with this one.
MOR get real!
Last edited by tightcircuit; 10th Nov 2004 at 09:47.