SriLankan/BA bent metal at LHR?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Murdoch lackey, now!
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
Shame, haven't got it since Sky & Richard Branson fell out.
They can have that one for free.
TOO
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The world's biggest beach
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nomorethanbablue
Very refreshing to hear, wish there were more like you!
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
Very refreshing to hear, wish there were more like you!
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
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by nomorethanbablue; 16th Oct 2007 at 22:15.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the solution was the "cheap" solution
Bringer of Wx
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Duncraig, Oz
Age: 57
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garbage Journalism
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"
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"
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Froglet
I wonder... If the CVR of the BA pilots will ever get into the (semi) public domain?
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!
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.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What might have happened 
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.
GD&L
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.
GD&L
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?
Wouldn't one have expected that ALL new taxiway work at LHR would have taken the clearance requirements of an A380 into consideration?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_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."
"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."
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh gawd! Not more journo-bashing with headbanging for effect
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".
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".