Here here mog!

The damage doesn't look that bad to be honest.

You have to remember that planes are big creatures and won't get "barged" out of the way if something runs into them. Things will have a tendancy to "go through!!" Causing a not inconsiderable amount of damage.

Right, that's it, let's wait for the full report

I've seen worse damage caused by "hanger rash."

Golf India Bravo

No , youv'e been led the wrong way.

B******t!!!!!!!
 

I cant believe you people talking so much rubbish.

Do any of you actually know anything about aviation,......aircraft....or even this accident????

.....I think that some of you have a little too much time on your hands..

I think my view on the damage to the 737 centred around the sideloading on the stabiliser, as shown by the side loading on the gear.

The external damage might appear a little superficial, the hidden damage could be significant.

Hawkley,

That would have been me. Wife called, nothing on news, checked pprune, nothing there, so posted. Figured:

a: I'm more likely to get accurate non-sensationalist info here than from mainstream media and

b: There was an aviation story of some small significance breaking (since I'm of the old school who believe that 'there's no such thing as a 'minor' collision') which was worth a heads-up to any of us who might be reading the board.

That's why it's called 'rumours & news', old bean.

R1

To Justin Abeaver

You might be interested in some facts:
Air Atlanta has many ex BA and Britannia Captains plus experienced F/Os who have many command hours with companies that have gone bust - such as Ansett. We could never be classified as anything other than professional and experienced Aviators.

How are the Excel pilots 'being sold down the river'?

The TF registered aircraft operated for Excel Airways by Air Atlanta are being put on the UK register and operated under the Air Atlanta Europe AOC.

I was once involved in a ground collision. The subsequent inquiry determined that the airport authority was at fault as the 747 we hit was too big for the marked area. If you fly out of Heathrow, you will also be aware of the warning of insufficient wing tip clearance at the holding points. From the pictures, the damage doesn't look too bad.

Instead of speculating, I suggest everyone waits for the official inquiry report.

Just to try and help clarify some things based on 'probable' information, if the accident occurred with the B737 holding at Tango and the port wing of the B767 hitting the tail of the B737 I have mustered up a bit of a diagram. Hopefully this will quell the alarmist and pathetic comments and suggestions coming from a few posters on here who obviously have little or no idea of the layout of Manchester airport. The diagram shows (approximately to scale) the B767 turning from taxiway Delta onto taxiway Victor towards holding point Victor 5 (V5) with the B737 stationary on taxiway Tango at or some way before holding point Tango 1 (since verified that it was at holding point Sierra 2 which explains the lack of wingtip/tail clearance)

http://www.pprune.org/images/manapt1.gif

As for the press reporting that passengers told them that they were on their take off run :rolleyes: well, let's just say that their creative staff writers should go into script writing for Hollywood thrillers. This accident was the equivalent of a 'rear end shunt' that happens every day at traffic junctions. Obviously the consequences are more dramatic considering the number of people on board, the fuel and the cost of repairs but it certainly wasn't anything along the lines of other runway collisions such as at Linate and Paris. This was a taxying accident and neither aircraft was "on the runway" at the time.

Just goes to show you that the quoted passenger lied for their 15 minutes of fame. Either that or the journalist is a consumate liar. Which do you trust? Still, brings the newspaper down for the lowest common denominator. Says is all really! :rolleyes: :yuk:

No knowledge of the facts and this is just a comment.
There have over the years been a few incidents like this. I have always said that No. 1 at the hold should be as far forward as possible to allow A/C to taxi behind. Maybe on this one the 737 was still moving and the other A/C just misjudged it. As in a car the one at the rear always gets the blame.

Having zero tech knowledge I apologise in advance if my question is laughable....

How far is the damage on the wing from any fuel?

I agree with the post above the last one, at last someone has seen some common sense!
It appears that every time someting like happens the press and public (who for the mnost part know NOTHING about the subject they are talking about) are always the first to rear their ugly heads.

In the midst of all the Journo bashing, before all are tarred with the same brush, The Times piece was very low key...

"The tail of the Boeing 737 and the wing of the other aircraft came into contact and they both came to a stop"

Fair enough reporting?

In the latest TV news reports 10 passengers are reported as having suffered whiplash. We really do live in a litigation conscious society.

SLFGuy - you are 'excused' - not laughable at all. From the photo link on p3 it looks as if the damage was mainly to the outboard leading edge devices and some way from the fuel tanks, but a harder impact (a bit further inboard I suspect) COULD have ruptured a tank. If it had struck the BMI 737 around the APU and APU fuel lines at the back of the tail it could have been worse.

Someone's no-claim bonus will go!:D

And in a turn a 767 wingtip would be going a bit faster than the fuse.

Pity it all happened in 1997.... didnt it? :E

The "press" are still milking this minor incident for all its worth. Tonights Manchester evening news headlines.

"PROBE INTO RUNWAY COLLISION"

presumably to get ones attention, they then actually tone down the incident in the text.

In an earlier post a passenger claimed the 767 was at take off speed, I can see how a novice could be confused as the 767 had just crossed 24R, this crossing sometimes takes a fair bit of thrust to get a widebody over the hump !!

EXBO
 

Would that make you suitable for the job then, EXBO? :D :rolleyes:

As for the Mirror, that story on this incident has to be the biggest load of tripe I've ever read. I suppose selling papers will always stand in the way of actually putting anything useful and non-sensationalist into them. "Takeoff speed" and planes feeling like they were being "picked up and shaken about"? Please......

Funny that the story mentions they were kept on the runway for hours, when it seems pretty obvious that they were both on a taxiway, and the 767 was nowhere near takeoff

Edit: Nice diagram btw Danny :cool:

Not Much Damage!!! Seen bigger hangar rash, so no engineer then. I would not be suprised to see 737 written off with amount of damage that must of been caused internally to horizontal stab torque box. Look at leading edge inboard end for amount of movement impact caused.
Think of the overtime guys for the fix.

I don't believe either aircraft commander was to blame here - assuming the 73 was in front of the runway taxi holding position.

The airport authority should have proceduralised - probably through NATS - the types and categories of a/c which could hold at the taxiway holding points, and those which could pass behind. It would appear that this has somehow broken down, resulting in the collision.

Interesting to hear MA's view on it - they're not normally slow at making comment on PPP!

Pleased to hear no-one was injured whatever the reason.

SW

Stallwarner get a life!. Whatever clearance the commander of the 767 received to proceed to Victor Alpha, he still has the job of ensuring that he has sufficient clearance from those lined up at Tango one to proceed safely. In other words there is no excuse for hitting anything in a 767 from a lampost to a 737.

I understand that the 737 is write off and fit only for scrap due to the torsional distortion caused by the bending in the fuselage.

Woudn't want to be BMIBaby's insurers, or the 767 Captain right now!

I don't think apportioning blame is appropriate until the AAIB report is available.

Aren't we all missing the point.

EVERYONE on both aircraft is okay.

What actually happened will come out in the enquiry.

Who cares about Piers Morgan and his 'News'paper.

Try telling that to the "management" of one of the companies involved. (sorry, can't say Which Wone). Guilty until proven guilty could be the motto.

Thanks Danny.

The incident seems similar to something I covered in during my ATPL theory studies called "Swept Wing Growth". A Human Factors phenomenon due to the pilot's eye position relative to the wing resulting in wing clearance distances being incredibly difficult to judge with the general effect that the distance is usually under estimated.

Roach... Disagree somewhat. Some Holding Points are extremely close to the runway, and the variables of Weather and crews / types, mean I for one am sometimes content to "hang back" a few yards.

Assuming Danny's diagram is correct, then the 737 has the "right" to stop wherever he wants - after all he might have a problem and need to stop. ATC structure taxi patterns on aircraft size, and therefore know what can (and cannot) get past. But at the end of the day, it is the pilot's judgement whether he can get past.

If you want to pontificate about this all day study:
AAIB Report where a Gulf Air (I think) A340 made an A340 winglet shaped hole in a BA 757 Rudder at LHR. Specifically: Those "blame" merchants who want someone to hang / criticise on here will be disappointed that nobody got shot after this - just a load of recommendations, one of which we shall hear for evermore about wingtip clearance on LHR ATIS. And which we will presumably shortly also hear on MAN ATIS :(

Alberts Growbag

Perhaps you need to get a life! If you have a clearance to proceed along a taxiway, it is implicit that you have the room to do so unless advised otherwise - particularly where there is SMR in operation. The only exception to this should be when the ground controller advises caution when taxiing due to other aircraft - THEN the responsibility passes to the pilot. Otherwise, the ground controller is responsible for separation. Maybe LHR Director can confirm.

You try and judge accurately, in the dark, the relative positions of your wingtip and another aircraft's stabiliser. It is virtually impossible.

Can you even see the wingtip from the cockpit of a 767?

There are some responsibilities that we as aircraft commanders cannot avoid I'm afraid and ensuring the clearance of your aircraft as it passes another on the ground is one of them. Assuming there was no technical failure of the steering etc. then unfortunately, regardless of the clearance, taxiway markings and position of the other aircraft etc. the Captain of the moving aircraft has to take responsibility for it, it's what you sign up for when you sit in the left seat and there is no getting away from it.

A reliable 'source' has informed me that the B737 was actually holding at Sierra 2 (the CATII/III hold) and not at Tango 1 as I depicted in my original diagram (since updated). So, we can deduce that the B737 was NOT at the T1 holding point which would have allowed enough clearance for the B767 to pass behind.

Not sure which type of B767 was involved but I know that the wingtips of the B767-300 are NOT visible at all from the flight deck.

Danny...

I seem to remember we could see the 767 wingtips on the -300? The 757 (-200) not so according to the book, but in fact just visible - but not from a point of view of assessing a collision risk... And I think some spotter pointed out that the 757 cockpit interior changed at some point altering this. And you can always open the window if in doubt and lean out. This was BA SOP at BAK for a short while (2 x Marshaller / Wing tip walker, P2 hang out of window to avoid the IL-whatevers).

Whatever, I don't think it's relevant. Whether you can see them or not, it's still your responsibility if you clout something. See the AAIB report above for the woolly regs.

I'm all for not casting blame, but one person looks a little like #1 candidate to discuss matters with. I just hope the AAIB can come up with a nice "nobody's fault" like the AAIB report above :)

MOR,

You are way off the mark. The Ground Controller is responsible for assisting in preventing collisions between aircraft moving on the apron and manoeuvring area, whether Surface Movement Radar is available or not. A clearance to proceed along a taxiway does not imply that there is sufficient room for aircraft to safely pass each other. The ultimate responsibility for avoiding ground collisions must always belong to the pilot. How can Controllers situated several hundred metres away be expected to judge safe wingtip clearances? Max Angle is spot on.

just an observation
 

Here I am sat in the hotel foyer and surfing Pprune when my faith is restored.

Quite often on here I ask myself why some threads disintergrate into (what I consider) unprofessional trash and back biting.

Then I come across some contributions of the standard above. Professionals discussing their thoughts on an incident with a down to earth and considered attitude.

I sometimes wonder why I bothered to join the professional flying community, but knowing there are the likes of some wise owls who have contributed above makes me glad I have.

Sorry if its off the subject but I felt like saying it.

Cheers:O

An interesting fact or two from my "source" :

The BMI 737 was instructed to hold "in turn at T1", behind another aircraft. When that first aircraft lined up 24L, the BMI did not seem to pull forward and was most certainly not at the T1 stop bar when the impact occurred, as it should have been. So, technically speaking, the aircraft was holding T1, not S2 or anywhere else for that matter.

The crossing XLA was on it's way to V5 as Danny has shown in that excellent diagram.

ATC cannot be expected to ensure wing clearance is given on every part of the airfield, that responsibility falls surely to the aircraft commander? The clearances given in this case were, I feel, safe.

The holding point at T1 is easily separated from the adjacent taxiways for the aircraft types in question.

The AAIB went to town on the scene, releasing the runway back to us only at 2am-ish, so expect a nice, clear, report from them, as usual. I'll withold any final conclusion or comment until then as, frankly, we all make mistakes :)

The 767 was a -200. The wingtips are not visible from the flight deck. It was taxiing at 6 knots when the wing hit the 737, and it's nosewheel was to the right of the taxiway centreline, further from the 737. It was also turning, giving the impression that the gap between the aircraft was increasing. The Captain ot he 767 is highly experienced. Rather than trying to blame anyone, the company wants to find out how and why and it happened.
Why people like Justin Abeaver think this is a good oppurtunity to have a dig at Air Atlanta is beyond me. Perhaps they wouldn't give him a job? Air Atlanta Europe is a seperate operation to Air Atlanta Iceland, although all 757/767 crewing is handled by Excel. Calling people "Icelandic pikeys" shows the author to be racist, xenophobic and historically ignorant.

Quote by MOR:

"Alberts Growbag

Perhaps you need to get a life! If you have a clearance to proceed along a taxiway, it is implicit that you have the room to do so unless advised otherwise - particularly where there is SMR in operation. The only exception to this should be when the ground controller advises caution when taxiing due to other aircraft - THEN the responsibility passes to the pilot. Otherwise, the ground controller is responsible for separation. Maybe LHR Director can confirm."

Absolutely NEVER does responsibility pass from the aircraft commander to ATC or anyone else, on the ground or in the air. A commander can coose to ignore ATC altogether if there are circumstances which he/she feels would put safety at risk, otherwise, as has been said should you just fly into that high ground/taxi into that aircraft etc., the last words on the CVR being "I told you he/she was wrong!" because ATC said to do so? ATC are there to advise and give direction and you'd have to have good justification to ignore their instructions but a commander always has that choice.

ATC at MAN are superb on all frequencies and they do their very best but it would be impossible from the tower to see what transpired let alone control it. Similarly, there are always other factors to take into account - anyone (who actually flies commercially) remember the "Swiss Cheese" from CRM? Rest assured there will not be a straight forward - "He's to blame", nor should there be.

The main point has been made - everyone is okay. Next point, what can be learned to avoid this happening again? Final and least important point, did anyone ignore ignore procedures already in place?

Regarding the press, they are indeed a fact of life, love them or loathe them.

As a final note - it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for an aircraft taking off from 24L to hit an aircraft's tail with its LEFT wingtip, as has been shown by Danny. Also, what the diagram doesn't show is that the taxiway intersections end just to the left of Danny's drawing so again, "We were halfway down the runway" is physically impossible and pure fiction. As for "skidding all over place" - errrm, I don't think so as Anti-skid brakes prevent that too!

Just my 2p worth. And yes, I am a commercial aircraft commander so I do know a bit about it.

2p is about all that was worth.

How do ATC determine of there is sufficient room?

I landed on 24R after the incident. For what it's worth, the 73 looked to be short of T1, but who can tell for sure except those actually on the scene? Perspective / angles etc. Thank goodness there were no injuries that we know of. Danny's diagram looks to be almost spot on.

Let's just wait and see what the inquiry brings.


If it's a bus though, it hardly raises an eyebrow in the press, even though there were injuries (allegedly.....):

From May 1998:

"A bus ferrying passengers between a plane and Terminal Two collided with a plane, injuring several passengers. The wing of the Onur Air MD88 broke the windscreen of the bus, missing the driver's head by inches. Airport authorities the didn't know how the accident had happened, and said an inquiry into the incident will be launched. Thank goodness the accident was only minor - the injured passengers, taken to Wythenshawe Hospital, were only slightly hurt."

After a ground collision between two aircraft such as this the QRH and company SOPs says to do What?
Wait to be told one or both of you are on fire then evacuate?
Or Immediately evacuate to give your passengers extra time before the fire develops?
Evacuate 255 and crew pus the 737 and crew into a busy area close to the active runways and mix them into the arriving fire trucks?
Popular opinion is pilots are just drivers they plug in the autopilot and actually do nothying, the ground staff are incharge on the ground and you are airborne.
ATCservice of years past by necessity is today air trafic control and this influences pilots to think that like so many aspects of the job today you only need to follow instructions to the letter to be safe. Individuals who think airmanship independently outside the box seem to be progressively being screened out.
Captains should realise basically everyone out there and the system is trying to kill them and it is the one they do not see that gets them.
What a lot of luck you need in this job...A captain is legally responsible to the extent of his worldwide wealth for the safety of his flight. Glad I invested mine in wild women,booze,and slow horses,the rest I wasted!

Norman Goering and others

The design of the taxiways and hold points is such that clearances are ensured for the aircraft that use them. The point of the yellow line you follow, is that if you are on it, lateral clearances are ensured - assuming that everybody else is doing as they are told.

Or do you perhaps believe that the taxiway you are pushed back onto may not ensure that you clear the tails of all the aircraft that you pass as you taxi out? The idea is clearly absurd.

Now, please explain to me how, if you cannot even see your wingtip, you can ensure a lateral clearance? Do you send the F/O out with a tape measure?

And finally, for those who do not seem to know the rules, I offer the following:

CAP493 1.2.2

"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."

In other words, a taxi clearance is essentially no different to a takeoff clearance .

Nobody is suggesting blindly taxiing into collisions... that is absurd.

See also CAP168 7.6.1 for an explanation of taxiway clearances, if you can be bothered.

High Wing Drifter

The controller doesn't need to know per se , it is the inbuilt clearances in the design of the manoeuvring area markings that ensure lateral clearances (if everyone is going where they are told to go).

So, for example, if you are taxiing at CDG on the parallel taxiways (such as B and Q), you know that no matter what is taxiing the other way, as long as you are both on your centrelines, you can't hit each other. Controllers know if there is a clearance issue for certain types on specific taxiways, and separate them accordingly (Birmingham being a good example). See CAP168 7.6.1, as mentioned above, for more info (or if you have trouble sleeping).

captain marvellous
 

As I said in my post, the BMI 737 would have been more than adequately seperated from the taxiing 767 if it had of pulled forward to the T1 stop bar.

Instead the 737 had indeed stopped some way short of the holding point for whatever reason - when the aircraft ahead lined up the 737 did not fully pull forward.