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!