PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   two AF planes collided in fog at CDG (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/578821-two-af-planes-collided-fog-cdg.html)

readywhenreaching 11th May 2016 09:09

two AF planes collided in fog at CDG
 
happened this morning
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiKhO1MWsAEpsA6.jpg

report at jacdec.de

FRying 11th May 2016 15:03

Apparently, towed 777 was run into 320's tail section...

DaveReidUK 11th May 2016 16:11

The timings don't quite add up.

JACDEC reports that the collision took place at 03:57Z (05:57L) as the 777 was taxying in. The outbound A320 wasn't due to push until 07:15L, so it seems more likely that it was the one being towed onto stand at the time.

Either that, or the time reported for the event is incorrect.

Edit: It was indeed the empty 777 that was being towed off stand, the incident took place at 07:30L, according to this report:

Deux avions d'Air France entrent en collision à Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle - L'Express

sb_sfo 11th May 2016 16:30

Ouch, F-GZNT first flight 21 March this year. Probably still had new-airplane smell.

RAT 5 12th May 2016 10:08

Is this another case of a costly collision because a towed a/c did not have a 'wing walker' (as in eyeballs on the ground and not some dolly on top of a bi-plane) in contact with the tug driver?

A7700 18th May 2016 17:29

Even if the "walk" is for about 6 km ?

Geosync 18th May 2016 17:36

Sometimes wing walkers just end up being witnesses to the impact. I've watched many videos where a wing walker is clearly looking at the wing/vert. stab as it impacts another aicraft/wall, and says absolutely nothing!

RAT 5 18th May 2016 18:40

The ineptness (human error) of the participant is not necessarily a fault in the basic idea. Lack of training/awareness/concentration/responsibility etc.?

llondel 18th May 2016 23:11


Even if the "walk" is for about 6 km ?
You could always have wing bikers then.

Capn Bloggs 18th May 2016 23:11


Originally Posted by Rat 5
The ineptness (human error) of the participant is not necessarily a fault in the basic idea. Lack of training/awareness/concentration/responsibility etc.?

Brilliant! :D

RAT 5 20th May 2016 09:56

Come on Bloggs: you know what I meant. I've seen too many totally unnecessary very expensive fuselage damages due to towing/pushbacks without wingtip spotters. Many of these were a/c being pushed out of hangers after maintenance. No yellow lines and an inconvenient spotlight pole that just happened to jump out and strike the a/c for no good reason.
No a/c movement without a spotter is a basic procedure like 2 people in the cockpit at all times. Whether people follow that SOP, professionally, is another matter. But what is guaranteed is no-one will do it if it's not required. Common sense disappeared long ago.

Capn Bloggs 20th May 2016 10:42

Rat, I was serious. Your statement should be on the desktop as a safety message. It might make people think about not dumbing down the rules but training up the participants. :ok:

RAT 5 20th May 2016 17:17

Thanks Bloggs. A few times previously we were on the same side. Now we are in violent agreement. I misinterpreted your smiley.


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:25.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.