Air Canada DH3 hit by fuel truck at CYYZ
|
Reportedly hit more than once, tanker driver charged with dangerous driving. Some crew and pax taken to hospital with minor injuries.
|
|
That'll buff right out....
|
Are the prop blades on #1 damaged?
|
Sure are. As is the underside of the wing and the rear door.
|
Hit the front of the ac first, spun it and hit it again!
|
TSB picture from the hangar
Edit to add: C-FJXZ, original delivery March 1991. https://www.planespotters.net/airfra...xpress/pLa2hPQ |
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10468540)
Hit the front of the ac first, spun it and hit it again!
|
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10468540)
Hit the front of the ac first, spun it and hit it again!
Reports are that it was hit three times...... Normally I would say that the aircraft was probably hit in such a way that it was spun around, and was hit again, and then once more. But, because they refuse to name the driver of the fuel truck, my imagination is running wild. |
Those damaged blades are above the level of the tanker. Was that engine running at the time? If so, one very lucky driver.
|
Shocking, though I didn't know Air Canada operated Otters (Somebody edit the thread title please!)
|
It's got Air Canada written on the side of the plane. It's therefore Air Canada, whoever is operating it.
|
More precisely, the Jazz Air DHC 8-300s, of which this is one, are operated for Air Canada Express. A number of them are soon to be retired anyway.
|
The otter reference is to the DH3 in the title. It-s a DH8-3 or DH8C if you want to be partiularly specific
|
DH3 is the IATA designator for a DHC-8-300, has been for many years. But I suspect the poster who complained knew that.
DH8C is the corresponding ICAO designator. I don't know WTF "DH8-3" is. |
That I didn't know! (The DH3 bit - I thought the code referred to a DHC3 - hence the Otter reference!)
|
Am I the only thinking that this incident reads almost like a James Bond episode?
|
Same thought here.
|
Do you mean because of "make it look like an accident, 007"? |
tdracer
No, that would have been if it went BOOM! And James survived. After pulling his Martin Baker. Or some other pen based personnel survival kit. |
Originally Posted by WingSlinger
(Post 10469279)
Do you mean because of "make it look like an accident, 007"? This just doesn't come across as an 'accident'. |
Jealous husband/boyfriend? Initial impact seems to be aimed at the cockpit area...
|
It would help if one looks at the photos.
Aircraft was hit by the front of the truck in the cockpit aerea, then spun and the aircraft tail hit the back of the fuel truck. So, two impacts. |
|
Aircraft moving, wet tarmac, surprise control input by pilot after an almighty whack?
|
From the above mentioned link https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r.../a19o0063.html
Many passengers ignored the instructions from the flight attendant to remain seated and calm; some were gathering their bags from the overhead compartments, and some were escalating the panic by yelling that they needed to get out of the aircraft. |
And one took her seat belt off after landing before the accident and she got hurt......they’ll never learn.....
|
Originally Posted by Rodak
(Post 10877192)
So the fueler hit the front of the plane which spun the plane 180° and the tail hit the back of the truck.
|
It doesn't appear that simple. The geometry of the front part of the fuel truck prevented the driver from seeing the aircraft that approached from his RHS before it was too late when traveling at 40 kmh. Fogging up or not, and definitely in the dark with other blinking lights around and in precipitation. Good thing that the vehicles now got cameras to show sideviews.
|
Originally Posted by ACMS
(Post 10877400)
And one took her seat belt off after landing before the accident and she got hurt......they’ll never learn.....
|
Originally Posted by ACMS
(Post 10877400)
And one took her seat belt off after landing before the accident and she got hurt.....
|
This is why the service roads in Europe are between the terminal and the aircraft stands...
|
There are many places all over Europe where your statement is most definitely not correct.
|
It is true for the larger and well designed ones... ;-)
|
Toronto
from my first visit I've considered Toronto the worst airport in North America for road vehicle traffic. Trucks are everywhere on the ramps; moving at high speeds in different directions. It's clearly badly designed compared to other similar (and larger) airfields. Kamikaze tug drivers in LGA aint got nothing on CYYZ..
|
Trucks are everywhere on the ramps; moving at high speeds in different directions. |
Of the 3 infants on board the aircraft, 2 were being held on the lap of a family member, and 1 was being held in a soft-structured baby carrier attached to her mother. Both unrestrained infants were ejected from the arms of the adults carrying them. One infant hit the seat in front of her before falling into the aisle, and received significant bruising. The other infant collided with the neighbouring passenger, but was not injured. The infant wo was held in the baby carrier was not injured; however, the infant's mother received injuries to her back and ribcage due to twisting forces resulting from the momentum of the infant strapped into the carrier. |
Like most "Simple" solutions, the devil is in the detrail:
https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/chil...-plane#systems By the by, it is not simply up to the FAA, each country served would have to approve the seats and also change their laws to require them to be used. Then of course the travelling public (you know the ones who like cheap low cost carriers) might not be happy and would lobby their local governments . Here is a link to what is being researched by Transport Canada. https://tc.canada.ca/en/mandating-ch...rcial-aircraft |
Exactly. Report is clear and FAA came to same conclusion years ago (I believe it was an aftermath of DC-10 Sioux City crash, if memory serves me well):
I believe the middle-way solution to this is additional loop belt, attached to adult`s belt. When I travelled with my then 1 yr old son (10 yrs ago), I was well aware of these risks and demanded a loop belt. Requiring babies to be put in a separate seat (with car seat/adapter) looks as an obvious solution, but on a wider perspective it is a wrong decision. Regarding this thread topic: after 30 years in aviation may I say that the design of fuel truck involved was inviting disaster-human factor was left behind of efficiency/productivity. External cameras+screens are only a crutch to a user unfriendly design. (how much are cameras night capable (NVG/IR, near IR?, How are lens cleanliness ensured...?) And wouldn`t be better to install a modified FLARM warning device? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:49. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.