The problem with al the newschannels today is that they report every breaking news story as if it could be the biggest news item of the year, just in case it is. In 99.9% of all cases however, it isn't and this is just another exemple.
When you're running 24 hour a day news channels, you're sometimes really desperate to fill them with new news and you definitely can't affort to miss the one big event which may be developing right under your nose.... To me it proofs that even in today's globalized world, there isn't always enough news to fill round the clock news shows, especially not during summer time.
Typhaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9176 times:
What I find interesting in the article is that they do not mention a MX inspection of the aircraft before future flight. I would have thought that in the case of any contact the wing would have to be inspected and signed off by company MX personnel. It only mentioned that the fire department looked over the aircraft and then cleared them to go.
Weird.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
Typhaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8231 times:
I am aware of that. But a fireman is not a properly licensed aircraft mechanic certified to sign off a logbook. And if an inspection is required after contact, someone certified has to sign off on it. At least, that is the way it is here in the US. Maybe it is different over there. But I know if two ATA aircraft had touched, we would have had to have sent a mechanic out there to do the "possible impact damage" inspection and sign off the logbook that it was done. It was written into our program that way. And I thought that piece of the program came because of an FAA requirement.
Again, I could be totally wrong about this. I am just wondering aloud.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
Treeny From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7896 times:
Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 5): am aware of that. But a fireman is not a properly licensed aircraft mechanic certified to sign off a logbook. And if an inspection is required after contact, someone certified has to sign off on it. At least, that is the way it is here in the US. Maybe it is different over there. But I know if two ATA aircraft had touched, we would have had to have sent a mechanic out there to do the "possible impact damage" inspection and sign off the logbook that it was done. It was written into our program that way. And I thought that piece of the program came because of an FAA requirement.
Hi Typhaerion
I think there has been some confusion here. What is / will happen is that the Fire Service will check the damage from a purely fire prevention and fire safety point of view and then MX will take over the planes to check for damage that pertains to the aircraft itself and its suitability to fly or not.
The two checks are exclusive and always carried out - more than anything for the safety of PAX and Crew and then the MX guys who will approach.
Typhaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7244 times:
There was no confusion. I understand the separate inspection procedure. But the article said there were no delays and implied no other inspection. That was my real question. Is it true that there was no stoppage and the aircraft continued as scheduled?
If this is the case, there wouldn't have been time for a MX inspection, because I doubt that there was a A&P on hand to do the work.
Just trying to clear up the timeline and normal media BS is all.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 9): But the article said there were no delays and implied no other inspection
In fact there was some confusion. What the article actually said is "the airport remained fully operational and there were no delays to other flights as a result of the incident". No delays to other flights, not no delays to the flights involved in the incident.
Typhaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7090 times:
Quoting SK736 (Reply 10): No delays to other flights, not no delays to the flights involved in the incident.
Thanks SK736. I went back and re-read the article, which has a significant bit more information now than it did then. At least one of the planes is grouded with significant wing damage, and there looks to be a pic in the OP's article link, though it did not come up for me.
I can see that the whole thing is kinda moot in light of this new information. Neither one of those planes left the ground and the comment was in all acutality referring to the airport and not the airlines.
I apologize for causing (and exhibiting for that matter) confustion on this issue.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
Oldtimer From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 191 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6199 times:
From what I saw on BBC News, the A320 LH was No1 in line but No2 for t/o and cleared to 24R turnoff A, the B737-800 was No 1 for t/o and cleared to B onto runway 24R, it appears the 737 was a bit too close and when he made his turn he buried his long wingtip into the APU bay of the 320 and the wingtip broke off. There normally is enough room for this type of manouvre at the 24R end at MAN but if memory is correct there was a similar incident 3 or 4 years ago but cannot remember details.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 65 Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2878 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Nov 2004, 313 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, 
From India, joined May 2006, 514 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
