Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Two Aircraft In Minor Collision At MAN  
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2985 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10988 times:

A Lufthansa aircraft bound for Frankfurt and a Futura aircraft bound for Tenerife, have collided at Manchester.

Is currently breaking news on BBC Website, but no word on how serious this is, but sounds like it could be a major incident!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7543241.stm

[Edited 2008-08-05 06:56:55]

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10262 times:



Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
sounds like it could be a major incident!

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.


User currently offlineEUROBUS From Spain, joined Nov 2004, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10105 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):
In 99.9% of all cases however, it isn't

Thank Goodness! So sad when it really is worse... It seems as if news-channels just worship this kind of news.  Sad



Who says airports are boring places?!
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10069 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineE195 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 189 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

it does say thereat the end

Both aircraft were checked over by the fire service as a safety precaution and will later be examined by experts to assess any damage.

david



Nikon D90 & D50 Sigma 70-300mm, 50-500 mm Lens :) oh yea Baby!
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9124 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineTreeny From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8789 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.

Hope this clears things up

Thanks

Mark


User currently offlineAcelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 814 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8614 times:

What was the reg of the Futura plane? I presume the Lufthansa one
was D-AIQA...

thanks



from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8137 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineSK736 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 479 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8070 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 9):
There was no confusion



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.


User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7983 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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
User currently offlineOldtimer From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7092 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.

Oldtimer



Oldtimer, I should have known better!
User currently offlineAnt72LBA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6797 times:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200602.pdf

Refers to a previous incident on 4/11/2004 - two aircraft taxying for take-off on 24L.


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1648 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4281 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stewart Andrew
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stewart Andrew



User currently offlineVivekman2006 From India, joined May 2006, 527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4250 times:

Looking at the pictures above, the Futura 737-800 will be grounded for some time till they replace the sheared winglet.

The LH A320 looks like it's got a nasty scrape below the APU exhaust.


User currently offlineAcelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 814 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Not the best time of year for Futura to be a 737 short, how long is
it likely to be out of action?

thanks



from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ryanair Jet In Two Tyre Burst At Manchester posted Wed Aug 15 2001 12:13:38 by Demoose
PIA Aircraft Fires At MAN Two Days In A Row. posted Wed Jun 9 2004 19:34:26 by Capital146
PIA 747 In 'Bomb Alert' At Manchester posted Sat Mar 10 2001 19:02:41 by Jmc757
How Many Passengers At Manchester In 1999? posted Fri Nov 10 2000 16:04:36 by SAA-SAL
30.7.: Two 777s In Trouble posted Thu Jul 31 2008 14:31:48 by NA
Number Of Crew In NYC At One Time posted Tue Jul 29 2008 19:04:43 by TwoLz2Rn
JL/NH Minor Collision At HND posted Thu Jun 12 2008 09:55:21 by Ariis
Etihad To Order Up To 100 Aircrafts In 2 Months posted Sat May 10 2008 05:09:25 by Aviationbuff
BA LHR-SFO In Emergency At Shannon posted Sat Apr 5 2008 11:39:35 by OA260
Delta 757 Charter In Mud At College Station, TX posted Wed Mar 26 2008 09:03:18 by TranStar