Totaled BAe-146 At Gate. — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Totaled BAe-146 At Gate.

Rightrudder From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 128 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14745 times:

Someone showed me this powerpoint slide and I felt aweful about it. I love this bird. I flew to Vail in a 146 once. Sorry if already posted. I tried a search and did not find anything on this.

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana".

24 replies: All unread, jump to last

VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6618 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14679 times:

This accident was at Memphis on 15 October 2002. However other reports give a different cause. They say that the aircraft had been undergoing maintenance and was being taxied back to the terminal with just the two maintenance engineers aboard. They failed to stop the aircraft and it collided with the jetway almost ripping one engine off its mount and sustaining serious structural damage to the flight deck.

The aircraft was written off and canabalised by the operator, Mesa, for parts.

Of course this could be a slightly different version of the same story but the others refer to aircraft engineers (although it surprises me that they are (were?) allowed to taxi the aircraft) and this one refers to a pilot. Anyone know which if either is right?

EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14673 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 1):
and canabalised by the operator, Mesa, for parts.

Mesaba

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"

Hiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2118 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14589 times:

In some foreign countries licensed mechanics are referred to as engineers.

ThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 672 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14491 times:

They were mechanics taxiing the aircraft from the hanger to the gates... there were no pilots on the aircraft... most airlines A&P's are allowed to taxi aircraft...

"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"

IndyWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14475 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 1):
This accident was at Memphis on 15 October 2002. However other reports give a different cause. They say that the aircraft had been undergoing maintenance and was being taxied back to the terminal with just the two maintenance engineers aboard. They failed to stop the aircraft and it collided with the jetway almost ripping one engine off its mount and sustaining serious structural damage to the flight deck.

The aircraft was written off and canabalised by the operator, Mesa, for parts.

Of course this could be a slightly different version of the same story but the others refer to aircraft engineers (although it surprises me that they are (were?) allowed to taxi the aircraft) and this one refers to a pilot. Anyone know which if either is right?

Take it from someone who saw it first hand - it was mechanics taxiing the a/c to the gate...there was a flight crew IN the jetway when it happened. And it was Mesaba, not Mesa.

F9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4731 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14426 times:

IIRC, this is a AVRO RJ85?

I Am A Different Animal!!

DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8770 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14377 times:

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 6):
IIRC, this is a AVRO RJ85?

Yes - in 2002, Mesaba was a Saab 340 and Avro RJ-85 carrier only.

EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14361 times:

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 4):

Actually returning to the gate from Maint. runs due to a crew write up.

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"

Yflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 837 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14211 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 1):
Of course this could be a slightly different version of the same story but the others refer to aircraft engineers (although it surprises me that they are (were?) allowed to taxi the aircraft) and this one refers to a pilot. Anyone know which if either is right?

More often than not, these sorts of "funny" pictures that get forwarded around via email come with descriptions attached to them that are at best greatly embellished if not completely false. I suspect this one is closer to the completely false category.

EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9772 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 1):
but the others refer to aircraft engineers (although it surprises me that they are (were?) allowed to taxi the aircraft)

Why say that...? If correctly trained and signed off, mechanics taxi aircraft all the time

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 9):
I suspect this one is closer to the completely false category.

That is almost exactly how it happened. Two mechanics were returning to the gate from engine runs after a crew write up. They were taxing only on two engines, traveling faster they they should have been and had teh aircraft configured in a way that offered no Hyd. for brakes. Not seen in these pictures...they hit the jetway so hard it shortened the aircraft by nearly one foot putting a huge crease in the fuselage just behind the cockpit bulkhead

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"

AC320tech From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9639 times:

Thats embarrassing.

I got this in an email once. Bit of a shame, must have been loud. QK (Or Jazz) had a 146 roll backwards into a parked van at the hanger (here in YHZ), van was written off, but the aircraft was already retired at the time and stripped of the Jazz logo's.

It only reminds me of that time the DC9 slammed into the A320.

Argonaut From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 2004, 417 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9537 times:

Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 3):
In some foreign countries

"Foreign"? From whose point of view?
duck

'the rank is but the guinea stamp'

DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8165 times:

Quoting IndyWA (Reply 5):
Take it from someone who saw it first hand - it was mechanics taxiing the a/c to the gate...there was a flight crew IN the jetway when it happened.

Would not be the first time.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/n571pe/2.jpg

[Edited 2009-01-03 10:34:28]

AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!

EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7619 times:

Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 13):

Your link is no good.....

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"

Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7598 times:

Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 13):
Would not be the first time.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/n5...2.jpg

Or the second time. NW A319 taxied by mechanics into the jetway (and adjacent NW 752) at LGA in January 2003. That's still the only A319 hull loss to date.

http://www.cargolaw.com/images/disaster2003.NW165arrive.4.jpg

http://www.cargolaw.com/images/disaster2003.NW165arrive.3.jpg

http://www.cargolaw.com/images/disaster2003.NW165arrive.2.jpg

And another notable writeoff with no pilots aboard, the SV 743 being taxied by mechanics at KUL in August 2001.

TDubJFK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7545 times:

I HATE when that happens.

ArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3361 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7349 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15):
And another notable writeoff with no pilots aboard, the SV 743 being taxied by mechanics at KUL in August 2001.

I thought they repaired that aircraft? They added a completely new first class section from door 1 forward.

Check your bags, check your brain.

Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7227 times:

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 17):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15):
And another notable writeoff with no pilots aboard, the SV 743 being taxied by mechanics at KUL in August 2001.

I thought they repaired that aircraft? They added a completely new first class section from door 1 forward.

That's not correct. It was written off. That kind of a huge repair job on a 16-year-old 747 would almost certainly have cost more than than the aircraft was worth.

EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3898 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15):
SV 743 being taxied by mechanics at KUL in August 2001.

Can we clear this up... Engineers taxied the aircraft under her own power OR under tow by engineers...?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
That's not correct. It was written off. That kind of a huge repair job on a 16-year-old 747 would almost certainly have cost more than than the aircraft was worth.

In QF's case it was worth repairing OJH... Then again we are talking about a B744 and an Airlines reputation... Wink

EK413

Hello Tomorrow... Where will tomorrow take you?

Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 19):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15):
SV 743 being taxied by mechanics at KUL in August 2001.

Can we clear this up... Engineers taxied the aircraft under her own power OR under tow by engineers...?

According to this summary it was being taxied under its own power (on 2 engines).
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010823-0

EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3898 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5267 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
According to this summary it was being taxied under its own power (on 2 engines).
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010823-0

Cheers, thankyou for the info...

EK413

Hello Tomorrow... Where will tomorrow take you?

Azjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3555 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4347 times:

I certainly hope that the original posts "power point" isn't truly circulating as fact. It is so far off base it's ridiculous. Others have mentioned it was a pair of mechanics taxiing after doing an engine run up due to a mx write up that had to do with the engine anti ice valves. In order to trouble shoot the system, the techs had to make the airplane think it was in the air. They did this by pulling CBs. Unfortunately the didn't properly configure the a/c for a taxi and when they went to apply brakes, there were none. In the air (where the airplane thought it was) the brakes do not work. Instead, when you apply brakes in the air you test the integrity of the anti skid computers. That's precisely what those mechanics were doing and to high of speed when they pulled into the gate. AFAIK the planes was being taxiied with all 4 engines running. 2, 3 or 4 engines during taxi... the plane can be taxiied perfectly safe with 2 running on one side. This was not the case.

It's too bad BS is floating around as fact on this matter making the pilots and the rest of the employee group look bad at Mesaba.

SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4234 times:

Quoting Argonaut (Reply 12):
"Foreign"? From whose point of view?

LMAO! We can be an..........ahhh, ... interesting, yeah that's it, interesting country.

I don't understand everything I don't know about this.

Alphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 532 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 19):
Can we clear this up... Engineers taxied the aircraft under her own power OR under tow by engineers...?

There is no tug in the ditch so I would assume under it's own power...

IIRC there was also a good deal of fog present when this happened...not an excuse but definitely a contributing factor.

Top Of Page

Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: