Two Ryanairs have just hit each other at DUB

Oscar Bravo

here we go from the daily mail , well done to all who thought of the captions earlier, not far wrong!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783243/Jet-wing-ripped-two-Ryanair-planes-crash-airport-parking-accident.html

A Dub in Glasgo

One thing I will say for the DM is that it always posts a good selection of pictures of the story (even if the headlines and article is outlandish!)

L1011

2 stroke wrote: »

I'm thinking something like reversing sensors in a car but maybe a little higher tech, maybe cuts power and applies brakes if pilot ignores proximity warning, and cameras can be fitted into coat buttons these days so not much weight, and can be infra red. I agree that it needs monitoring but isn't pilot is expected to watch wings anyway. Wings are still fueltanks arent they?

Have you used reversing sensors? They wouldn't go off in this kind of scenario and the distances they work on are far too small to auto-brake anyway

2 stroke

MYOB wrote: »

Have you used reversing sensors? They wouldn't go off in this kind of scenario and the distances they work on are far too small to auto-brake anyway

Yes, nearly every day, a cheap set that I fitted myself and I'm often amazed at how good they are for the price paid. Now if a slightly better set were fitted in each wing and linked up to the electronics.

Tomorrows headline.
PLANE CRASH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF ALL PLANES WERE FITTED WITH REVERSING SENSORS

_dof_

2 stroke wrote: »

I'm thinking something like reversing sensors in a car but maybe a little higher tech, maybe cuts power and applies brakes if pilot ignores proximity warning, and cameras can be fitted into coat buttons these days so not much weight, and can be infra red. I agree that it needs monitoring but isn't pilot is expected to watch wings anyway. Wings are still fueltanks arent they?

Exactly. Wingtip cameras are a perfectly sensible proposal.. What captain wouldn't want as much information as possible when taxying, and if wingtip cameras give more information and they would add negligible cost, weight or complexity to an aircraft design.

Bizarre that the A380 seems to include them in the belly to look at langing gear and the tail, but none in the wingtips even though the wingtips are practically impossible for the flight crew to see.

Looks like the NTSB agree too:
www(dot)avweb(dot)com/avwebflash/news/ntsb_wingtip_taxi_camera_safety_recommendation_207313-1.html

(don't seem to be allowed to post URLs as I'm apparently a 'new' user)

TheChizler

Surprised Ryanair seem so enthusiastic to post pics of the damage. Suppose it allows them to control the story. Nice to see the close up pictures with the pallet for size context, you forget how big these things are out on the end of the wing!

2 stroke

_dof_ wrote: »

(don't seem to be allowed to post URLs as I'm apparently a 'new' user)

FTFY Newbie http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ntsb_wingtip_taxi_camera_safety_recommendation_207313-1.html

Citing 12 accident investigations since 1993, the NTSB has issued a Safety Recommendation to the FAA for installation of anti-collision aids, like onboard camera systems, to help pilots with clearance issues during taxi. The Board says preliminary information collected in its investigations show that pilots of large aircraft cannot easily see the aircraft's wingtips from the cockpit. It found that in aircraft like the 747, 757, 767, 777 and the Airbus A380 pilots must literally stick their heads out of the window to see the airplane's wingtips, noting that this "is often impractical." The recommendation notes that the Airbus A380 superjumbo is already equipped with an external camera system, and why that system is insufficient in addressing the Board's concerns.

According to the NTSB each of 12 accidents referenced by the letter involved situations in which pilots "were either unable to determine or had difficulty determining the separation" between their aircraft's wingtips and another object while taxiing. The recommendation states that the accidents "highlight the need" for aids that to help pilots with the problem of sometimes moving obstacles they may encounter on the ground. The A380 is equipped with an External Taxi Aid Camera System consisting of two cameras -- one on the belly and one on the vertical fin. The intent of the belly camera is to display the position of the landing gear before and during taxi and to provide "an external landscape." The vertical fin camera displays a field of view that does not extend to the aircraft's wingtips but shows most of the fuselage, and the jet's wings from outboard engine to outboard engine. The NTSB recommends that a system that displays wingtips and wingtip paths -- not unlike the backup camera in some modern cars -- be installed on all newly manufactured large airplanes where the wingtips are not easily visible from the cockpit. See the full recommendation here (PDF).

FWVT

As much as I despise rags like the Daily Mail and Daily Express they are not as bad as some of the comments from guys who haven't a clue. Leave the investigation to the big boys, eh!

Just one observation for those who say excess speed was involved; as one plane was in a turn onto Alpha at the time, its wingtip would have been moving several times faster than the plane's actual speed.

Preset No.3

So.....how much would a damaged winglet go for on ebay????

KnotABother

KnotABother wrote: »

Wonder of both aircraft were on the taxi centrelines? If so then perhaps that is an issue that the DAA need to look at.

Considering the two taxi lines spur from the same one I doubt it.

CruelCoin

Into The Blue wrote: »

But it's more probable that the points man just made a human error and didn't notice the impending collision.

How though?

The piece is buried in the rear of the other plane. His cockpit would have been level with the mid-way point of the other plane for this to happen.

L1011

2 stroke wrote: »

Yes, nearly every day, a cheap set that I fitted myself and I'm often amazed at how good they are for the price paid. Now if a slightly better set were fitted in each wing and linked up to the electronics.

Tomorrows headline.
PLANE CRASH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF ALL PLANES WERE FITTED WITH REVERSING SENSORS

You'll know how bad they are at detecting slim things then. Like horizontal stabilisers. And how low distance they are too.

circular flexing

At least it wasn't as bad as this one

http://avherald.com/h?article=46d6e18c

Stovepipe

In reality, collisions and damage from ground vehicles and objects happens every day and nine times out of ten, it's comparatively minor stuff. Occasionally, an aircraft is written off because it's too expensive to repair and a parted-out aircraft is worth more for it's parts than as a complete, damaged airframe. In the case of this incident, it's Ryanair's second wingtip incident in a fairly short space of time so it will focus minds on ground handling by pilots and ramp staff.

2 stroke

2 stroke wrote: »

Yes, nearly every day, a cheap set that I fitted myself and I'm often amazed at how good they are for the price paid. Now if a slightly better set were fitted in each wing and linked up to the electronics.

MYOB wrote: »

You'll know how bad they are at detecting slim things then. Like horizontal stabilisers. And how low distance they are too.

Please read my post.

I haven't reversed into a horizontal stabilizer yet:D

L1011

2 stroke wrote: »

Please read my post.

I haven't reversed into a horizontal stabilizer yet:D

Wait till they don't "see" a sign post pole for you - as that's below the minimum width required to detect reliably.

The technology is not suitable for this purpose.

roundymac

circular flexing wrote: »

At least it wasn't as bad as this one

http://avherald.com/h?article=46d6e18c

Yes that BA 744 is in the process of being stripped of useful parts in Jo-burg, there is a picture of it on the net somewhere parked up minus it's engines which no doubt are being returned to BA or whoever is supplying the engines.

2 stroke

MYOB wrote: »

Wait till they don't "see" a sign post pole for you - as that's below the minimum width required to detect reliably.

The technology is not suitable for this purpose.

Well positioning the wingtips so that the pilot has to leave his seat, and stick his head out the window to see them, sounds like a bad idea to me.
Airports and the skies are getting more and more congested, and the airline industry are sticking their heads in the sand, rather than keeping up with and adapting available technology.

L1011

2 stroke wrote: »

Well positioning the wingtips so that the pilot has to leave his seat, and stick his head out the window to see them, sounds like a bad idea to me.
Airports and the skies are getting more and more congested, and the airline industry are sticking their heads in the sand, rather than keeping up with and adapting available technology.

Reversing sensors are extremely antiquated technology that doesn't work in this scenario. Nothing here other than being realistic.

eatmyshorts

2 stroke wrote: »

Well positioning the wingtips so that the pilot has to leave his seat, and stick his head out the window to see them, sounds like a bad idea to me.
Airports and the skies are getting more and more congested, and the airline industry are sticking their heads in the sand, rather than keeping up with and adapting available technology.

They aren't sticking their heads in the sand. It just takes a lot of time and money to get things approved for use by the regulators. A single bolt for the car industry might cost a dollar, but stick "aviation use"on it and that sane bolt now costs 500 dollars.

And as long as people demand ridiculously low fares, it's not going to change any faster.

2 stroke

eatmyshorts wrote: »

They aren't sticking their heads in the sand. It just takes a lot of time and money to get things approved for use by the regulators. A single bolt for the car industry might cost a dollar, but stick "aviation use"on it and that sane bolt now costs 500 dollars.

And as long as people demand ridiculously low fares, it's not going to change any faster.

I consider the regulators as part of the industry.

Did they approve wingtips that the pilot cannot see?

eatmyshorts

2 stroke wrote: »

I consider the regulators as part of the industry.

Did they approve wingtips that the pilot cannot see?

Of course. I haven't flown an aircraft in 10 years where I could see the wingtips from the cockpit.
If, as PIC, I'm not 110% sure I have enough clearance, then I stop and wait. It's called airmanship.

L1011

2 stroke wrote: »

I consider the regulators as part of the industry.

Did they approve wingtips that the pilot cannot see?

Can you see the front corner of your car?

2 stroke

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Of course. I haven't flown an aircraft in 10 years where I could see the wingtips from the cockpit.
If, as PIC, I'm not 110% sure I have enough clearance, then I stop and wait. It's called airmanship.

I appreciate this, but if you are sure and wrong, it's pilot error.

eatmyshorts

2 stroke wrote: »

I appreciate this, but if you are sure and wrong, it's pilot error.

Indeed it is. And that's where the responsibility of command weighs heavy on your shoulders every time you sit down in that seat.

2 stroke

MYOB wrote: »

Can you see the front corner of your car?

No. It's parked round the back:D

Good point actualy, I have bumped the front a few times, might put in a few more sensors.

owenc

TheChizler wrote: »

Surprised Ryanair seem so enthusiastic to post pics of the damage. Suppose it allows them to control the story. Nice to see the close up pictures with the pallet for size context, you forget how big these things are out on the end of the wing!

People go on and on about Ryanair and how terrible they are but to me their planes are fantastic. I have every confidence in them when flying on their aircraft, I have yet to hear of a crash.

2 stroke

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Indeed it is. And that's where the responsibility of command weighs heavy on your shoulders every time you sit down in that seat.

And what about the responsibility of employers, manufacturers and regulators that you have the tools to do your job safely.

Jack1985

owenc wrote: »

People go on and on about Ryanair and how terrible they are but to me their planes are fantastic. I have every confidence in them when flying on their aircraft, I have yet to hear of a crash.

Kind of an moronic statement, MAS have had two accidents this year which one definitely and the other most probably in my opinion remain unrelated to the airlines own and Boeing's safety standards. I wouldn't hesitate to fly MAS etc. I'm sure you are aware aircraft accidents are a result of numerous factors and in the majority of cases not a reflection of the airline.

2 stroke wrote: »

And what about the responsibility of employers, manufacturers and regulators that you have the tools to do your job safely.

Well there hardly going to be present in the flight deck on the given day of an accident/incident are they. That's the whole point of getting a command that you can take on the responsibility to ensure the safe operation of an aircraft on a given day. As has been pointed out numerous times.

Irish Steve

2 stroke wrote: »

I consider the regulators as part of the industry.

Did they approve wingtips that the pilot cannot see?

Can you see the rear end of your car when you're reversing out of a parking space, or see exactly where the front bumper is when entering that space, or is it a case of gently till it won't go any further?
Can a bus driver see what's behind his vehicle when he's in the cab?
Can a truck driver see a car behind his truck when he's driving it?
Can a train driver see the back of his train from the engine, (even more the case on American trains that are over a mile long on some routes)?

In the vast majority of cases, the answer is no, and it's not a show stopper issue for those applications. There are some cars, and trucks fitted with rear view systems, but they are by no means standard, and not always available as an after market add on either.

It's not a massive issue in the aviation industry either, there are very few incidents where contact occurs between 2 aircraft on the ground.

So, will the travelling public accept an significant increase in fares to fund technology that may well only offer marginal improvements in the overall situation, and may even cause delays by erring on the side of caution.

I doubt it, given that ground incidents of this nature are rare, and present very little real risk to the passengers, other than the inconvenience of a delay.

The reality of this one is that there will probably be more delays at Dublin for a while, as the controllers will be reluctant to give clearances along the lines of "if you are happy with the separation", which has been the case regularly for the last while, due to the poor design of some of the taxiways and terminal layouts, which has led to a number of critical "pinch points" that are responsible for significant delays on occasions.

The ground controllers are going to be even more cautious now, as they've been sort of blamed for this by some parties, even though the ultimate responsibility rests with the aircraft commander.

In the scale of things, this is a rare incident, if you want to get excited about incidents, have a look at Aviation Herald, and see just how many bird strikes are reported, or how many hydraulic leak issues there are, or how many diversions due to "smoke" or "odours" happen.

Fortunately, the vast majority of them don't have massive implications, and the aircraft lands safely, albeit that the crew might need an urgent change of underwear.

There's nothing significant being done to try and change the impact (literally) of bird strikes, the only way of dealing with them is to try and ensure that the engines can survive the encounter, and there are specific and exacting tests on every new engine before it goes into service.

From a safety aspect viewpoint, there would be more benefit in improving how aircraft are affected by bird strikes than in finding ways to make it easier for crews to see their wingtips.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of realistic changes or new technology that will have meaningful benefits, but expensive technology to reduce a relatively minor risk, both in terms of frequency and implication, is not the way to improve things.

2 stroke

Fortunately, the vast majority of them don't have massive implications, and the aircraft lands safely, albeit that the crew might need an urgent change of underwear.

Its the passengers needing a change of underwear i worry more about. Being kept sitting on a plane following an incident is very much bicycle clip territory.

2 stroke

a relatively minor risk, both in terms of frequency

Did someone say 4 incidents with one airline within same year. Thats too frequent for me.

L1011

owenc wrote: »

I have yet to hear of a crash.

Because they haven't had a fatal accident - but in the modern era, that applies to lots of airlines. Plenty of airlines who've never had a fatal accident or haven't had one in the jet era.

keith16

MYOB wrote: »

Because they haven't had a fatal accident - but in the modern era, that applies to lots of airlines. Plenty of airlines who've never had a fatal accident or haven't had one in the jet era.

Amazing isn't it?

I was chatting to a guy who I know works in the aviation industry and we were chatting about Malaysian Airlines.

He was saying for one event which befell them (MH370) it is unthinkable. But for two events, in the space of a number of months it is inconceivable.

Irish Steve

2 stroke wrote: »

Did someone say 4 incidents with one airline within same year. Thats too frequent for me.

And as far as I can see, it's 4 incidents since 2011, not in 1 year, and one of them was when the aircraft was being pushed back by ground handling.

The other 3 were down to the crew, for various reasons.

One was as a result of a 767 not moving far enough forward to allow clearance, and the impact was not detected on the flight deck, the report mentioned that there were surface irregularities that caused similar movement to that of the impact.

Another was at Seville, where the captain did not correctly follow the stand guidance when leaving the stand, and ground handling did not provide sufficient indication of the potential for collision with an aircraft on the adjacent stand

At Stansted, the aircraft was being pushed back, and was contacted by another aircraft positioning on to stand, and while the captain technically was/is responsible, he is dependent on the ground handlers, who have a much clearer view of the relative positions of the aircraft.

So, in terms of the incident at Dublin, there have been two since 2011, so in the scale of things, Ryanair do NOT have an endemic problem, far from it, given the number of aircraft they operate, and the number of flights they perform each day.

I am sure that the AAIU, Ryanair and the IAA will all be looking at the incident very carefully, and if there are lessons to be learnt, I am sure they will be.

Rackstar

Irish Steve wrote: »

And as far as I can see, it's 4 incidents since 2011, not in 1 year, and one of them was when the aircraft was being pushed back by ground handling.

The other 3 were down to the crew, for various reasons.

One was as a result of a 767 not moving far enough forward to allow clearance, and the impact was not detected on the flight deck, the report mentioned that there were surface irregularities that caused similar movement to that of the impact.

Another was at Seville, where the captain did not correctly follow the stand guidance when leaving the stand, and ground handling did not provide sufficient indication of the potential for collision with an aircraft on the adjacent stand

At Stansted, the aircraft was being pushed back, and was contacted by another aircraft positioning on to stand, and while the captain technically was/is responsible, he is dependent on the ground handlers, who have a much clearer view of the relative positions of the aircraft.

So, in terms of the incident at Dublin, there have been two since 2011, so in the scale of things, Ryanair do NOT have an endemic problem, far from it, given the number of aircraft they operate, and the number of flights they perform each day.

I am sure that the AAIU, Ryanair and the IAA will all be looking at the incident very carefully, and if there are lessons to be learnt, I am sure they will be.

Did a FR roll into a fire station in Rome recently as well?

A Dub in Glasgo

ATC recording on the LiveATC archive

http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php

Select EIDW Del/Gnd/Twr/App/Center
05.30-0600 about 13 minutes in, Ryanair 812

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/eidw/EIDW3-Oct-07-2014-0530Z.mp3

Cessna_Pilot

Rackstar wrote: »

Did a FR roll into a fire station in Rome recently as well?

Yeah after someone nicked the chocks it seems!

Irish Steve

Rackstar wrote: »

Did a FR roll into a fire station in Rome recently as well?

Yes, but as there was no crew on board, I don't think anyone can blame Ryanair for that issue, it could have happened to any airline, my understanding of the reason is that the aircraft had not been correctly chocked due to an industrial dispute at the Rome airfield.

Tenger

Irish Steve wrote: »

.....One was as a result of a 767 not moving far enough forward to allow clearance, and the impact was not detected on the flight deck, the report mentioned that there were surface irregularities that caused similar movement to that of the impact.....

The synopsis I had access to was a little less generous that that.


But overall I would agree with Irish Steve. This is 4 incidents over several years, 1 which was not the fault of FR. Considering the size of their operation its statistically tiny.

Rackstar

Irish Steve wrote: »

Yes, but as there was no crew on board, I don't think anyone can blame Ryanair for that issue, it could have happened to any airline, my understanding of the reason is that the aircraft had not been correctly chocked due to an industrial dispute at the Rome airfield.

I wasn't trying to blame Ryanair or anybody else.

2 stroke

I'm not trying to blame anyone either. Far too much passing the book here, for me an incident is an incident that should not have been avoided. Yes, internally its necessary to examine what went wrong where and how to prevent such incidents in future. To me two planes loaded with fuel and passengers colided.

ProfessorPlum

Irish Steve wrote: »

One was as a result of a 767 not moving far enough forward to allow clearance, and the impact was not detected on the flight deck, the report mentioned that there were surface irregularities that caused similar movement to that of the impact.

Tenger wrote: »

The synopsis I had access to was a little less generous that that.


But overall I would agree with Irish Steve. This is 4 incidents over several years, 1 which was not the fault of FR. Considering the size of their operation its statistically tiny.

To be clear: the incident was not due to the 767 not moving forward. The 767 crew were completely blameless in that incident, and unknowingly flew their damaged aircraft across the Atlantic. The collision was brought to the attention of the Ryanair cockpit crew, who chose to ignore it for a further 2 sectors.
I'm sure we don't need to rehash it here, but I felt the need to set the record straight re the 767.

Jack1985

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

To be clear: the incident was not due to the 767 not moving forward. The 767 crew were completely blameless in that incident, and unknowingly flew their damaged aircraft across the Atlantic. The collision was brought to the attention of the Ryanair cockpit crew, who chose to ignore it for a further 2 sectors.
I'm sure we don't need to rehash it here, but I felt the need to set the record straight re the 767.

That's actually incorrect. The facts of the 2011 incident are;

• The incident resulted from the crew of the Ryanair B737’s misjudging of the distances as it passed behind the B767, which was stopped at the G3 position of the runway 25L holding point.
  
• Assigning position G3 to an aircraft with a long fuselage, such as a B767-300, and the position of said aircraft, relatively far away from the holding point marking, contributed to the incident.
  
• The deficiencies in the communications between the cabin and flight crews on the B737 resulted in the collision going unnoticed and in both aircraft continuing with their flights without an assessment of the damage produced.

To quote the CIAIAC. The Ryanair cockpit crew were actually not informed that the collision was seen by a qualified engineer by the CC until their return to Barcelona after operating to/from Ibiza. The accidents greatest contributory factor on that day was a complete breakdown in CRM between the cabin crew.

ProfessorPlum

Jack1985 wrote: »

That's actually incorrect. The facts of the 2011 incident are;

• The incident resulted from the crew of the Ryanair B737’s misjudging of the distances as it passed behind the B767, which was stopped at the G3 position of the runway 25L holding point.
  
• Assigning position G3 to an aircraft with a long fuselage, such as a B767-300, and the position of said aircraft, relatively far away from the holding point marking, contributed to the incident.
  
• The deficiencies in the communications between the cabin and flight crews on the B737 resulted in the collision going unnoticed and in both aircraft continuing with their flights without an assessment of the damage produced.

To quote the CIAIAC. The Ryanair cockpit crew were actually not informed that the collision was seen by a qualified engineer by the CC until their return to Barcelona after operating to/from Ibiza. The accidents greatest contributory factor on that day was a complete breakdown in CRM between the cabin crew.

Jack, the cabin crew informed the cockpit, but were told there was nothing to worry about. They didn't realise or tell them at the time that the passenger who saw the collision was an engineer. (should that have made a difference?).
There was indeed a breakdown of CRM - involving the entire crew.
This particular incident has been well studied and used in many airlines as a CRM training tool - for pilots and cabin crew.
If irrc, the captain was subsequently demoted and dismissed.


A number of passengers on board of the Boeing 737-800 observed the right hand wing of the aircraft contact the tailplane of the Boeing 767-300 and rose out of their seats attracting the attention of a flight attendant. A passenger told the flight attendant, that their aircraft had hit the aircraft besides them. The flight attendant contacted the purser, who instructed her to contact the flight deck, she contacted the flight deck and informed the captain that passengers had seen their aircraft had hit another aircraft. The captain responded however everything was fine and she continued with the takeoff about 2 minutes after the Boeing 767..

Jack1985

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Jack, the cabin crew informed the cockpit, but were told there was nothing to worry about. They didn't realise or tell them at the time that the passenger who saw the collision was an engineer. (should that have made a difference?).
There was indeed a breakdown of CRM - involving the entire crew.
This particular incident has been well studied and used in many airlines as a CRM training tool - for pilots and cabin crew.
If irrc, the captain was subsequently demoted and dismissed.


The flight attendant contacted the purser, who instructed her to contact the flight deck, she contacted the flight deck and informed the captain that passengers had seen their aircraft had hit another aircraft. The captain responded however everything was fine and she continued with the takeoff about 2 minutes after the Boeing 767.

Yep that's true, just picked up on the part about the cockpit telling the cc not to worry about it. Shocking really

Irish Steve

To be specific about the Barcelona incident,which was in April 2011, yes, there were some CRM issues that have been highlighted and used as further training guides, we're in danger of drifting slightly off the original subject, the Dublin incident, but I guess it's relevant to the discussion of the overall issue.

I have put a few specific issues in Italics so that they stand out, the main information here is taken from a site that I respect for the accuracy of the reporting, the Aviation Herald, http://avherald.com/h?article=45363621

Quote

An internal Ryanair document forwarded to The Aviation Herald states, that none of the Ryanair crew members observed anything unusual as the taxiway was rather bumpy, it was only flight attendant #2 who became aware of the collision through the observed passenger reactions.


Quote from the CIAIAC, the Spanish investigators.

The CIAIAC reported the American Airlines Boeing 767-300 was positioned on holding point G3 (the most western holding point) about 16 meters short of the hold short line stating: "From the pilot’s point of view, the main concern is not to interfere with aircraft circulating on the runway at any time. A pilot will therefore give priority to this consideration over any potential problems involving tailing aircraft, and will keep the holding point marking well in sight and ahead of the nose of the airplane, barring any instruction to the contrary from ATC."

The CIAIAC reported neither of the Boeing 767-300 crew got aware of the contact between the aircraft, especially they did not notice any movement that would by typical for a collision. When the B738 crew refused to continue to taxi before the B763 had moved, they moved about 10 feet forward.


The CIAIAC reported the B738 captain had asked the first officer to verify separation to the Boeing 767-300 as they were passing along. She steered the aircraft about half a meter to the left of the taxiway center line to ensure separation. The first officer indicated there was no concern as the wingtip passed the tail cone of the 767 however he asked to stop immediately when the wing tip approached the end of the left hand horizontal stabilizer. The captain rose out of her seat to assess the situation and was surprised about the short distance, the first officer assured however the aircraft had not made contact. Shortly thereafter the intercom rang (single chime only, company policy requiring three chimes in case of a serious problem) and the flight attendant said "for your information" leaving the captain under the impression only one passenger had reported contact between the aircraft - she continued to say in the interview that had she been aware of multiple passengers observing the collision she would have reacted differently.

After returning the Barcelona both flight crew believed the contact must have happened before stopping.

The CIAIAC released one safety recommendation to Spain's AENA to reassess the taxi limitations on taxiway K and holding points G.

The CIAIAC also released one safety recommendation to Ryanair to "reassess those aspects of its training program involving flight and cabin crew communications and address the deficiencies noted, if any. Special emphasis should be placed on the benefits to safety that stem from the effective transmission of information from the passenger cabin to the flight deck."

ProfessorPlum

I'm not sure what your point is though Steve, that the 767 was in the way? Clearly it was. Was the incident due to the 767 being in the way? No it wasn't - it was due to the 737 trying to taxi past when there was no room.

Here's the link to the full Avhearld report (I've quoted parts of it in my above post) http://avherald.com/h?article=45363621

As it happens, both that incident and the the Dublin incident are remarkably similar. An aircraft trying to pass behind another aircraft on an intersecting taxiway without sufficient wing tip clearance. Of course what happened after the impact diverges wildly in the two cases.

Irish Steve

I was highlighting that the Ryanair flight deck crew were under the impression that the uneven surface was a factor, that the 767 was initially 16 Mtrs behind the stop line, and moved forward 10 Ft when requested due to concerns about clearance, and that the 767 crew were not aware of the contact, as they did not sense any inappropriate movement of what was a stationary aircraft at the time.

Yes, the Ryanair crew got it wrong, and didn't respond correctly to a less than forceful report from the cabin, which should have (according to SOP) been made with a 3 chime rather than a single chime, so it didn't raise the same level of alert in the flight deck crew, who were clearly busy with the departure.

Reports from the cabin are always a difficult one to know how hard to push, a few years ago, I was on a Dash 8 from Exeter to Dublin, in the departure climb, at probably 12,000 Ft, the gear doors popped open and closed again within a few moments, and shortly after, we stopped the climb, and returned to Exeter, and it was clear from the way we did the approach that the crew were concerned that the gear was malfunctioning, as it was dropped way early, and we flew a very long approach.

After landing, engineers looked at it for a few minutes, then we were returned to the lounge, and on the way out, I asked to speak to the captain, and mentioned that just before he stopped the climb, the gear doors had popped open, followed by the other side doing the same a few minutes later, and I got a serious "Ahhhhhh.........thank you for that", and it was clear that my information had just given them the extra information they needed, which changed the manner they were then dealing with it, what had been suspected as a spurious warning light was clearly something more complex, and the result was that our flight on the Dash 8 was cancelled, and a 146 was positioned in from Southampton to fly the rotation.

Going back to the current incident, the separation wasn't there, and they touched, and there will be plenty of discussion and memos flying around for the next while, and if there's another similar incident any time soon, I would be surprised, everyone is going to be a lot more cautious for a while.

In the global scale of things, it's a less significant incident than a tail scrape, and there have been a good few of them with the 738 , some Ryanair, and they have the potential to do a lot more damage, but we don't see massive paranoia about changing things. The nature of aircraft operation means that there will be occasional mishaps, the vast majority of which are not massively serious. Then, there will be one that gets worldwide attention, how many people would have initially put the Air France Concorde crash down to a small piece of metal that fell off the preceding departure? It was a long time before the real in depth reason for that came out, and the results were massive changes on Concorde once the full picture was clear.

I don't work for Ryanair, and I'm not a Ryanair fanboy either, there are a number of aspects of their methods that I've been negative about since they were introduced, but the bottom line is that in terms of their position in the airline industry, Ryanair have been a massive success in terms of their market penetration, so they must be doing something right. Longer term, it's clear that they are having to change their ethos and culture to remain a success, hence some of the changes we are seeing in recent times.

What I am concerned about is that there are times when the media, and I would include Boards in this, are at times less than friendly towards Ryanair, and some of the media are positively hostile, undeservedly so. When BA had a mishap in Johannesburg with the 747, where a significant chunk of a wing was stuffed into a building (and the aircraft written off as a result), there wasn't anything like the feeding frenzy on the internet. Yes, the FR incident was local, but one of the aircraft involved is supposed to be back in the air today, so it's not going to be getting too much attention from here on in. Hopefully, this thread will quieten down soon as well.

Tenger

Irish Steve wrote: »

I don't work for Ryanair, and I'm not a Ryanair fanboy either, there are a number of aspects of their methods that I've been negative about since they were introduced, but the bottom line is that in terms of their position in the airline industry, Ryanair have been a massive success in terms of their market penetration, so they must be doing something right. Longer term, it's clear that they are having to change their ethos and culture to remain a success, hence some of the changes we are seeing in recent times.

What I am concerned about is that there are times when the media, and I would include Boards in this, are at times less than friendly towards Ryanair, and some of the media are positively hostile, undeservedly so. When BA had a mishap in Johannesburg with the 747, where a significant chunk of a wing was stuffed into a building (and the aircraft written off as a result), there wasn't anything like the feeding frenzy on the internet. Yes, the FR incident was local, but one of the aircraft involved is supposed to be back in the air today, so it's not going to be getting too much attention from here on in. Hopefully, this thread will quieten down soon as well.

Well argued and a fair point. I would concur that statistically speaking this is a rare occurrence and definitely not as serious as the media made it out to be over the last 30 hours.