Planes clip wings in melbourne

[markis10]

Interesting : http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jets-clip-wings-on-runway/2006/02/02/1138836359490.html

Cannot wait for the A380 to start services! Wonder who made a mistake?

 

[QF WP]

It'll come out in the investigation. Wonder what was said on both the coughpit voice recorders... :evil: :shock:

 

[markis10]

Wonder what was said on both the coughpit voice recorders... :evil: :shock:

Copilot to Pilot - "hear that noise, sounds like the better half when she backs the car out of the garage resulting in the services of a panel beater" :roll:

 

[NM]

It'll come out in the investigation. Wonder what was said on both the coughpit voice recorders... :evil: :shock:

Charter boat? What charter boat?

 

[NM]

Its also interesting that the QF767 was carrying 50% more passengers than the UA 744.

 

[MetroAir]

It'll come out in the investigation. Wonder what was said on both the coughpit voice recorders... :evil: :shock:

Charter boat? What charter boat?

LOL

 

[N860CR]

Its also interesting that the QF767 was carrying 50% more passengers than the UA 744.

I found that interesting too. Can't figure out if it's a media stuff-up (no supprises there, pfft why bother researching a story properly) or if UA actually did have a very poor load, I couldn't imagine the latter being the case

 

[thadocta]

Its also interesting that the QF767 was carrying 50% more passengers than the UA 744.

Hardly interesting, considering that the UA 744 was actually at the start of a MEL-SYD-LAX operation, and UA can't carry MEL-SYD unless they are UA SLC.

Dave

 

[thadocta]

Its also interesting that the QF767 was carrying 50% more passengers than the UA 744.

I found that interesting too. Can't figure out if it's a media stuff-up (no supprises there, pfft why bother researching a story properly) or if UA actually did have a very poor load, I couldn't imagine the latter being the case

I think it is quite a good load for such a sector, given the nature of the flight - the start of a MEL-SYD-LAX, feeding onto a SYD-SFO flight. If they were experiencing decent loads they would probably be operating direct MEL-LAX.

Dave

 

[NM]

Its also interesting that the QF767 was carrying 50% more passengers than the UA 744.

Hardly interesting, considering that the UA 744 was actually at the start of a MEL-SYD-LAX operation, and UA can't carry MEL-SYD unless they are UA SLC.

Dave

I didn't say it was unusual. I just said it was interesting. Well I found it interesting anyway. I am fully aware of where the aircraft was heading. I was more interested in the numbers being almost exactly 50% more on an aircraft with half the capacity.

 

[BlacKnox]

I saw this artice on-line yesterday too and was suckered in by the heading "Planes collide at Melbourne Airport" or something to that effect. After I clicked I read about two planes clipping wings while taxiing. Hardly the image I first imagined - and I was relieved; but a clipping is hardly a collision :roll: .

I like the "charter boat" comment too .

 

[NM]

I am still puzzled as to how a 767's wing gets high enough above the ground while taxiing to make contact with a drooping 747 wing. I would have expected the 744 to quite easily pass over the top of a 767 wing unless the contact was much closer to the fuselage than the tips of the wings.

 

[BlacKnox]

I am still puzzled as to how a 767's wing gets high enough above the ground while taxiing to make contact with a drooping 747 wing.

Perhaps there was no air in the tyres :?:

 

[QF WP]

of the 747, because if there were no air in the tyres of the 767, it would have passed harmlessly under the 747.

Notwithstanding the bleeding obvious, if there wasn't any air in the tyres, both would have been grounded as unserviceable

 

[tuapekastar]

I am still puzzled as to how a 767's wing gets high enough above the ground while taxiing to make contact with a drooping 747 wing. I would have expected the 744 to quite easily pass over the top of a 767 wing unless the contact was much closer to the fuselage than the tips of the wings.

I heard that the 744's wing clipped the tail of the 767...the 747 was taxiing around behind the 767...think I heard that on the radio.

 

[serfty]

... I heard that the 744's wing clipped the tail of the 767...the 747 was taxiing around behind the 767...think I heard that on the radio.

Reports on Thursday agreed with that wing tip/tail fin observation. All info seems to have dried up "pending the result of the investigation", with nothing nor being confirmed or denied.

An ATSB spokesman said he could not provide information on the incident until an investigation had occurred.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

It'll come out in the investigation. Wonder what was said on both the coughpit voice recorders... :evil: :shock:

something like

"oopsie - where's the off switch"

 

[NM]

I am still puzzled as to how a 767's wing gets high enough above the ground while taxiing to make contact with a drooping 747 wing. I would have expected the 744 to quite easily pass over the top of a 767 wing unless the contact was much closer to the fuselage than the tips of the wings.

I heard that the 744's wing clipped the tail of the 767...the 747 was taxiing around behind the 767...think I heard that on the radio.

I guess that makes more sense then.

 

[Mal]

This article is the most descriptive one I've seen:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18023740%5E23349,00.html

" The left wing of the Los Angeles-bound jumbo sheered off the tip of the right tail winglet on the Qantas Boeing 767."

 

[knoxd]

I was there..

I was on QF618 and we were delayed by the crash. We rolled past the two planes and the pilot on our flight said

"and there they are, our poor old 767 and the UA 747 clipped wings"

It really didn't look like there was much damage to the 744.. The bent wing tip on the 744 only had parts missing.. not the whole wing tip.

Wish i had a camera on me at the time...