Ground towing collision at Avalon
 

Reports on Radio 5AA that an aircraft being towed at Avalon has collided with another.

One is a Qantas aircraft and the other unknown.

a/c is VH-OJK, the Manila a/c.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...77-661,00.html

Herald sun report:
Might go out tommorow to have a look

What are the odds, they are probably the only two aircraft down there except for EBU!

Umm...qf might just want to look at selling OJK.

i swear it's cursed!

QF in the news for all the wrong reasons again.

On the news they showed a GE 747, I think an -ER

was that the other aircraft?

From looking at the images on the news, looks as though its damage to the randome on one, and damage to the left leading edge slats near the winglet on the other.

Ah - the worlds most experienced airline!

another reason why maintenece should be sent off-shore for better quality;)

I saw the same news images. How the ?!*?! can you tow a 747 head on into another aircraft, or tow another aircraft so that its wing whacks another aircraft head on the nose?

It has to be rotten luck for Qantas on any objective view - they can't take a trick lately and have muted a lot of the marketing momentum that they could otherwise have expected from the A380 inaugural services.

No doubt Lindsay Fox will be hearing some choice language from Alan Joyce ...

Obviously a misjudgment by the tug driver on how close the wing was, would have thought though there may have been someone 'marshalling' when towing in such close proximty to another aircraft.

Would have a ground engineer been plugged in possibly???

I dont think Joyce can say much to Fox unless Fox was driving the tug.

How will the journo's get the "passengers feared for their lives" line into into this story?

I'd be selling OJH before OJK (Bangkok incident) ;)

I guess QF must have outsourced the tug driving contract.;)

MS

Last week or this week Mike?;)

Yeh, can't win a trick in 2008! Imagine the paperwork that has to follow an incident like this, here are some stills...

appears from the photos that the other aircraft involved was vh-ojm

A real nice insurance claim there and looks close enough for a boeing crash crew call out. Looks to be a fair amount of damage to VH-OJM wing.

Looks like OJK was the 'innocent' one this time around. As I said in a previous post, surprised they didnt have a marshaller or ground engineer keeping an eye on the tow when they knew it was within close proximity to another aircraft.

OJM? Wasn't that the bird involved in the incident into BKK earlier this year where it lost all power? Dodgy drip tray was the cause?

Bad luck for both birds...I'd be getting ride of them both!

Cheers

M

I thought the same (OJK innocent) when I saw the TV report. It appeared to be parked with it's tail at the end of the tramac with OJM being towed past... well almost past :eek:

Mark,
I believe OJM "City of Gosford" was also involved in an engine surge incident back in early 2007 after which it returned to Sydney about 20 minutes after takeoff to LAX. Remember the forum members interviewed on that incident- classic- Beau Chenery it was if i remember correctly.

Bad luck indeed for these two.

What the ...
 

Well, not even "almost" - the leading edge of OJM's wing hit OJK's radome pretty squarely. In my opinion, just based on the few pics that have been published, this is more than a slight misjudgement. What track could the tug have followed in relation to OJK to have achieved this outcome, even if it had started a sharp right turn?

Let's wait for the investigation to run its course, and then all will be revealed.

A couple of different senarios OJK wasnt parked on its correct line and was too close to the taxiway, or OJM wasnt being towed down the centreline of the taxiway.

So it was -OJM in that engine surge incident, I thought it was an ER

I remember that on the news, an American woman crying saying she feared for her life...as always

Hi Jack,

Here is link. Was definitely OJM.

http://atsb.gov.au/publications/inve...200700356.aspx

This is the incident I was thinking of. Poor OJM has not had a good 20 months

http://atsb.gov.au/publications/inve...200800003.aspx

Cheers

M

bye bye OJH, OJK and OJM perhaps?

Some of Qantas 744's are getting very old. I know it's all related to A380 delays but Qantas really should of ordered 777's

Towing of aircraft is not a very easy task in itself either. Mistakes happen. They're certainly not the first to break an aircraft because of a towing mishap.

Mick

Those three aircraft were manufactured in 1990/1991. Since when is that old? For some reason, if an aircraft is over 10 years old people think it is 'old'.

18 years...

For a first rate, world class airline like Qantas-thats old

I know they aren't the only airline stuck with old 744's.

The -ER's certainly aren't old, and I think there may be 1 or 2 RR's that are fairly new too, but -OJA is from 1989!

Anyway, I just think Qantas should of ordered 777's, and I think they still should. A380's don't suit routes like Sydney-Buenos Aires, Sydney-Joh'burg

And who knows how long they will have to wait on 787's

That's the million dollar question- why they haven't ordered 777's as some might remember they were initially poised to be the 777 launch customer and then pulled out. We have seen the Asian airlines and middle eastern such as EK, SIA, cathay operate extremely successfully and efficiently with 773's and 772's and now with the LR'S, it was just extremely poor decision making not to order the 777's.

I think the decision making is perhaps best described back in 2002 when QF ordered the a330-200's for domestic routes, and retrofitted gates with 2 aerobridges yet it was slow as to turn these planes around on like SYD-MEL and then they realized they couldnt even put skybed in as floors weren't strong enough- hence them going to JQ intl.
It's moves like this that makes me wonder sometimes.

I'm not trying to inflame Qantas, as many know I have great admiration for them, I just think the decision making of fleet manager/whoever else could have been wiser.

Well said Matt_L, couldn't of said it better myself.

Their upper management have made some really questionable decisions the last few years like buying 'base version/poverty pack' A332's as you have already mentioned.

A few other examples that spring to mind are: Why is a world class airline still flying B743's (and yes I know they are going to be phased out at the end of the year) but they are still doing MEL-AKL-LAX duties. EBJ and EBK flying domestically whilst B763's still flying Internationally. The lack of IFE/PTV's in EBJ and EBK.

B777's 'would' of been perfect for QF.

I wish QF would follow and convert some of the older B744's to BCF's and operate freighters in their own colours.

Neither do 777s as both of these routes have sections outside of 207 minute ETOPS.

Thinking about 777, yes it should have been in the fleet long before.

About A330, well, it is the only type of airplane that all 6 Skytrax 5-star airlines (Asiana, Cathay, Kingfisher, Malaysia, Qatar, Singapore Airlines) operate, don't know for what reason. But all i know is that A330-200 is the best Airbus product that when compared to Boeing's, it is superior all in all. Boeing 777-200ER is super in its class, 777-200LR would soon be dead by 787, and Boeing 777-300ER has no match in its payload, range, and efficiency altogether.

On topic: should we believe in superstition? And age would not cause a thing as long as the maintenance is good. Let the economic factor decide for its retirement.

Yes, 777-300ER is the perfect replacement for 747-400, not A380.

As Nathan has said above the 777 is limited in some areas due to ETOPS, which does not effect the A380 or A340 for that matter. The 777 could certainly replace the 744 in some areas, but not on all routes for the above reasons.

The A380 in my mind is a brilliant replacement for the 744 and brings a new era of flying with it. It certainly offers Qantas more flexibility than a 777 would offer in terms of configuration, loads, routes etc without having more aircraft types in the fleet which creates headaches for all concerned.

On topic - aircraft have their own traits/issues from rego number to rego number. Both aircraft involved have had some bad luck but given their high utilisation rate, you'd exect the same rego to occasionally creep into incidents. Age has nothing to do with aircraft being problematic - good maintenance and quality control are more important in this area.

I'm constantly mystified as to why people think an 'old' aeroplane is no good.
If they are maintained correctly they are very nearly as good as a brand-new one.
As for the 747-300's being 'too old', I might remind you all that they are basically the same plane as a -400, just older avionics, engines, and slightly less efficient aerodynamics. When you take lease costs into account, a Classic can often be cheaper to run than a newer -400.

743 - Because they have no other planes to operate the routes until 2 more A380's come along in December. Also because Qantas can get away with it

B777's would have been nice but too late now to worry about that it's all about B787/A350 now!

Without thinking too much on a Saturday, The 777-200 wouldn't be that useful for Qantas. The 777-300ER and the 777-200LR would be better suited, however

777-200LR - Only entered into service in 2006
777-300ER - Only entered into service in 2004

Even if QF did get these they would have problems operating the Australia-USA routes, where a current 744 or 744ER can go on the Kangaroo OR Pacific routes without too many problems, except the ER is better for the MEL-LAX route and is already a subfleet in QF.

Either way, too late now!

So any updates on re-entry into service dates for the Avalon birds! Where are they resting now ? Hangars ?