Ryanair ground collision at Stansted

Jack1985

Two Ryanair flights have been involved in a collision at Stansted, those aircraft involved were FR1021 to Warsaw-Modlin (WMI) and FR753 from Frankfurt-Hahn (HHN), the last aircraft is confirmed as reg. EI-ENL.

Skuxx

Between this and the incident in Ciampino a few weeks ago the Boss won't be a happy man!

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/two-ryanair-planes-damaged-in-stansted-collision-634762.html

homerjay2005

thats 3 planes damaged now in over a month, cant imagine MOL being impressed with this one.

Jack1985

More pictures

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

More pictures

Seen it happen before while working in STN, between ground crew not giving a damn as they don't work for Ryanair and the taxi lines being so close with barely any room for error, its bound to happen

Cessna_Pilot

Looks like it happened during push back. This is what happens when you farm out ground handling to the lowest bidder.

There'll be a job going as tug driver/wing walker after this.

Jack1985

To me it looks like the Inbound from HHN (missing the winglet) is on centerline, looks like the parked aircraft is outside the stand marker zone so it could have begun pushback although I doubt he would have been given clearance for a push and start with an inbound taxiing in?

Lapin

The Daily Mail are gonna love this one.

billie1b

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

Looks like it happened during push back. This is what happens when you farm out ground handling to the lowest bidder.

There'll be a job going as tug driver/wing walker after this.

Sorry, deleted my previous post, it did happen on push back, the ground crew were supposedly told by the pilot there wasn't enough space to push but the crew said there was, they proceeded and collided with the inbound taxi-ing, guys wont be sacked though, last time it happened Swissport had a great laugh about it and just shrugged their shoulders.

Jack1985

billie1b wrote: »

Sorry, deleted my previous post, it did happen on push back, the ground crew were supposedly told by the pilot there wasn't enough space to push but the crew said there was, they proceeded and collided with the inbound taxi-ing, guys wont be sacked though, last time it happened Swissport had a great laugh about it and just shrugged their shoulders.

Jesus christ, I'd have my P45 at the end of shift if that was me. Would love to know what's so different with Swissport in STN compared to ORK.

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

Jesus christ, I'd have my P45 at the end of shift if that was me. Would love to know what's so different with Swissport in STN compared to ORK.

Ah Jack, its craziness, a/c being damaged left, right and centre, ground crews not turning up to flights, dispatchers only appearing at pushback time. He never should of sent the contract out, should of left it as Ryanair groundstaff

Cessna_Pilot

"Once company is parked on stand xx you're cleared push and start'. Pilots relay this to the gnd crew and they say yeah yeah its clear despite it not being.

I've experienced this first hand at certain uk airports where the ground crew say theres enough room when clearly there isn't.

Jack1985

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

"Once company is parked on stand xx you're cleared push and start'. Pilots relay this to the gnd crew and they say yeah yeah its clear despite it not being.

I've experienced this first hand at certain uk airports where the ground crew say theres enough room when clearly there isn't.

Could only talk from my previous experience in Cork, but yeah we could get contacted from the crew saying after the company aircraft passes say left to right were cleared to push and start to the North for example, I'd be waiting until the company aircraft was clear and in Cork ffs you could park two 738s behind each other and still have clearance to taxi on the apron. What happened to precaution in the job, crazy it is.

Also I see no reason again here why Ryanair need to be fitting the bill for (I know not confirmed yet) a ground screw up? Does anyone know who ended up paying in Rome a month back?

Jack1985

Ryanair have confirmed the taxiing aircraft was EI-ENL (FR753) from HHN and that EI-DAN (FR1021) to WMI had begun pushback when the collision occurred;

“This morning at London Stansted (28 June) the wing tip and tail cone of two Ryanair aircraft made contact while one aircraft was taxing to stand and the other was commencing pushback from stand.
“Customers were disembarked from both aircraft and our Stansted based engineering team are currently investigating and will repair both aircraft and return them to service as soon as possible.
“We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience to our customers.”

EchoIndia

You might like to check the dictionary definition of "collide", which is typically something like "to crash together with a violent impact". Is that what happened here?

fr336

billie1b wrote: »

Seen it happen before while working in STN, between ground crew not giving a damn as they don't work for Ryanair and the taxi lines being so close with barely any room for error, its bound to happen

I find it funny that given the state the UK and most of the world finds itself in lack of job wise, you could still have muppets who 'don't care' because they aren't directly employed by Ryanair. Or perhaps it's a case of muppets hiring other muppets than the right people for the job? Ah yes sounds familiar...not bitter at all here

markpb

EchoIndia wrote: »

You might like to check the dictionary definition of "collide", which is typically something like "to crash together with a violent impact". Is that what happened here?

It means "to hit when moving" so the OP is perfectly correct.

Cessna_Pilot

Give us all strength...

murphaph

That was clearly a collision.

Skuxx

EchoIndia wrote: »

You might like to check the dictionary definition of "collide", which is typically something like "to crash together with a violent impact". Is that what happened here?

Sorry, your dead right, and obviously much more intelligent then I! What was I thinking!

P_1

The two wings collided if I'm inferring correctly from the photos. MOL will not be a happy bunny I'd imagine. Who'd pick up the tab for this?

beauf

EchoIndia wrote: »

You might like to check the dictionary definition of "collide", which is typically something like "to crash together with a violent impact". Is that what happened here?

Theiyr're collideded.

Lapin

EchoIndia wrote: »

You might like to check the dictionary definition of "collide", which is typically something like "to crash together with a violent impact". Is that what happened here?

Oh for Christ sake.

Strumms

I think you will find they shared a brief and intimate familiarity.

BMJD

[dailymail]If that happened at 80,000 feet, there may have been casualties[/dailymail]

Tropheus

When two things try to be in the same place at the same time it results in something known as a collision.

lord lucan

2 threads merged

mickdw

Much as we know that this is due to carelessness with ground handling, when you have incidents such as this twice in quick succession and when you have idiot newspapers writing sensationalist crap re safety, you will have customers who will think twice about flying Ryanair due to safety fears.
Bottom line - this is not good for business.

fr336

mickdw wrote: »

Much as we know that this is due to carelessness with ground handling, when you have incidents such as this twice in quick succession and when you have idiot newspapers writing sensationalist crap re safety, you will have customers who will think twice about flying Ryanair due to safety fears.
Bottom line - this is not good for business.

To be fair such customers are idiots too. I did wonder when seeing this whether it was just a case of it being reported due to the recent thing in Rome, rather than an astonishing coincidence...posts in here have confirmed it is press jumping on something.

lord lucan

fr336 wrote: »

To be fair such customers are idiots too. I did wonder when seeing this whether it was just a case of it being reported due to the recent thing in Rome, rather than an astonishing coincidence...posts in here have confirmed it is press jumping on something.

In fairness the vast majority of pax don't understand or have much interest in aviation and only read what's reported. If they read that 2 FR aircraft collided,which is what happened,that will raise a flag in their head. Only Avgeeks are interested in the minutiae of what happened and why it happened.

Everything is reported these days no matter what the airline. My Twitter feed is full every day of the weird and wonderful from the aviation world,all airlines,all aircraft. Some print media have an axe to grind with certain airlines,it's the way of the world. FR and MO'L can take some of the blame for that themselves for their previously abrasive and antagonistic relationship with them.

fr336

Read better newspapers then. And if there's none substantial quality wise, do your own 5 minute piece of research :pac:

FR and MO'L could have been many things towards customers in the past. The only thing required to know safety wise is an unblemished 29 year safety record...MO'L can go on and on about how highly he rates safety, but this fact speaks for itself.

mickdw

fr336 wrote: »

To be fair such customers are idiots too. I did wonder when seeing this whether it was just a case of it being reported due to the recent thing in Rome, rather than an astonishing coincidence...posts in here have confirmed it is press jumping on something.

Idiots or not they are possible lost customers.
It's a dangerous game to be playing as an airline. Having these grounds handling issues likely due to outsourcing / cost cutting doesn't give them much wiggle room when things go wrong.

fr336

mickdw wrote: »

Idiots or not they are possible lost customers.
It's a dangerous game to be playing as an airline. Having these grounds handling issues likely due to outsourcing / cost cutting doesn't give them much wiggle room when things go wrong.

Agreed. But it's not like FR do this just because...their whole model is price - reductions to get prices down don't just happen accidently.

beauf

mickdw wrote: »

Idiots or not they are possible lost customers.
It's a dangerous game to be playing as an airline. Having these grounds handling issues likely due to outsourcing / cost cutting doesn't give them much wiggle room when things go wrong.

If you have some statistics on a pattern of accidents, on the ground, across airlines as a % of the number of aircraft an airline has then please share them. Even better if it factors in outsourcing and cost cutting as a factor.

http://www.herald.ie/news/student-halts-aer-lingus-jet-after-spotting-cracked-wing-27898276.html

I'm guessing its not that uncommon. As some who's interesting in aviation, civilian and military you read and hear a lot about accidents. They just 99% of the time don't make the mainstream media. As usually they don't impact on people.

I'm not a fan of Ryanair, but I'm even less a fan of the press.

Tenger

BMJD wrote: »

[dailymail]If that happened at 80,000 feet, there may have been casualties, Says Jeff (Age 38 from Scunthorpe) [/dailymail]

Fixed that for ya

Bongalongherb

This is what cut-backs do, they create a chaotic situation. Just like the one in a storm at Dublin airport when they took instantaneous wind/gust report technology away from Dublin ATC... causing pilots to be worried about wind-gusts on approach to landing... Pilots have to wait for two minutes to hear what the gusts are. A safety issue indeed, but cut-backs seem to be more important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhY7H4TuzQI

Jack1985

Bongalongherb wrote: »

This is what cut-backs do, they create a chaotic situation. Just like the one in a storm at Dublin airport when they took instantaneous wind/gust report technology away from Dublin ATC... causing pilots to be worried about wind-gusts on approach to landing... Pilots have to wait for two minutes to hear what the gusts are. A safety issue indeed, but cut-backs seem to be more important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhY7H4TuzQI

Are you sure that's correct? I only say that because I remember an EI pilot saying to ATC at DUB "time to update the equipment" and the ATCO replied "yeah for sure unfortunately I'm not in charge of the budget" - the impression I got from that was simply nobody in the IAA invested in new technology for determining wind gusts?

Bongalongherb

Jack1985 wrote: »

Are you sure that's correct? I only say that because I remember an EI pilot saying to ATC at DUB "time to update the equipment" and the ATCO replied "yeah for sure unfortunately I'm not in charge of the budget" - the impression I got from that was simply nobody in the IAA invested in new technology for determining wind gusts?

If you listen carefully, the guy at ground control said, we used to have instantaneous but it's taken away from us. that is their words recorded live in the storm last winter.So they did have instantaneous, but it was taken away from them.

The words above are correct.

Jack1985

Bongalongherb wrote: »

If you listen carefully, the guy at ground control said, we used to have instantaneous but it's taken away from us. that is their words recorded live in the storm last winter.So they did have instantaneous, but it was taken away from them.

The words above are correct.

Jaysus, not like the IAA to install new technology and revert! Very surprising.

Bongalongherb

Jack1985 wrote: »

Jaysus, not like the IAA to install new technology and revert! Very surprising.

It's crazy in my opinion to cut-back on something like that, but we don't get many bad storms in all fairness, but in saying this, it is important for flight safety, and should be there for when pilots and ATC need it. Cutting back on this important technology and information for pilots is not a good route to take IMO.

I would never have known this only for the reason I recorded this once off in the last bad storm. I'm sure not many even know this is the case today except ATC.

Anyway, I think ATC Dublin and other Irish airports should be given back this important technology/information for pilots because it will add that bit more safety and security to pilots while landing in extreme conditions. There is no excuse not to.

Lapin

lord lucan wrote: »

2 threads merged collided

smurfjed

The only thing required to know safety wise is an unblemished 29 year safety record.

I thought that they had a number of incidents such as an aircraft going off a taxiway, aircraft hitting another aircraft and a crazy approach into a German airport.

fr336

smurfjed wrote: »

I thought that they had a number of incidents such as an aircraft going off a taxiway, aircraft hitting another aircraft and a crazy approach into a German airport.

Not sure if these happened but in 29 years I wouldn't be surprised, and what's to say any were FR's fault? Add to that the fact the same kind of thing has more than very likely happened with all other operators too within the timeframe. I was talking about fatal or major crashes..Ryanair have never crashed. They've had ONE write off due to major bird strikes at an airport in Italy which should have done more to stop such activity.

smurfjed

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php You will find those events listed here, but considering that they operate 300 aircraft into some obscure airports, their record is incredible.

fr336

smurfjed wrote: »

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php You will find those events listed here, but considering that they operate 300 aircraft into some obscure airports, their record is incredible.

Indeed, almost as if they make safety their top priority

BMJD

Bongalongherb wrote: »

If you listen carefully, the guy at ground control said, we used to have instantaneous but it's taken away from us. that is their words recorded live in the storm last winter.So they did have instantaneous, but it was taken away from them.

The words above are correct.

That's not quite how it works. They have Vaisala wind equipment in ATC, which is owned and maintained by Met Eireann. The wind direction and speed is displayed as the 2 minute average, it is possible to display it instantaneously but the nature of weather means that this would give spurious (and therefore dangerous!) figures. For example, in a storm, wind is naturally going to be gusty, so one second it would read, for example, 200 degrees, 15 knots; 10 seconds later it could be 240 25 kt - it has to be averaged or else you'd be giving pilots mad numbers.

I believe that the facility to switch to instantaneous readings was removed for the above reasons.

In any case, the gust figure displayed is the maximum gust over the previous 10 minutes, and is updated instantly if the previous max is exceeded.

These figures are all measured by anemometer, of which there are at least 2 in major Irish airports, as per ICAO regulations; they are also ISO certified.

Therefore, this has nothing to do with cutbacks, in my opinion

Bongalongherb

BMJD wrote: »

That's not quite how it works. They have Vaisala wind equipment in ATC, which is owned and maintained by Met Eireann. The wind direction and speed is displayed as the 2 minute average, it is possible to display it instantaneously but the nature of weather means that this would give spurious (and therefore dangerous!) figures. For example, in a storm, wind is naturally going to be gusty, so one second it would read, for example, 200 degrees, 15 knots; 10 seconds later it could be 240 25 kt - it has to be averaged or else you'd be giving pilots mad numbers.

I believe that the facility to switch to instantaneous readings was removed for the above reasons.

In any case, the gust figure displayed is the maximum gust over the previous 10 minutes, and is updated instantly if the previous max is exceeded.

These figures are all measured by anemometer, of which there are at least 2 in major Irish airports, as per ICAO regulations; they are also ISO certified.

Therefore, this has nothing to do with cutbacks, in my opinion

I understand your point, but obviously the pilot was worried regarding no instantaneous reports... As the pilot says, when you listen to him he says... 'Ok, that's the sort of catch here'. So obviously the pilot wanted this instantaneous information but it was not available to him.

From what I gathered regarding cutbacks in the voice recording, ground told the pilot that 'we used to have instantaneous but it's taken away from us'. This to me sounds like cutbacks regarding the availability of said instantaneous reports. Just my opinion.

markpb

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I understand your point, but obviously the pilot was worried regarding no instantaneous reports... As the pilot says, when you listen to him he says... 'Ok, that's the sort of catch here'. So obviously the pilot wanted this instantaneous information but it was not available to him.

From what I gathered regarding cutbacks in the voice recording, ground told the pilot that 'we used to have instantaneous but it's taken away from us'. This to me sounds like cutbacks regarding the availability of said instantaneous reports. Just my opinion.

It was the pilots opinion too and I'm sure pilots are almost as prone to gossip as the rest of us.

A change in technology and standards doesn't equally COST CUTTING. Just because the ATCO says it was taken away doesn't mean it's a cost cutting measure, it just means that facility is no longer available.

If I upgrade my car and the old one had cruise control but the new one doesn't but the new car was more expensive does it mean it was cost cutting ?

I agree a "near instantaneous" wind read out should be available but averaged over say 10 seconds. Like previous posters have said wind can be erratic at times blowing from one direction and the next at different strengths, having an instantaneous wind readout available would mean a lot of RT and a lot of information being passed leading possibly to information overload and the wrong decisions being made.

But what has this got to do with two Ryanairs touching each other at Stansted?