Ryanair in ground collision with AA in Barcelona

[Passion for flying]

Yesterday Norwegian paper Dagbladet published information regarding a ground (taxi) collision between a Ryanair 738 and an AA 767 at Barcelona.

Despite Ryanair pax notifying the cabin crew of the occurrence the information did not reach the cockpit (the pilots apparently unaware that they hit something). Damage: Ryanair, winglet clipped off, AA, tailplane gashed approx ½ft.

Both airplanes took off to their respective destinations. The damage to the 767 was found at arrival in USA. The Ryanair 738 made the return flight from Ibiza to Barcelona before it dawned on the crew that parts of their airplane was missing.

Now,

What is the crew culture aboard Ryanair, when there is information regarding serious matters from the pax? Just hush it up, if we tell cockpit they will be upset, and if indeed the pax is correct, then we will be delayed, and consequently will be punished for not operating on time and making profit? hmmm

What about the walkaround that should have preceded the takeoff from Ibiza? "skipped that one, had to depart on time?" or "we have no ops at Ibiza so if we ground the a/c here it will be a more expensive fix?" "Unfortunately missed to see one winglet missing, mate"

How is it possible that the ground crew at Barcelona missed to see the winglet on the tarmac, below the 767 tail?

One wonders why the AA crew did not notice (at their walkaround) the half-foot gash in the horizontal tailplane.

Is the industry becoming complacent, or too focused on profit?
Should we worry that the ops procedures (in general, out there) are not good enough to maintain air safety?

Are the airports becoming too congested, using the available tarmac beyond 100%

I am sure the forum will have opinions on this one

[Gabriel]

Things are worse than that in some aspects, and not so bad in others.

There is very good info about this accident in AvHerald (as always):

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45363621&opt=0

Key points:

- Several passengers stood up to tell the FA about the collision.
- The FA relayed that info to the flight deck.
- The flight deck replied that everything was Ok, and the FA relayed that to the passengers.
- Some passengers were not happy, and kept telling the FA that it was not safe to keep going. One passenger identified himself as an engineer (I'm not sure what's the value of that, as if an engineer was better than anybody else to positively identify a collision, but it looks "important" in the article) and he kept insisting that the plane should return and land ASAP.
- But the FAs didn't relay any more info to the flight crew.
- During the stop-over, the walk around (if there was one) didn't detect anything.
- It must be said, though, that the visible damage to the Ryanair 737 was minimal. Just some scratches in the upper part of the winglet. Not something obvious to detect in a walk-around. See photos on AvHerald.
- After returning to Ibiza, only then the FA told the flight crew about the insistence of the passengers and about the one that was an engineer. Then the flight crew checked and saw the damage.

On the AA side:

- The Ryanair plane was not visible to the pilots and passengers as it was taxiing behind them.
- Nobody felt anything (a noise, an impact).
- The airplane behaved normally in flight.
- When they landed in USA, they found the elevator SEVERLY damaged. See photos on AvHerald.

Regarding the usage of tarmac beyond 100%, the runway in use had multiple parallel hold-short points. AA was holding short at the first one and Ryanair was cleared to taxi to the next one.

It was identified that AA was holding well short of the hold-short line. The authorities found that as a factor but considrred that as a good practice as to keep the hold-short line in sight ahead of the plane. They recommended that the limitations of that taxiway and holding points be reassessed.

The crew of the Ryanair plane was very concerned with the possibility of hitting the AA plane as they taxied behind it. The captain told the FO to look at the wingtip and make sure that they would not hit. They taxied a bit off the yellow line to make more room. At some point the FO told the captain that they were very close so they stopped and the captain rose to look through the FO's window and was surprised by the short distance, but the FO assured that they had not make contact. That's when the FA called the cockpit with a single chime (company procedures require three chimes when there is a problem) and started with "for your information", thus hiding the severity of the problem. The captain thought that it had been just one passenger who thought they had contacted the other plane, and since they had been so closely monitoring the situation they underestimated the comment. The Spanish authorities recommended Ryanair to review their cabin-cockpit coms, especially regarding to safety.

My opinion? If the FA told me that she casually heard one passenger commenting to another one that he thought we might have hit the other plane, I stop, relay the info to the ATC so they can relay it to the other plane, and check my own plane. I don't want to risk neither dying nor seeing the other plane crash on their take-off because I thought the passenger was wrong. This is a good example of "better safe than sorry".

[Passion for flying]

Hi Gabriel,

I read the article in AvHerald, and yes the damage to the winglet appears to be minimal, however the 767 would surely have been grounded if its damage had been identified properly (if the cabin communications principles of Ryanair had been in order)

So, here we are, close enough to disaster to be concerned.

Maybe the "hold short" procedure at Barcelona is not good. Obviously, it means that an aircraft large enough will overhang the taxiway, and compromise safety.

EVEN if the Ryanair captain felt that THEIR aircraft was safe to fly (how does one judge that on a damage to the right wing, from the left seat in a 737 cockpit? Acrobatics? she should have been concerned over what damage they made to the other aircraft. A consciencious captain should have either i) handed over flying to the first officer and gone to the cabin to see for herself, or ii) sent the first officer to do same. Doing neither could indicate that the captain was so sure she could not have made that mistake. hmmm

The conclusions by CIAIAC seem appropriate. Review the taxiway limitations, and tell Ryanair to take a look at their cabin comms principles. Everybody involved got away with a slap on the wrist.

One wonders what the repercussions would have been if the AA 'plane had lost one of its rudder surfaces (or parts of it) in-flight, made it "by the skin of their teeth" to a safe landing /or/ crashed due to control issues with a damaged or jammed rudder surface. The latter seems unlikely under the current circumstances, but another inch cut into the surface may have yielded a different outcome. Maybe the investigation and its conclusions are blunted by the lucky outcome.

Compare the legal repercussions of the Concorde crash in Gonesse, where Continental Airlines was blamed for having caused the crash by dropping a piece of metal on the runway. The metal strip was not picked up, as the pre-Concorde-takeoff runway inspection was never executed. (lack of adherence to protocol on the part of the airport)

[Peter Kesternich]

A couple of years ago, I photographed a British Airways A319 with one wingtip fence missing. I am curious, if the loss of a winglet grounds a 737 or can it continue flying (provided there is no damage to any parts affecting the fligth controls, hydraulics or electrics)?

[Roy C]

The a/c can fly without Winglets but they are replaced by "normal" wing tips, if it was weaked and broke off in flight, anything could have happened including what it hit on the ground. to be honest as an aircraft enginner myself I find the captains attitude to the a/c safety and the AA767 safety as total unacceptable and i imagine so will the CAA.

[UncleFire]

Sheesh.. That AA flight should have been grounded.

Separate question. What are the "things" pointing backwards from the horiz stabilizer? Are those antennas?

I've wondered what those "antenna" looking things are from the stabilizer and some on the wings too on various a/c.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Passion for flying

EVEN if the Ryanair captain felt that THEIR aircraft was safe to fly (how does one judge that on a damage to the right wing, from the left seat in a 737 cockpit? Acrobatics?...

She didn't judge that the plane was safe to fly with such little damage on the winglet. She judged that there had been no collision and hence no damage.

... she should have been concerned over what damage they made to the other aircraft.

Same as before. No collision = no damage.

Oh, and it was the elevator, not the rudder, what got damaged in the AA 767. Not that it changes anything, of course.

Originally Posted by UncleFire

Separate question. What are the "things" pointing backwards from the horiz stabilizer? Are those antennas?

I think they are static discharge wicks.

[Evan]

One hopes the Ryanair pilot will be charged with HIT AND RUN and grounded and retrained. There is a serious cultural deficiency there. There is no way to assess the damage to BOTH aircraft without a walkaround. Any collision, ANY minor scratch needs to be assessed before the plane can be considered airworthy. Good god, we have a regulatory problem to address with regard to pilot training and safety culture. Also, the cockpit gradient continues to cripple communication. Any FA should be able to voice concern without hesitation, and any serious passenger concern should be investigated.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Evan

One hopes the Ryanair pilot will be charged with HIT AND RUN and grounded and retrained. There is a serious cultural deficiency there.

Yes, but...

There is no way to assess the damage to BOTH aircraft without a walkaround. Any collision, ANY minor scratch needs to be assessed before the plane can be considered airworthy.

Yes, but again the pilot considered that there had been no collision, so there could be no scratch or damage.

Good god, we have a regulatory problem to address with regard to pilot training and safety culture. Also, the cockpit gradient continues to cripple communication. Any FA should be able to voice concern without hesitation, and any serious passenger concern should be investigated.

And I'd add that the pilot should be a "pessimistic" thinker. Only one chime (not three as required for a problem) and the FA saying "For your information, one passenger thinks that we hit the other plane" (instead of "there is a dozen of passengers here insisting that we hit the other plane and that we don't take-off and we stop the other plane too") should be taken as "we hit the other plane, there is severe damage in both, and all on board these two planes will die unless we stop them", until proved otherwise.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

And I'd add that the pilot should be a "pessimistic" thinker. Only one chime (not three as required for a problem) and the FA saying "For your information, one passenger thinks that we hit the other plane" (instead of "there is a dozen of passengers here insisting that we hit the other plane and that we don't take-off and we stop the other plane too") should be taken as "we hit the other plane, there is severe damage in both, and all on board these two planes will die unless we stop them", until proved otherwise.

ABSOLUTELY! YES!

1) they were too close to proceed with the turn and should have radioed the ground controller to move up the 767 before proceeding (aren't there regulations concerning proximity on the ground?).

2) so they were well aware of the possibility of a collision

3) then they get a message from a FA saying there may have been a collision (regardless of how that message is delivered), and that a pax with a much better view of the situation claims to have witnessed that collision.

4) you:

a) check it out, or
b) say, naw, probably didn't hit it, and blindly let both flight proceed on that assumption.

Tell me which one you would choose.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Evan

ABSOLUTELY! YES!

[...]

4) you:

a) check it out, or
b) say, naw, probably didn't hit it, and blindly let both flight proceed on that assumption.

Tell me which one you would choose.

I don't understand your post. You are saying the same that I did and are asking me a question that I have already answered before your question?

You didn't take my previous post as sarcastic or ironic, did you?
It was literal, word by word.

Pilots should be pessimistic thinkers.
"Better safe than sorry"
"If you think it's safe, it's not safe until you verified it and you are sure it's safe"
"We work for the best but prepare as if the worst would come"
"The engine will fail at V1 until proved otherwise by not failing"
"Every approach will end in a go-around, unless it doesn't"

... are some of the pessimistic mottoes used in aviation.

So "we hit the other plane, there is severe damage in both, and all on board these two planes will die unless we stop them, until proved otherwise" seamed very appropriate for this situation.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

You didn't take my previous post as sarcastic or ironic, did you?
It was literal, word by word.

°
It's a sarcastic forum, so I had my suspicions.

Is it even possible to see the wingtip from the 738 cockpit?

This is what I get from the Boeing manuals (I added the red line at 140°, which is indicated on the Boeing specs. I imagine getting up and far forward might get you a bit more angle, but how much, really?

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Evan

Is it even possible to see the wingtip from the 738 cockpit?

This is what I get from the Boeing manuals (I added the red line at 140°, which is indicated on the Boeing specs. I imagine getting up and far forward might get you a bit more angle, but how much, really?

I really don't know, but I guess quite a bit.
Look how it increased 7° (from 133 to 140°) just by moving the head 5 inches to the side. Move it 15 inches out and another 15 inches forward and you'd get a lot of "leverage".

[Passion for flying]

[quote=Gabriel;599233]She didn't judge that the plane was safe to fly with such little damage on the winglet. She judged that there had been no collision and hence no damage.

Same as before. No collision = no damage.

Well, she had the information from the cabin, right? So, ignore or take seriously, that is the question....culture, as stated in several posts.

[quote=Gabriel;599233] Oh, and it was the elevator, not the rudder, what got damaged in the AA 767. Not that it changes anything, of course.

Yep, I realised the mis-write, but was too lazy to correct it.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Passion for flying

Well, she had the information from the cabin, right? So, ignore or take seriously, that is the question....culture.

Exactly. The thing is not that they did or didn't check the extent of the damage. It's that they didn't even consider the possibility of the colision, let alone damage, even with the clues they had.

[UncleFire]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

I think they are static discharge wicks.

Ah yes, indeed they are. I googled and found pics. Thanks.