"Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" - The AC Master Incidents Thread
May 10, 2019, 8:59 am
#4067
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,226
May 10, 2019, 9:00 am
#4068
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: YEG
Posts: 3,925
AC8615 (YYZ-YSB) returned to YYZ due to weather. Upon taxiing to the gate it was hit by a Menzies fuel truck. 5 people injured (including all 3 crew) and the driver of the truck has been charged with dangerous driving.
Aircraft involved was a DH3 C-FJXZ
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...sion-1.5130624
Aircraft involved was a DH3 C-FJXZ
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...sion-1.5130624
The collision occurred around 1:36 a.m. ET Friday as Flight 8615 was taxiing to a gate in Terminal 1 with 51 passengers aboard.
According to Peel Regional Police Sgt. Bancroft Wright, the tanker truck struck the plane and the driver has been charged with dangerous operation of a vehicle under the federal Aviation Act.
"The plane was pretty much written off," Wright told CBC Toronto.
"The plane was pretty much written off," Wright told CBC Toronto.
If AC will actually be 1 aircraft short in the fleet, the timing sucks with the 7M8 groundings, etc.
Although this could have been catastrophic. Imagine if the fuel tank on the tanker truck had ruptured...
May 10, 2019, 9:12 am
#4070
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 669
Not sure if this is sloppy reporting, etc...
51 pax on a DH3?
How would Sgt. Wright know that the plane was a write off? Looks like body damage near the stairs and possible propeller damage. Is this the aircraft equivalent of a fender bender? Maybe due to the age of the plane it isn't worth replacing, but wouldn't a full assessment and quote be needed to make this determination
...
51 pax on a DH3?
How would Sgt. Wright know that the plane was a write off? Looks like body damage near the stairs and possible propeller damage. Is this the aircraft equivalent of a fender bender? Maybe due to the age of the plane it isn't worth replacing, but wouldn't a full assessment and quote be needed to make this determination
...
May 10, 2019, 9:16 am
#4071
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
Not sure if this is sloppy reporting, etc...
51 pax on a DH3?
How would Sgt. Wright know that the plane was a write off? Looks like body damage near the stairs and possible propeller damage. Is this the aircraft equivalent of a fender bender? Maybe due to the age of the plane it isn't worth replacing, but wouldn't a full assessment and quote be needed to make this determination?
If AC will actually be 1 aircraft short in the fleet, the timing sucks with the 7M8 groundings, etc.
Although this could have been catastrophic. Imagine if the fuel tank on the tanker truck had ruptured...
51 pax on a DH3?
How would Sgt. Wright know that the plane was a write off? Looks like body damage near the stairs and possible propeller damage. Is this the aircraft equivalent of a fender bender? Maybe due to the age of the plane it isn't worth replacing, but wouldn't a full assessment and quote be needed to make this determination?
If AC will actually be 1 aircraft short in the fleet, the timing sucks with the 7M8 groundings, etc.
Although this could have been catastrophic. Imagine if the fuel tank on the tanker truck had ruptured...
(I had the exact same thoughts as you when reading the article)
May 10, 2019, 10:35 am
#4072
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,324
I think the most interesting part of that story is the charge of "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle". We've seen a few airside collisions in this thread, but I don't think any ever resulted in criminal charges.
May 10, 2019, 11:29 am
#4073
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Delta, BC
Posts: 1,646
Not sure what he was actually charged with. The article states "dangerous operation of a vehicle under the federal Aviation Act" but there is no "Aviation Act", there is an Aeronautics Act and it doesn't contain "dangerous operation of a vehicle" clause that I could find.
May 10, 2019, 11:31 am
#4074
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
Appreciate you thinking about my well being^
May 10, 2019, 11:56 am
#4075
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,324
Not sure what he was actually charged with. The article states "dangerous operation of a vehicle under the federal Aviation Act" but there is no "Aviation Act", there is an Aeronautics Act and it doesn't contain "dangerous operation of a vehicle" clause that I could find.
I assumed that was just the Criminal Code offense.
May 10, 2019, 1:11 pm
#4077
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
May 10, 2019, 1:19 pm
#4078
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
lol btw just wrect ac dh3 fml brb!
(too soon?)
Yes, illegal in Ontario, as part of the HTA.
(too soon?)
Yes, illegal in Ontario, as part of the HTA.
May 10, 2019, 11:18 pm
#4079
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,919
Not sure what he was actually charged with. The article states "dangerous operation of a vehicle under the federal Aviation Act" but there is no "Aviation Act", there is an Aeronautics Act and it doesn't contain "dangerous operation of a vehicle" clause that I could find.
35 No person shall drive a motor vehicle on an apron or manoeuvring area in a manner that is dangerous to persons, aircraft, vehicles or equipment, having regard to all the circumstances including the amount of traffic thereon or reasonably expected to be thereon.
I have highlighted the word dangerous. Technically, if the driver was charged under this section, then the term dangerous is reasonable.
And while the term Aviation Act is not correct, Transport Canada is the legal owner of Pearson international, so I can see why someone could be confused and mix up the reference.
In reading the enforcement provisions, they are rather toothless, so the accused isn't going to be sweating too much.If convicted there is no provision for demerit points and the only prohibition that can be imposed is a forbidding to drive on government property for up to a year. The penalty also allows for the fines under the applicable Ontario road regulations and at worse, imprisonment of up to 6 months.
In respect to the aircraft, I will not be surprised if this is a constructive total loss. The impact tore into the flight deck. The force was such that both vehicle and aircraft spun with the fuel truck then hitting the propeller, implicating the engine and wing, and then hitting the rear of the aircraft. Tom Podelec's twitter feed has some horrifying photos. It is understandable why the pilots and front FA would have sustained their injuries. I don't think anyone would want to fly on a small aircraft which has suffered this type of extensive structural damage.
For there to be a charge this fast, there must have been some compelling evidence. Considering the inferno that we just saw in Russia, it would not be an unreasonable expectation if crew and some pax wished to have a "word" in private with the truck driver.