AC Jazz Collides With Fuel Truck (YYZ)


Recommended Posts

Here’s my thoughts; fuel truck was travelling in same direction as Dash8 off the left wing.   Fuel truck decides to make a right turn directly into the nose section of the Dash8 (based on truck damage to the cage on right side of cab).

Dash8 was still moving forward, it spun the truck around 180* under the wing close enough to damage the #1 prop.  I didn’t see the prop damage until the latest photos.  I don’t make a habit of speculation but am trying to figure out the physics involved in this incident.

I can’t imagine what the crew saw or experienced when this happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

I don't understand the geometry of the damage. Huge impact vicinity nose landing gear; truck at rest with severe aft fuselage damage, same side. Did fuel truck run into nose then get spun around to hit the aft fuselage?

Apparently that is what happened Moon. Fuel truck smacked the left nose, the Dash8 spun around clockwise while the truck stayed put as the prop and wing passed over the truck with the Dash8 meeting it again at the aft cargo door. 

I don’t think you could repeat this if you tried.....

Edited by blues deville
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, conehead said:

Any news on the crew?  Hope they’re ok, I hear the Captain is still in hospital with injuries...

Press says..... 3 crew and 2 pax went to hospital

Press says ....all five injured have been released

Press says..... 4 released, one passenger still in hospital

Your source.... says  pilot in hospital 

Trumps says....  " the accident never happened, there was no 'collision' between the truck and the aircraft......just another example of fake news",

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 10:09 PM, Tango Foxtrot said:

Fin 326. Yes it is a 311. Not yet due for the 80,000 km check. I am guessing it will live on. That is a mere flesh wound on the mighty Dash.

image.png.8ccc8d99a0bf069c30531c91137cd96d.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Summary

On 10 May 2019, at 0133 Eastern Daylight Time, during the hours of darkness, a de Havilland DHC-8-311 aircraft (registration C-FJXZ, serial number 264), operated by Jazz Aviation LP as flight JZA8615, and a Rampstar fuel tanker, operated by Menzies Aviation, collided on the apron at the Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Ontario. The aircraft was carrying 52 passengers, 3 of whom were infants. In addition, there were 3 crew members and 1 person occupying the flight deck observer seat. The passengers and crew evacuated the aircraft and were guided to the terminal building by the first responders, who included airport officials and aircraft rescue and fire-fighting service personnel. There was no fire and no fuel spillage. The emergency locator transmitter did not activate following the collision. There were 15 minor injuries reported, including 1 infant and 1 crew member.

Link to the lengthy TSB report: https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2019/a19o0063/a19o0063.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

‘ESCALATING THE PANIC’: Passengers threatened crew after Toronto plane crash, safety board says

From Toronto Sun – link to story

Canadian PressCanadian Press  •  Sep 03, 2020

Capture.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=564 A screengrab from video of the aftermath of a Jazz Aviation LP flight and a fuel tanker colliding at Pearson airport on May 10, 2020. PHOTO BY CBC /YouTube

The Transportation Safety Board has released its report into a crash between a Jazz Aviation LP flight and a fuel tanker at Pearson airport in 2019 detailing how passengers ignored and threatened staff to be let off the plane.

The safety board says the flight bound for Sudbury was unable to land, returning to Toronto at 1:26 a.m. on May 10, colliding with a fuel tanker while taxiing.

The report notes that despite instructions from a flight attendant, one passenger climbed over their seat to open an emergency window exit and subsequently jumped from the plane.

The flight attendant opened the main door exit two minutes after the crash after facing a threat from one passenger and pressure from several others.

One crew member, one infant and 13 passengers suffered injuries.

The Transportation Safety Board says visibility was a factor in the crash.

But its findings focused on the conduct of passengers.

“Many passengers ignored the instructions from the flight attendant to remain seated and calm; some were gathering their bags from the overhead compartments, and some were escalating the panic by yelling that they needed to get out of the aircraft,” the board noted, adding that some passengers attempted to reboard the flight after disembarking.

The company responsible for operating the fuel tanker has since added rear- and side-view cameras to help with visibility.

Share this:

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Specs said:

....the FA?  Singular?  One flight attendant?

The crewing was legal.

1.18.4 Minimum cabin crew complement

In 2002, TC received a request from the Air Transport Association of Canada to consider an operating rule to give airlines the option to operate their fleet with 1 cabin crew member to every unit of 50 passenger seats (1:50), in addition to the existing regulation.

The 1:50 ratio had been in effect for many years in the European Union and the United States. In 2013, TC granted an exemption to a number of operators to operate with a 1:50 ratio.

In June 2015, the regulations were amended allowing all Subpart 705 (airline operations) operators to operate with a ratio of 1 flight attendant per 50 passenger seats in parallel with the existing regulatory requirement that requires a ratio of 1 flight attendant per 40 passengers carried.

CARs section 705.201 currently stipulates the following:

Minimum Number of Flight Attendants

705.201 (1) No air operator shall operate an aeroplane to carry passengers unless the air operator does so with the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) to (7), the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aeroplane is determined in accordance with one of the following ratios that is selected by the air operator in respect of the model of that aeroplane:

  • (a) one flight attendant for each unit of 40 passengers or for each portion of such a unit; or
  • (b) one flight attendant for each unit of 50 passenger seats or for each portion of such a unit.

(3) Persons referred to in paragraphs 705.27(3)(c) to (e)Footnote47 who are admitted to the flight deck are not counted as passengers for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a).

(4) An air operator who has selected, in respect of a model of aeroplane, the ratio set out in paragraph (2)(b) shall not operate an aeroplane of that model with only one flight attendant unless

  • (a) the aeroplane has a single deck and is configured for 50 or fewer passenger seats;
  • (b) the aeroplane was certified under [Canadian and international regulations and standards as specified in this paragraph];
  • (c) only one flight attendant was used for the emergency evacuation demonstration required for the certification of that model of aeroplane;
  • (d) the air operator’s flight attendant manual indicates how normal and emergency procedures differ depending on whether the aeroplane is operated with one flight attendant or with more than one flight attendant;
  • (e) the flight attendant occupies a flight attendant station that is located near a floor-level exit; and
  • (f) the public address system and the crew member interphone system are operative and are capable of being used at the flight attendant station.Footnote48

The occurrence aircraft was configured with 50 seats. During the occurrence flight, there were 52 total passengers in the cabin: 49 were occupying seats, and each of the 3 infants were being carried by a family member. There was 1 unoccupied seat in the cabin.

In addition, a flight attendant from another airline was seated in the flight deck observer seat. In accordance with the CARs, this flight attendant was not counted as a passenger for the purpose of determining the minimum number of cabin crew.Footnote48

The occurrence flight was operated in compliance with regulations relating to minimum cabin crew complement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that in the report one of the infants was thrown from the mothers arms, landing on the floor. I've never understood why infants are allowed to be carried this way on aircraft, when they're not allowed in cars. What's the difference? In any impact (or severe turbulence) any unsecured object (like a baby) will instantly become a projectile, like the one in this incident.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marshall said:

The crewing was legal.

I know - I never liked the idea though.  1 simply isn't enough for all the issues that could arise.  There should be a minimum of 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, conehead said:

Note that in the report one of the infants was thrown from the mothers arms, landing on the floor. I've never understood why infants are allowed to be carried this way on aircraft, when they're not allowed in cars. What's the difference? In any impact (or severe turbulence) any unsecured object (like a baby) will instantly become a projectile, like the one in this incident.

I've never understood the logic that says an infant doesn't need a safe seat until they are suddenly at risk when they reach their 2nd birthday. Parents of infants have been getting an undeserved break on air fare for too long. It's time to do the right thing - mandatory child seats for all infants under two.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.