China Eastern, Malaysia Airlines Jets Collide on Tarmac at Shanghai
China Eastern Airlines Airbus A340
A China Eastern Airlines and a Malaysia Airlines jet collided with one another on the tarmac while taxiing at Shanghai Pudong International Airport Thursday afternoon.
Reports say the China Eastern Flight 583, an Airbus A340-600 aircraft bound for Los Angeles (LAX), was waiting to take off at 4:28 PM local time when Malaysia Flight 389, a Boeing 777-200 aircraft bound for Kuala Lumpur, clipped China Eastern’s tail while taxiing.
The China Eastern A340 suffered a damaged tail and the Malaysia 777 suffered damage to its wing. There were no reported injuries.
Both flights were cancelled.
A press officer with Eastern Regional Administration of Civil Aviation Administration of China said that the administration is investigating the accident.
The accident didn’t affect airport operations, according to the municipal government.
Image: Flickr [flissphil]
Category: Airnation
Eh, a mere bag of shells… Accidents happen!
Given China Eastern’s usual contempt for safety issues that might impinge on their profits I am amazed that their A340 aircraft did not continue to take off
tarmac area should be remarked to accommodate bigger aeroplanes.
Talk about sensational reporting … they didn’t “collide on the tarmac”; they brushed each other on the taxiway.
Lee, there has never been tarmac at Shanghai – only concrete. Please stop using civilian jargon in your writing. You cannot expect to be taken seriously as an aviation reporter when you can’t even get your terminology correct.
Alex – all the marking in the world won’t fix this problem … it is likely that the 777 was taxiing on the centerline and just didn’t have sufficient clearance from the rear of the A340, since the latter was probably not pulled up far enough for his tail to clear the wingspan of the Boeing. I would venture a guess that the 777 crew will be held to account … if something is too close to you on a taxiway, you should just stay put until it moves out of the way.
I don’t know….I take the stuff written here pretty damn seriously. :)
Terry, Are you serious?? Be thankful Lee and Kenneth take the time to locate and centralize all of these stories for us. Try to appreciate their work rather than criticize it.
And the original “tarmac” is in fact rather obsolete at most US airports, so are we to question the use of the word around here, too?
The phrase “on the tarmac” can refer to many “locations” at an airport, not just those covered with the ancient material. When we hear the phrase “on the tarmac” we can all picture in our minds the location they’re talking about- that’s good enough. Now, start confusing “apron” and “taxiway” and i’ll agree there’s an issue!
Yet another thoughtless attack on others without any discretion. Rather than aiding in the discussion like Terry who undestands how tail/wing strikes can occur due to the large sizes, we have more unbridled invectives. If you undestood taxi geometry and taxiway markings, ground incursions and how these are mitigated you would be more informed that such incidents occur frequently at major airports.
Chris “#2″,
What are you ranting about now? Never did i attack anyone, nor question “taxi geometry and taxiway markings”. Re-read my comment and try that again, kiddo.
You’re are right to a point Terry. ‘Tarmac’ technically is a patented material. The word tarmac used in aviation nowadays can mean a more general surface….where the planes gate, etc…
And Shanghai did add tarmac to their facility several years ago so Lee is basically correct.
Plus….I have no issue with using the term ‘collide’. 2 huge aircraft hit each other. That’s a collision in my book! :)