Hardly “perfectly normal and acceptable practice”
Exactly, therefore it is not a “ridiculous non event”. Furthermore, I’m sure that all parties directly involved with this incident would agree with me.
Procedures are in place to ensure that this kind of incident does not occur. However, something in this instance failed to prevent these two a/c coming together. Your use of the term ‘non event’ (PPRuNeism!) implies that ho hum, these things happen. Let’s forget all about it and pretend it never happened. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were lucky this time in that it appears to be a damage only scenario and the final outcome was not as severe as it could have been. I can assure you that the fallout from this will result in a full enquiry involving several professional bodies, all trying to determine what procedure failed and why in an effort to ensure that the chances of a repetition are not repeated.. Hardly the actions following a “ridiculous non event”.
Sign In
