Swissport badly prang Monarch A321 BHX

[tom775257]

This morning a Swissport baggage loading truck was driven under a Monarch A321 at BHX and promptly wedged itself whilst also hitting the nose gear. Sadly for Monarch, the damage looks bad, with damage to both the nose gear (which is now at a strange angle) and fuselage (not just the skin but also structural damage). Not a good situation... :(

[beefster]

The A321 in question is G-OZBE which as you say has been quite badly damaged seen the photos but didnt get chance to go over and have a look for myself. It was hit by a belt loader just after 0600 this morning the driver said the brakes failed. Aircraft is likely to be grounded for several weeks

[legalize]

"The brakes failed":=:= That old chestnut. I witnessed 2 similar incidents whilst i was on a secondment at Heathrow. Equipmenmt failure was blamed by the drivers but after investigations it was proved it was driver error. Is the a/c over the w/a?

[Geezers of Nazareth]

"The brakes failed" ! :eek:

That's why there is a standing instruction (where I work) that you need to test the brakes 3 times before approaching any aircraft. I know that it's possible that they could fail on their 4th application, but I'm still amazed how this can happen.

[TUGNBAR]

That's why there is a standing instruction (where I work) that you need to test the brakes 3 times before approaching any aircraft.

And I bet everyone (where you work) carries out a brake test 3 times.

Anyone got pictures, so we can make sensible comments!!!

[beefster]

The aircraft is now over on the Western Apron as we were unable to tow it till the follwing day because the nose leg had taken the brunt of the knock and it all had to be inspected before it could be moved. As to the brake failiure the jury is out pending the investagation but my money is on driver error

[groundhogbhx]

A/c now in LTN. Was speaking to one of the engineers earlier and the bill for getting it fit to position down was huge, never mind the cost of fixing it. If it is proved to be negligence don't Swissport have to pick up the bill instead of the insurance:eek:

[Alan Tracey]

No under an IATA agreement, the insurance liability is a fixed amount and only covers fixing the aircraft. It does not cover sub charters etc

[call100]

And I bet everyone (where you work) carries out a brake test 3 times.

Anyone got pictures, so we can make sensible comments!!! It was a sensible comment. It's a basic rule (whether anyone does it or not is irrelevant). It's a rule at BHX. Basically....'The brakes failed' is a failed argument.

[groundhogbhx]

Spoke to a MON engineer the other night who tells me BE could be in the hanger for some time. Airbus are still working out how to fix it, apparently they never anticipated the nose gear being hit at speed by a beltloader :ooh:

[beefster]

Groundhog it wasnt hit at high speed driver said it was only about 3 MPH:ugh: Yeh right.

[legalize]

I heard that the driver has been sacked. If so, what was the outcome of the hearing regarding how it happened?

[groundhogbhx]

Beefster, didn't think he was capable of driving that slowly :}

[legalize]

I have heard that the loader has been sacked via text message!! thats low!:=

[OPS1978]

He was sacked over the phone how bad!!!!!

[LGWSTAR]

Have seen the pictures today and the nosewheel is a mess. The idiot driving the belt loader was apparently standing up while driving due to a wet seat. (apparently)

The insurance claim is currently at £2m

Pay peanuts, get monkeys (or total idiots)

[TUGNBAR]

Standing up on a beltloader due to wet seat .......OMG........and Im guessing he must have set the hand throttle a little to much and had no chance of braking............"idiot"

LGWSTAR any chance you can post the pics.

[tickerdboo]

well there is always the appeal process, but I dont think hes got a "nose leg" to stand on.......

[oversteer]

So there's not a "no blame" arrangement for incidents like this?

I know it's an extreme in this case, but maybe the next guy who knocks something accidently might keep quiet and not tell anyone, the damage not noticed on the walkaround, and then..

[Magic Buff]

Well you shouldnt have to be afraid to elaborate, it's an interesting thing this no blame policy, if he did it and came forwards off his own bat, I presume this is in keeping with the no blame policy, did he do that, or was it immediatly obvious, or did he try and hide it ? if he came forwards then surely that excludes him from being sacked, sacked over the phone, is there no depths of human misery to which this industry will not stoop, I wouldnt treat my dog that way, even if he did rip the sofa.

[Shell Management]

The current thinking is that in no-blame cultures even recklessness and incompetence gets excused as reporting is a get out of jail free card. The results is that the reporting scheme is seen as a confessional for the guilty rather than a learning mechanism for the diligent.

In the land of the 5th Amendment, the FAA voluntary ASAP is a variation on this theme, a sort of super grass witness protection scheme that actually reduces the chances of true open reporting because no one wants to say anything to anyone without protection.

The idea is that a 'just culture' where people are still accountable for their behaviour but the organisation tolerates genuine errors, and supports the individual rather than disciplining them in all but the most extreme cases.

What stands out in the posts above is that some people seem happy with the concept of automatic blame of a 'stupid' ground handler based on alleged leaked hearsay in a way they would not accept for a pilot. The same accountability standards need to apply to all for the same reasons. Perhaps some people can see the biggest threat to reporting in the mirror...

[tickerdboo]

Are we talking about the same bloke here????

I dont think he was sacked for just hitting GOZBE at speed while standing up in a belt loader wheel spinning all over the shop.......

Remember what goes around comes around.........

And as for being sacked over the phone, in a letter, face to face, or even by carrier pigeon, it all the same "Your Fired" as Alan Sugar" would say.

[call100]

The understanding I have and the way it works at BHX is that the 'No Blame' exists to cover accidents that we all know are inevitable in the environment we work in.
It is not there to Excuse reckless behaviour.
If it's true that he was dismissed over the phone then that is appalling. Not for the dismissal but for the lack of any proper disciplinary procedure....

[greuzi]

Watched this thread for a bit now. My opinion?

How do you hit the nose gear with a belt loader? Don't know the detailed facts but was the guy breathalysed? Of this earth? Trained?

Accidents do happen but 1000's of pushbacks are completed successfully and without incident every day by those that should be around the nose gear. And by all the handlers.

Was the guy hurt? Nobody has asked.

[groundhogbhx]

call100

I understand the phone call was with the result of the union contesting the original verdict on technical grounds :ugh:

[call100]

OK so he wasn't sacked over the phone....He just had confirmation from the TU over the phone that his appeal on a technical issue had failed. He had already been sacked at a previous hearing.
Is that how it worked?? :confused:

[legalize]

From my sources it isw confirmed that he was phoned by the internal HR person based at BHX and sacked. Appeal was today but not sure of the outcome. Also they forgot to breathalize him at the time of th eincident due to all the commotion.

Anyway he has been taken on by Servisair now so at least he has a job and can still pay his morgate off.

[beefster]

Servisair must be mad to take him on:ugh::ugh::ugh: and didnt know he had to pay mortgage as he still lives with his MUM

[call100]

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/laughpound.gif

[King Chav]

Where do they get these monkies from ?

I have seen so many accidents on the ramp over the years, caused by these showoffs! The funniest was a tw*t driving a belt loader into a B747 engine, and then rising up into the air, reversing and doing it again!!

Unfortunately the engine wasn't running :}