EZY LGW-AMS pushed back onto grass
is nonsense.
If you peer out any of the flight deck windows on that particular pushback and find that you're looking along the taxiway centreline, it means you've been pushed onto the grass.
If you're still having trouble visualising that, think of it the other way round - for your mainwheels to be (just) on the edge of the concrete, you need to have about three and a half metres of your nose still on the right (terminal) side of the yellow painted line.
Would a picture help?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Switzerland ... oh wait: Swaziland
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pic from the cabin:
https://twitter.com/sophiethirlwell/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/sophiethirlwell/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
Am I looking in the right place?
"3.10 It may be necessary to provide extra width at the end of a runway or starter extension to enable aeroplanes to turn around".
CAP 168: Licensing of Aerodromes
"3.10 It may be necessary to provide extra width at the end of a runway or starter extension to enable aeroplanes to turn around".
CAP 168: Licensing of Aerodromes
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.
In this respect, the grass would count as an 'obstruction' as you clearly can't go there.
10.2.1 There should be room enough on the apron to provide for the number and types of aircraft expected to use it with adequate safety margins from obstructions including parked aircraft. The design of the apron should aim at facilitating the movement of aircraft and avoiding difficult manoeuvres which might require undesirable use of excessive amounts of engine thrust, or impose abnormal stress on tyres.
10.2.2 The dimensions of the apron should be such that the minimum clearance between a manoeuvring aircraft and any obstruction is 20% of wingspan.
10.2.2 The dimensions of the apron should be such that the minimum clearance between a manoeuvring aircraft and any obstruction is 20% of wingspan.
OK, thanks.
For anyone reading the current (10th) edition of CAP 168 (July 2014), it's paras 3.142 and 3.143 on Page 110, URL as above.
I suspect that technically the apron does conform to those criteria, as there doesn't seem to be any physical reason why aircraft couldn't be turned through 90° on pushback so that they are already aligned with the taxiway before the tug disconnects. There's more clearance (about 50 m) between the stand and the taxiway than there is on many of the T5 stands at LHR.
Does anyone who is familiar with Gatwick know why straight pushbacks from that stand appear to be SOP ?
For anyone reading the current (10th) edition of CAP 168 (July 2014), it's paras 3.142 and 3.143 on Page 110, URL as above.
I suspect that technically the apron does conform to those criteria, as there doesn't seem to be any physical reason why aircraft couldn't be turned through 90° on pushback so that they are already aligned with the taxiway before the tug disconnects. There's more clearance (about 50 m) between the stand and the taxiway than there is on many of the T5 stands at LHR.
Does anyone who is familiar with Gatwick know why straight pushbacks from that stand appear to be SOP ?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Took a wrong turn,last night,at DXB,missed the turnon to my stand.There was absolutely know way that ATC could allow me to make a sensible 180 turn,from J2 to J1, even though it would have been following dozens of lead-in lines,to adjacent stands,albeight,in an opposing direction.
If it isn't written down as an approved procedure,no one in this day and age is going to allow it..Just a sign of the times,and I understood the ATC point of view.
So, 10 mins later,we had orbited C block,and returned to park.
Just,important to remember,....if it saves lives,....do it,...regardless of the general rule!
The box is not titanium!...unlike our two battery boxes
If it isn't written down as an approved procedure,no one in this day and age is going to allow it..Just a sign of the times,and I understood the ATC point of view.
So, 10 mins later,we had orbited C block,and returned to park.
Just,important to remember,....if it saves lives,....do it,...regardless of the general rule!
The box is not titanium!...unlike our two battery boxes
Last edited by Yaw String; 5th Jan 2017 at 01:46.
10.2.2 The dimensions of the apron should be such that the minimum clearance between a manoeuvring aircraft and any obstruction is 20% of wingspan.
In this respect, the grass would count as an 'obstruction' as you clearly can't go there.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Outer Here
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone who is familiar with Gatwick know why straight pushbacks from that stand appear to be SOP ?
Anyway they came back with this:It is so we can push multiple A/C together, also you may turn either way to taxi, left via R or right via Q. Sounds plausible? Will there now be a review? Personally, I think the risks are minimal. But at LGW a knee-jerk reaction seems to be the norm.
Seeing abject congestion & protracted delays at some other EU airports when 2 A/C ask for push simultaneously this sort of thinking is a breath of fresh air.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone who is familiar with Gatwick know why straight pushbacks from that stand appear to be SOP ?
and only going to get worse when easyJet move their whole operation to North at the end of the month 
It is so we can push multiple A/C together, also you may turn either way to taxi, left via R or right via Q. Sounds plausible? Will there now be a review? Personally, I think the risks are minimal. But at LGW a knee-jerk reaction seems to be the norm.
Might seem a knee-jerk reaction, however think a review was needed anyway as there is also a ditch the entire length of the taxiway just behind the grass where the aircraft got 'stuck'. The consequences of the pushback pushing the a/c further into the grass could have resulted in the aircraft falling into the ditch!
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West Indies
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the tow truck was unsuccessful I doubt he could have powered out. Powering out runs the risk of damaging the landing gear structure which would not be visible to the naked eye and what could happen next is anyones guess on the next taxi, t/o or landing!!!
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Where it's warm
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would have thought it simple. If the tug can not pull it back off the grass then the ground is not hard enough for it to be "powered" out, without damagaing something.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 16024 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil further View Post
AFAIK as soon as the aircraft has departed the paved surface it becomes a notifiable incident to the AAIB and the a/c should not be moved until the AAIB give the OK ?
Do you have a source for that statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil further View Post
AFAIK as soon as the aircraft has departed the paved surface it becomes a notifiable incident to the AAIB and the a/c should not be moved until the AAIB give the OK ?
Do you have a source for that statement?
A reportable accident/incident usually implies damage and/or injury, or at least a serious risk thereof.
So, for example, a runway departure on takeoff or landing could well qualify. Pushing an aircraft off the taxiway with a tug, no matter how embarrassing or inconvenient, probably doesn't.
So, for example, a runway departure on takeoff or landing could well qualify. Pushing an aircraft off the taxiway with a tug, no matter how embarrassing or inconvenient, probably doesn't.
EUR-Lex - 32003L0042 - EN
and it says:
(r) Aircraft unintentionally departing from a paved surface.
IMHO it does not exclude an excursion during push-back
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found it in my company's OM-A as "Occurrence Reporting List". The official reference is: EU 2003/42/EC, ANNEX I
Note that accidents and serious incidents are covered by different legislation - I forget the reference right now - but the things in 376 and the other reg are not mutually exclusive, so you might hove to comply with both regulations for the same event.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record, according to CAA web site, since July 2015 Gatwick is a EASA
Certificated aerodrome and not UK Licensed so EASA regulations apply therefore CAP168 is
no longer the regulatory document although presumably it can be used for reference or
guidance.
Certificated aerodrome and not UK Licensed so EASA regulations apply therefore CAP168 is
no longer the regulatory document although presumably it can be used for reference or
guidance.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Powering out runs the risk of damaging the landing gear structure
I cannot think how this could possibly happen...
Last edited by noflynomore; 5th Jan 2017 at 20:18.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tow bar has shear pins to prevent too much force being applied on the gear during a tow. Is a tow crew (by regulation) allowed to pull aircraft off grass or are they not even allowed to try? If allowed to try, what stopped the aircraft moving? Shear pins breaking or tug wheel traction?
I'm sure tyres can survive a small drop off a ledge if they can withstand landing forces. The main concern would be fore-aft strains on nose gear (strut assemblies, etc) if being towed or fore-aft strains on the main gear if being powered out.
Well if it's a steep/sharp drop off your tyres might be damaged for a start.