Bent Fly Star at LGW

[Fenders]

Noticed an Astreaus B738, GSTRH, at LGW today with 3 very large gashes in the front starboard fuselage.
Guess it may have been struck by a vehicle. Looks an expensive repair.
Last seen heading for hangar 6.

[ADC2604]

Didn't realise AEU had any -800 aircraft

[Rainboe]

More than gashes. Try holes. Heard quite serious. In hospital for a month to 6 weeks. Word is towing crew. 700 model. Nice one too.

[Paradism]

Just to clarify, G-STRH is a BOEING 737-76N according to G-INFO.:)

[Fenders]

Whoops, my mistake. Mis identified.

[Out Of Trim]

Whoops, my mistake. Mis identified.


Easily done as it's been recently fitted with Wing-lets.

Anyone know how the accident occurred?

[WannaBeBiggles]

Just a side note for anyone wanting to know the difference between 700's and 800's... the 800's have two overwing exits ;)

[alright jack]

Rumour has it the towbar came adrift causing the damage :ouch::ouch:

[Rainboe]

Does a towbar 'come adrift' by itself or is it not handled correctly? Does a towbar break by itself or does it get overstressed by careless handling when towing? Towing/pushback accidents are becoming one of the most major hazardous areas of aviation!

[Fenders]

Wannabe Biggles,

Thanks for that. Didn't bother looking at anything else on the aircraft. Just concentrated on the gaping hole in its fuselage.

[groundhogbhx]

Rainboe

The biggest hazard for towbars has to be new push back drivers learning to be gentle starting and stopping the push, or trying to change gear when towing. Over time fatigue builds up in the shear pins and eventually one or more say enough is enough. The pins are only normally replaced when they break, rather than after a certain length of time so the only real check they are ok is a visual before pushing or towing.

Of course pushing without a bypass pin installed (on those a/c that need one) has been know to shorten their lives a little as well :ok:

[spannersatcx]

Or does it fail when during the pushback the pilots touch the brakes?

Or they start taxiing before given the all clear?

Until the facts are known you can blame anyone or anything. Which seems to happen on here more and more nowadays.:rolleyes:

[Rainboe]

Well I can confirm 100% that the last pilots to fly it were nowhere near the aeroplane- long gone! This is purely a tow crew and tow bar incident. Looking at the damage, I would guess that the tow was in a right turn when separation occured, and maybe the aeroplane ran onto the tow truck (if it was coloured red). They certainly achieved in absolutely well mullering the fuselage. Two large gaping holes and a long score. As well as frames being repaired, most of the underfuselage almost back to the right engine will have to be re-skinned.
Aeroplanes are not safe left with these cowboys. I look at the speeds these things are dragged around and it's scary. It also appears to be slapdash.

[SLFguy]

"Well I can confirm 100% that the last pilots to fly it were nowhere near the aeroplane- long gone! This is purely a tow crew and tow bar incident. Looking at the damage, I would guess that the tow was in a right turn when separation occured, and maybe the aeroplane ran onto the tow truck (if it was coloured red). They certainly achieved in absolutely well mullering the fuselage. Two large gaping holes and a long score. As well as frames being repaired, most of the underfuselage almost back to the right engine will have to be re-skinned.
Aeroplanes are not safe left with these cowboys. I look at the speeds these things are dragged around and it's scary. It also appears to be slapdash."

If only you had access to the 'Tug Drivers ONLY' forum...:rolleyes:

[tubby linton]

Does a picture exist?

[AircraftOperations]

Who pays for such damage, when the aircraft's crew aren't involved?

Is it purely an airline insurance quote, or could the airline claim back from the handler for repairs plus any other leasing costs for a cover aircraft?

[surely not]

So what was the brakeman doing whilst this happened?

Dear Rainboe why do you have to be so vitriolic in your critiscm? There are enough pilot error incidents that the noble profession could also be labelled as manned by 'cowboys'.

[sam dilly]

saw an Air Med.A321 last year full pax and bags when the tow bar snapped
long delay,whilst the nose gear was checked.
no damage so off it went.

[cjhants]

as we are looking at a repositioning of an empty aircraft, overstressing the shear pins is unlikely, unless in a very tight turn. then both the torque and axial pins would have to shear beafore the tow head detached from the bar. more likely that the pins were damaged by uneaven aprons which can cause the head to splay, breaking all pins, which may not become apparent until the tug turns and the head comes under pressure. BA have a flag that springs up to indicate a pin failure, but this can usually only be seen when pushing back with the driver facing the aircraft. when towing, this flag is not normally a help.
groundhog: pins should be inspected for wear/damage at least at 90 day intervals, but i know many are not. as you say, you just wait until they break.

[ClintonBaptiste]

Having been a pushback driver on/off both here and in France for the last 8 years whilst completing my CPL/IR, I have experience of both sides of what has turned into a discussion about 'cowboy' pushback drivers. The attitude of certain flight decks is that they are superior to everyone, because they fly the plane. Don't forget where you started in life, not all of us had rich mummies and daddies, went to OAT and fly just for the distinction of being a pilot. A lot of us have had to struggle and penny pinch our way to the flight deck, working crap hours in all weathers to get into something we truly love.

Anyhow! As was previously stated, shear pins in towbars are only replaced when they break. They can break if you turn the a/c too much, accelerate too hard/fast, brake too hard or if the bypass pin is not in place. Uneven taxiways and drains do not help either.

However, whoever is on the flight deck has an vital part to play, whether it be the pilot or an engineer. On several occaisions, I have asked flight to release the park brake, only to find that in fact the brake is still set, hence BANG! Shear pin gone. (Not a nice situation if you only have one bar for that a/c type and there is no mt guy around!) A friend of mine also had his foot ran over by an Antonov (luckily not one of the biggies!)because the crew hadn't realised that they had rolled forward over 6ft!

The lack of knowledge of handsignals on the flight deck is shocking and I have witnessed crews writing the checks in huge letters "ARE THE CHECKS DONE?" then when asked to release the brakes, they end up opening the window and shouting "What?"

ATC also have a part to play, just last night I heard a tug with a 737 attached to "expedite as fast as the tug can go!" Why give clearance to cross a runway if there was traffic on a 6mile final?

Rant over, just remember we're all on this earth together. What did you learn in CRM? Work together, don't just blame the man at the bottom of the pile.:=

[surely not]

Why only last night there was an incident of a sheer pin failing on an a/c at an airport in the Gulf region............... the reason was the Captain didn't release the handbrake when asked.

Is he now a flyboy cowboy?

[Right Way Up]

Surely not,
Why only last night there was an incident of a sheer pin failing on an a/c at an airport in the Gulf region............... the reason was the Captain didn't release the handbrake when asked.

Is he now a flyboy cowboy?

Had the Capt told the ground crew he had released the parkbrake?

[Rainboe]

Well shiver my timbers. The finger of blame gets pointed back at the flight deck (along with a bit of personal abuse- but I don't think that is productive!). So let me ask you both- you say the Parking Brake was not released when you commenced pushing, hence pin breakage? What sort of operation is that? The pilot asks for pushback, the ground operator asks for Park brake release, the pilot confirms Park Brake released, pushback then commences. What sort of procedures are you using?

I have to say in all my career, I have seen a constant procession of tow incidents- far more than ever caused by pilot collisions. From pushback/tow damage such as with this particular aeroplane that will cause it to go out of service for approximately 6 weeks, to aeroplanes being pushbacked into other aeroplanes, to maintenance apron damage and damage going in and out of hangars. Add to that litany constant baggage loading/service vehicle collisions with aeroplanes, and it appears to be a frightening toll on the industry. Maybe time for proper safety procedures to be drilled home, with several high profile sackings of such carelessness? I watch some of the empty towing operations now and I don't like what I see. Pilots manage to manoeuvre these massive aeroplanes around airfields, even without being able to see the tail or the wingtips, quite safely, with accidents incredibly rare. Why are so many aeroplanes damaged by towers? There is no excuse for a tow team to fumble a pushback where the brake is still set. That is not down to the pilot!

The expression I would use is 'cavalier'- it sounds a bit better than 'cowboy'.

[Golden Rivet]

Maybe time for proper safety procedures to be drilled home, with several high profile sackings of such carelessness?

Unfortunately, this type of response is counter-productive, as people then become too scared to report damage.

[Right Way Up]

There are SOPS covering this procedure but I have noticed the deterioration in adherence by some ground crews. This I put down to the ever increasing pressure put on handling companies for quick turnrounds. There is no doubt in my mind the pushback is directed by the flight deck. Unfortunately some crews think it works the other way. Pushback I had a while back went a bit like this.
Me: "Flight deck to ground good evening"
GND: "Flight deck release brakes"
Me: "flt deck/gnd negative, can I have your checks please"
GND: "complete, please release brakes"
Me: "flt deck/gnd again negative, we will get pushback clearance standby"

Once we had got clearance and I had released brakes I swear they started pushing instantaneously. The shame of it is that SOPS are followed not only to protect the aircraft, but more importantly to safeguard the ground crew.

[Ian Brooks]

Hi guys not being either flight or tug crew, maybe would it be a good idea if
flight crews actually got to sit in with a tug driver at some time just to experience the other side of a push back/tow as I know it is quite a delicate job as friend of mine has trained as a tug driver and has given me quite an insight into the job.

Just a thought

Ian

[Right Way Up]

Ian,
Whilst I can understand your sentiments, we share the ride & also observe the manoeuvres by the tug to get us into position. The difficulty is not underestimated. However the difference between some crews is huge. A pushback by an good experienced crew is smooth & stress-free. A poor pushback crew is very apparent.

[Ian Brooks]

Right way up
I understand what you are saying

Ian

[Rainboe]

So to follow up, there was no problem with communications between ground staff and flight deck crew.....in fact no pilots were anywhere near the aeroplane. Nobody was involved except a tow team from a Gatwick handling company beginning with 'A'- they appear to have been going at high speed around a corner when said aeroplane and tow truck parted company, and said aeroplane struck truck. Word on the street (alright, Manor Royal sandwich bar) is seven figure damage, around 6 weeks repair. And now no doubt a tussle over who exactly was to blame!

[surely not]

Rainboe whilst I appreciate that you are obviously closely involved in this incident and wish for some retribution to right the perceived wrong, your thinking is very old fashioned.

Over the last ten years or so the emphasis on the ground has been in getting the ramp staff to report when they have scraped, hit, damaged an aircraft. The 'instant dismissal' line of thought was not effective in encouraging staff to report damage, so after seeing the positive effect on reporting that flight deck have with CHIRP something along those lines has been encouraged on the ground. Staff can still be sacked if investigation shows that the damage is caused by wilfull negligence, but if it is down to a poor procedure that needs to be changed, or a design fault in equipment etc then by encouraging reporting a trend can be picked up and a remedy put in place.

What pressure was the tow crew under that caused them to tow the aircraft at too high a speed? Were they being asked to clear quickly by ATC Ground? What constitutes high speed? Most tugs rock and roll alarmingly if they are going quickly so the crew would have known they were travelling fast. Who was the brakeman in the cockpit and did he ask the driver to slow down? What is the condition of the tarmac at the point where the incident happened, did this contribute to the accident?

The difference between a good landing in a strong crosswind can often be down to an experienced pilot in control;as a passenger we notice these things. We also accept that he has probably had his fair share of less smooth landings when he was new to the job or type........but he has to learn. So does a tug driver.

As for your ridiculous exaggeration Add to that litany constant baggage loading/service vehicle collisions with aeroplanes it devalues your argument by using the word 'constant' which is plainly inaccurate. The days of a relaxed turnround are long gone, the bean counters have demanded high utilisation, whilst the ops guys have demanded high OTP. All this has resulted in more vehicles around the aircraft at the same time, and all rushing to complete the task in their allotted time to avoid penalty payments for late departures.

Where I am working at the moment has seen a major increase in peak movements on shorter turnrounds. Yet despite this, and the necessary increase in equipment and new manpower, the incident of injury or damage has declined over last year. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that this trend is
mirrored elsewhere.

[Old King Coal]

To add some extra detail... the a/c was apparently being towed on to a 'wash stand' for some washing of the engines. (uhm, slippery when wet perhaps? :ooh:)

Approaching the stand it's muted that the tug 'jackknifed' (with all manner of speculation as to why?!) and that the a/c then impacted with the tug... therein causing substantial damage to the skin / frames on the RHS (in the area aft of the nose cone).

The aircraft is not in a flyable condition and so has to remain at LGW until the repair is complete.

To repair it, the damaged area will need completely re-skinning / re-framing, which apparently involves removal of the forward galley, much of the avionics / E&E bay, flight deck, etc... and following this it will need to be air-tested and the repaired area will need painting.

Boeing are sending over a substantial team of people (24?) to do the repair work.

With good fortune the a/c might(?) be back in service prior to Christmas (if only so that the Boeing team can be home themselves in time for the Xmas ;)).

Guestimates at the cost of the repair are muted as being in the region of $2,500,000 USD ! :eek: with the assumption that the nose gear / torque box is not damaged?... in which case it'll take longer & cost more!

[Fenders]

Its interesting what Rainboe has said.
A similar incident happened on night in 2003with a BA 734 GDOCO where the aircraft was being towed by a towbarless tug and as it tried to turn onto stand the aircraft appeared no to want to turn and jackknifed the tug in such a way that the tug spiralled around the front undercarriage still being attached to it. As a result the front of the aircraft seemed to jump and landed on top of the tug which was now facing rearwards but still attached. Luckily for the driver he escaped reportedly unscratched but very shaken. The cab of the tug was crushed and the underside of the aircraft had huge gaping rips in the skin and bent frames. In order to extricate the tug from underneath the B734 the airport authority had to use airbags to lift the aircraft and disconnect the nosewheel from the tug.

Old King Coal

Thanks for those details on the repair. That is an astonishing ammount. Guess that will be bourne by the handling agents insurers.

[Rainboe]

It doesn't take a leap of intellect to realise that an aeroplane has a lot of inertia. It doesn't want to move in the first place, and once it is moving, it wants to keep going at that speed, and in that direction. So if you are towing and you are coming to a turn, I guess you don't try and brake otherwise you will have have an aeroplane taking your rear in the direction it was originally going? Lots of truck drivers regularly discover this. And if it is wet as well? Definitely no accelerating or braking in a turn. But aeroplanes are big and look heavy and stable, but this 737 only weighed about 35 tons. I'm afraid so often I look at aeroplanes being towed around empty, and very often I comment and watch waiting for the inevitable, which the ground crews regularly ensure happens. I'm afraid in civil aviation, I think this is the last remaining area where operations are appallingly slapdash.

[kingair9]

Very similar towing accident happened to an Air Berlin Airbus at EDDT/TXL some days ago. Here are the pics: http://juergens-flugzeugbilder.freehostia.de/Tegel_aktuell/A319bilder_5.html

Seems like the tower took a too narrow corner, the a/c turned around the tower and then went over it after breaking the towbar.

[Fenders]

Blink182 Thanks for sharing those fotos. Damage looks very extensive. I suppose there is even more internal damage.

[Blink182]

Edited to include extra photo...

Post damage assessment by Boeing work party. Blue tape indicates station numbers Frame locations. Lap joint at Stringer 24 extensively damaged.

Will be quite a long repair this one !http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd21/blinky182_photos/IMG_5250.jpghttp://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd21/blinky182_photos/IMG_5249.jpg

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd21/blinky182_photos/IMG_5251.jpg

[Anotherflapoperator]

Ouch.

I've had the pleasure of sitting in for a few pushbacks, and to be fair, the environment is totally different to that in the Flightdeck. it's a worthwhile experience, if some of us can belittle ourselves to experience it!

One possible thought as to why some Ground crew ask for brakes so promptly is they are aware of the consequences of delay penalties and that the signal on ACARS or whatever goes with brake release. Still totally bad SOP to push the flightcrew along though.

I have experienced it too, but didn't comply.

Like many aspects, the job of moving customers by air is a TEAM EXERCISE. All of us, tuggies, dispatchers, loaders, ATC and pilots and cabin crew all have a part to play, but none of us can do it alone. Pilots aren't necessarily the best paid of those mentioned either!

[kotakota]

Very sad to see. Last time I saw RH we were doing an ETOPS together to Deer Lake , lovely aircraft .Get well soon.

[Rainboe]

Awful sight. A lovely, up to date 737. They never squash the ones that need it! I assume A-'s insurance will pay for the damage, the plane will be returned by Christmas with an empty weight a bit more than before the incident (I hesitate to call such an incident an 'accident'), but who compensates the airline for the lost revenue? I hope a large bill will wing its way to A- for the winter contracts the company can no longer fulfill. Who is to compensate the crews for the flying they can no longer do until this thing is returned and checked out?

The attitude here that there is a no-blame culture does not sit well. There is no room for negligence in aviation. A crew member blowing a slide is in a shedload of trouble. Having crew sit in on pushes won't achieve anything- the incidents that do take place are when no crew is present.

[frozen man]

Just like Kotakota I have had many a night at 30 west in this fine aircraft.
What a pitty

[Rainboe]

Just out of interest, I was thinking about the evils that befall these aeroplanes when pilots and engineers aren't present, and the bizarre towing practices we see. For example, there has been a spate for some years of A32* nosewheel steering failures and landings with 90 degree nosewheel deflection. Any connection with overstressing on towing/pushback? I get surprised sometimes by violent pushes where you wonder whether the tug even has a clutch, or why it is so harsh, and that used to be on a 747! What hope little ones!

[groundhogbhx]

Rainboe

All pushback tugs are automatic transmission. The violent jerks on push are always down to either a heavy foot on the accelerator, or far more often a small towing pin going into a large eye on the bar giving room for the tug of aircraft to move before everything effectively becomes one again. This can also put a lot of pressure on the shear pins.

You really seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the no blame policy being used for groundcrew. Would you rather that something happened to your aircraft and the staff involved reported the event, or have them so scared of being disciplined or sacked that you found out several hours later at 35,000ft :ugh: Unfortunately the modern aviation industry constantly wants more for less, shorter ground times, cheaper handling, the list goes on. The end result is that management at the handling agents have to put pressure on staff to do more with less (equipment, manpower and wages). The vast majority of these staff take a great deal of pride in what they do and do all they can to ensure flights depart on time, and safely. During my years in the business I've seen things go from OK wages and some nice perks with enough staff and equipment to do the job to poor wages with little or no perks and the bare minimum staff and equipment. Maybe it is time to start looking in a different direction for the blame, the moral is definitely one of getting what you pay for.

Rant over, time for hat and coat.... TAXI :ok:

[alright jack]

groundhogbhx (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=144906)

Well said Sir ,Completely agree ! :cool:

[merlinxx]

Unfortunately you've said it in many words, when it should have been said it ONE. Good ground ops with constant and understood CRM with the operating flight crew is AN ESSENTIAL application to all operations. It is way past time that ground ops be appreciated for what they are, not just an ancillary to flight ops, but a portion of said ops.

Lets get back to the team application, air carriers must pay for the expertise they expect. GH companies must pay the staff for that expertise. Flt Crew get on a tug, tuggies get on the flt deck, brakemen to be (as they were) licenced engineers or crew members.

Auditor General

[Mr Grumps]

I'm not saying that this particular crunch has anything to do with what I'm about to say but having been on the receiving end of a tug driver's rant the other day, who knows.
Whilst on a remote stand trying to repair the aircraft IFE system, a tug driver came aboard to move the aircraft to it's departing stand. Nothing unusual about that but his remarks when told he would have to wait up to 10 minutes as we were software loading were somewhat unbelievable for 10.15 am. He went into a right rant about this being job and knock (early trap) and he wanted to get away, blah, blah, blah. As he was only 4 hours into an 8 or 12 hour shift makes you wonder that he might have been about to go to a second job. He kept mumbling for ages about being kept from going home (even though he would still be on the company's shift) getting more irate every minute. We on the other hand were not amused by his actions as we hadn't even had breakfast by then.
Yes the tuggies do do a good job but they also get away with murder depending on the company they work for. They also seem to make their own rules for driving about on the ramp areas (when not attached to an aircraft I hasten to add) :ugh:

[Sam-MAN]

My friend recently got a job with Aviance @ MAN...

He told me that if they report damage to an aircraft which they have caused no action will be taken... However, if they damage the aircraft and don't tell anyone they will be dealt with severely.

Sounds good to me, stops people 'chickening' out from reporting incidents thus causing accidents.

[flan]

I agree RH get well soon we dont see enough of her up here at Man but saying that we are now going to have to wrap Foxy up in cotton wool to prevent any further problems!

[Rainboe]

He told me that if they report damage to an aircraft which they have caused no action will be taken... However, if they damage the aircraft and don't tell anyone they will be dealt with severely.
Oh I like it. Sort of blackmail? 'You punish us and we won't ever report anything!' Clever. Obviously works. I wish that worked for other staff!

Are you serious about ground handling staff travelling on the flight deck? Why? What exactly will it achieve? All that is required is that you do your job properly and carefully. Examples like this incident will not be solved by towers sitting on flight decks. Just don't wreck the flight decks!

[exeng]

Oh I like it. Sort of blackmail? 'You punish us and we won't ever report anything!' Clever

IMHO it doesn't quite work like that - in that if a a person repeatedly damages an A/C then it is likely that action would be taken.

However from a safety perspective it is far better that an incident/accident is reported (where the reporter understands that reporting will not result in immediate dismissal) than that any such incident goes unreported. Bearing in mind that many incidents are relatively minor in comparison to this one (in cost) but may be relatively major in terms of flight safety. (i.e. damage to pitot static systems).

BTW I think it might be a very good idea for pilots to experience a day with a push back crew, as well as learning a lot we would probably quite enjoy it.

Where I would have no problem with any member of ground ops sharing the flight deck for a day I suspect the bean counters wouldn't be so thrilled. (Ditto above!)

Also BTW I don't think that A****** will pick up the whole bill as their liability is limited - as for loss of revenue..............


Kind Regards
Exeng

[Hightime]

G-RH is a 700 although ive flown it one or twice thankfully its damage was nothing to do with me.:)

[Towerman]

In response to previous posting about assessment of damages.

The airline would claim on the ground handler not only for cost of repair but also any degradation in value to the aircraft, down time, loss of pax revenue, lease of replacement aircraft, all these known as consequential losses. As to who pays - it depends on the ground handlers insurance policy - I would imagine that the airline would have insisted that any company towing its aircraft has the full works - if not then it could become litigious. Furthermore, the Lessor / Legal owner would want to ensure that the proposed repair would not diminsh the aircraft value and would insist that the Lessee / Operator made good in the event that the ground handler or its insurer would not or could not.

[STN Ramp Rat]

Towerman
It is likely that the towing was carried out under the Standard Ground handling Agreement (SGHA) between the carrier and the Handler.

The following are extracts from this standard agreement; I cannot recall which version this is from. (It is reviewed every 5 years and there have been some recent variances on negligence.)
it is generally accepted that the hander will pay the uninsured excess and the airline will pay the rest.
ARTICLE 8
LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY
In this Article, all references to:
(a) “the Carrier” or “the Handling Company” shall include their employees,
servants, agents and subcontractors;
(b) “ground support equipment” shall mean all equipment used in the
performance of ground handling services included in Annex A, whether
fixed or mobile, and
(c) “act or omission” shall include negligence.
8.1 Except as stated in Sub-Article 8.5, the Carrier shall not make any claim against the Handling Company and shall indemnify it (subject as hereinafter provided) against any legal liability for claims or suits, including costs and expenses incidental thereto, in respect of:
(a) delay, injury or death of persons carried or to be
carried by the Carrier;
(b) injury or death of any employee of the Carrier;
(c) damage to or delay or loss of baggage, cargo or
mail carried or to be carried by the Carrier, and
(d) damage to or loss of property owned or operated
by, or on behalf of, the Carrier and any
consequential loss or damage;
arising from an act or omission of the Handling Company in the performance of this Agreement unless done with intent to cause damage, death, delay, injury or loss or recklessly and with the knowledge that damage, death, delay, injury or loss would probably result.
PROVIDED THAT all claims or suits arising hereunder shall be dealt with by the Carrier; and
PROVIDED ALSO THAT the Handling Company shall notify the Carrier of any claims or suits without undue delay and shall furnish such assistance as the Carrier may reasonably require.
PROVIDED ALSO THAT where any of the services performed by the Handling Company hereunder relate to the carriage by the Carrier of passengers, baggage or cargo direct to or from a place in the United States of America then if the limitations of liability imposed by Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention would have applied if any such act or omission had been committed by the Carrier but are held by a Court not to be applicable to such act or omission committed by the Handling Company in performing this Agreement then upon such decision of the Court the indemnity of the Carrier to the Handling Company hereunder shall be limited to an amount not exceeding the amount for which the Carrier would have been liable if it had committed such act or omission.
Notwithstanding Sub-Article 8.1(d), the Handling Company shall indemnify the Carrier against any physical loss of or damage to the Carrier’s Aircraft caused by the Handling Company’s negligent operation of ground support equipment PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT the Handling Company’s liability shall be limited to any such loss of or damage to the Carrier’s Aircraft not exceeding the limits stated in Annex(es) B which shall not, in any event, exceed USD 1,500,000 except that loss or damage in respect of any incident below USD 3,000 shall not be indemnified.
For the avoidance of doubt, save as expressly stated, this Sub-Article 8.5 does not affect or prejudice the generality of the provisions of Sub-Article 8.1 including the principle that the Carrier shall not make any claim against the Handling Company and shall indemnify it against any liability in respect of any and all consequential loss or damage howsoever arising.

[Sunshine Express]

I heard that it was pushed with chocks still in place.
Also told that the nose gear is bent back and requires repair.
Could all be total rubbish though.

[racasan]

A/c was under tow, no chocks involved. NLG yet to be fully checked and functioned but initial inspection shows OK.

[Blink182]

Won't be flying by Christmas...........not this one ( 2007 ) anyway.

[racasan]

Blink,
Don't be so sure.....

[Blink182]

Stainless Plates and a ferry flight to somewhere with facilities then ???

[racasan]

Boeing team started work on G-STRH yesterday. Plan to finish around the 20th Dec (This year).:D

[PeePeerune]

20th dec ?????????

Good Luck!!!!!!

[racasan]

Hopefully G-STRH rolling out of Hangar Wednesday for EGR's and pressure run's.:D

[Diesel_10]

BA just wheeled it out the hangar(5). I feel sorry for the poor bu**ers having to work in there!!! Guess it'll need a bit of a paint but how they'll get it warm enough gawd only knows.

[surely not]

With regard to who pays for what, the original GHA was often between two airlines who carried out reciprocal handling at each others airports of operation, therefore it was felt to be sensible to have a hold harmless clause rather than two law suits with only the lawyers getting rich.

However with the rise of the independent ground handler the airlines thought that it would be better to have the option to recoup costs from them when an accident/incident was caused by their staff. Therefore the SGHA was amended in 1998 I think, and airlines were given the option of taking the Clause 8 Hold Harmless out of their agreement.

The Grnd Handlers were then exposed to a greater risk and their insurers sought an increase in the insurance premiums. The rise was not small as you might imagine. The Grnd Handlers, unsurprisingly, have little option other than to adjust their handling charges to any airline that wishes to opt out of Clause 8.

The airlines when presented with this potential significant hike to their handling fees have by and large taken the view that ground handling damage is a rarity over a year on a flights operated v damage comparison. Consequently very few opted out of Clause 8, and negotiaition on the basis of good will, future business etc is used when extreme cases happen as in this instance.


Tech question to those who know more than me about a/c systems. Articulated lorries have a system that allows the tractor unit to apply the brakes on the following trailer at the same time that the driver applies the brakes in the tractor cab, as do car/caravan combos. Would it be possible for a system to be designed that would allow the tug to apply the aircraft brakes in a similar way? or maybe some external clip/bolt on that is attached prior to every tow and removed at the completion?

Just a thought.

[m500dpp]

My daughter tells me this is now operational again, good job by Boeing engineers it seems....

[AN2 Driver]

So let me ask you both- you say the Parking Brake was not released when you commenced pushing, hence pin breakage? What sort of operation is that? The pilot asks for pushback, the ground operator asks for Park brake release, the pilot confirms Park Brake released, pushback then commences. What sort of procedures are you using?


Sorry, only saw this now...

yea, exactly these procedures and still, while I was still doing this job years and years ago, we had several incidents where the park brake was NOT released. I even recall me demanding a CVR read out on one of these incidents which revealed that the crew HAD confirmed that the brakes were off when they were not...

One reason I liked the airbusses on this subject is the small light on the nosegear.

I also had a shear pin break during a tow, with your's truly on the flight deck. Straight and level, no roughness, nothing, just noticing the tug pulling away faster than we followed.

Happens, guys, even with procedures fully followed.

An2 Driver