SAA B737-700 hits catering truck (video)

[babemagnet]

http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/video/clips/SAA.asp

[the bald eagle]

Nice one!!! Not every day of the week do you get film footage like that
Beats Eastenders anyday :ok:

[nooluv]

looked like the truck was outside the safe parking line?
Anybody hurt?

[electricdeathjet]

Nooluv, I dont think so.. it looks like the wing of the aircraft was over the red line, truck looks like it was parked in its bay (within the white lines), sure was like a lucky escape and no one got hurt (I assume with no ambulances)

[Jetdriver]

Thread running in the African forum Here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306064).

[NutLoose]

Enjoy and Happy New Year all..

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=087_1198706113



Panic gripped on lookers and passengers at the Lusaka International airport when a South African airways passenger plane hit into a stationary truck upon arrival from Johannesburg.

A ZANIS crew that rushed to scene around 15:00 hours found airport officials and fire service personnel and South African Airways officials inspecting the Boeing 737-700 registration number ZS-SJD.

Uncompromising Airport and Zambia Police Officers could not however allow the crew access to the accident site as management had instructed them not to allow the press.

According to an eye witness who refused to be identified, the plane was about to park at the apron before passengers could disembark when its left wing that was dented, hit into the stationary utility truck registration number KYZ 207.

Efforts to get a comment from South African Airways officials also proved futile as they categorically refused to comment on the matter.

text from liveleak

[glad rag]

Big white line there for a reason.........

[stickyb]

Big white line there for a reason.........
Sure, and also notice that the container seems to be protruding over the line!

[Skipness One Echo]

Why the Hell didn't they stop immediately? Surely to God it's better safe than sorry to have an ops vehicle do an immediate look for a fuel leak with the fire service on it's way?
Also what is the security issue about POB? Is that a state secret now too big brother?

[keel beam]

The aircraft is clearly too far over. You may have noticed the red line while the aircraft was taxiing in. (The red line is the aircraft stand boundary) The aircraft should not be beyond the red line.
Was the aircraft being marshalled in?

[PAXboy]

This thread has been running in African Aviation for two weeks and local reports are there. Also, I think that you will find it is a 737-800.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306064

[The Bartender]

Big white line there for a reason.........

Yes, to keep the winglet at least a full centimeter from the truck... Sorry, but even if the truck had been within the lines, the two vehicles would be too close for safe operation...:rolleyes:

Why was the wing over the road anyway?

[Wiley]

Why was the wing over the road anyway?Some of your fellows have quite obviously never operated in Africa.

[soggy_cabbage]

Pilots say it was 3 feet over the line. "ground personel fault!!!)

Ground crew say it was not more than a foot.. (pilot error!!!)

(this gathered from many forums.)

I blame the guy who painted the lines. He should have measured everything then added ten feet, then a bit more and then five feet for the wife and kids!

""the board of enquiry finds that the purchase of 5 gallons of black paint, to cover up the existing markings, and 5 gallons of paint in assorted colors and a six inch brush will prevent another occurence of this tragic incident""

;)

[Bobbsy]

Just to indulge in some media bashing, I think it's a bit over the top to start the report with the line "Panic gripped onlookers and passengers" when the sound track of the video on that site contains such "panic" as "Whoa...did you see that? (nervous giggle) Yeah, he knocked over a container", while he was so upset that he kept shooting.

A question from a piece of SLF: since some of this seems to hinge on whether the truck in question was inside or outside the white line, at a "proper" airport (ignore Africa) is there a formal standard for how much clearance there should be between the parking space and the nearest point the largest aircraft using the stand would stretch to? When new models are introduced, how much coordination is there with airport operators about stand layout. (I'm not thinking of dramatic changes like the A380 but, rather, aircraft with slight--but obviously important--dimensional differences.)

Bobbsy

[Wiley]

Bobbsy, just to be even-handed and show we're not knocking just Africa, (although few who fly into Africa would disagree that it can sometimes present rather unique challenges), I hope this post will elicit a few responses from pilots who operate regularly into Kennedy at New York - quite possibly the biggest and busiest 'Third World' airfield in current operation.

Wing tip clearances (and not just at JFK) are, at the best of times, minimal, as airport authorities attempt to squeeze the proverbial quart out of a pint pot and allow as many aircraft to use the limited apace available.

Infrastructure just about everywhere is barely able to cope with the levels of traffic now using most airports. JFK is perhaps a little worse than most, but it's by no means alone. It's like most airfields everywhere - no one wants to spend any more money than they really have to, and perhaps just as importantly, offend the always noisy tree-hugging fraternity by expanding facilities at airfields to cope with increasing numbers - and size - of aircraft. In many cases, there just isn't the space anymore to expand into.

Heathrow and the protests over the long awaited Terminal Five is a case in point.

[Taildragger67]

Wiley,

QF 744 whacking a winglet (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/AAIR/aair200603130.aspx) into a blast fence when coming onto stand at KJFK is a case in your point.

And as I said in the other thread on this topic (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306054) (in JB), the Liveleak 'news item' shows that cruddy aviation reporting isn't just confined to UK red-tops!

Mods - may want to consider a thread-merge? Sounds like there are at least three running at the moment.

[call100]

Wing tip clearances (and not just at JFK) are, at the best of times, minimal, as airport authorities attempt to squeeze the proverbial quart out of a pint pot and allow as many aircraft to use the limited apace available. Can't comment on Africa or the US but at our airport there are no parking bays adjacent to taxiways or stands. They are contained at the head of the stand and Inter stand roads are kept clear while a/c are docking.
Looking at the Video, the aircraft is either on the taxiway in which case he's to far over or the taxiway is not coded for the aircraft. Or, he is coming onto a stand that is too small for the aircraft type. The catering truck was well away from the demarcation line. So any thought that the foot by which the vehicle breached the parking bay line caused the accident is a touch off track.
My initial thought is that its the fault of whoever provides the marshalling, if he was under marshalling guidance. If either the wrong taxiway width or stand width is correct then the marshaller should have had a wing tip man in place......I know, I know, 'Its Africa'....:rolleyes:
Obviously this is my view from watching the video. Angles can be deceptive and I will be interested in the official accident report.

[glad rag]

Quote from call ""...The catering truck was well away from the "demarcation" line. So any thought that the foot by which the vehicle breached the parking bay line caused the accident is a touch off track.....

Whatever, but just in case it ever happens to you, it might be good point in mitigation....

[call100]

gladrag Sorry! Don't understand your comment. The plane should not have been anywhere near the truck. The wing-tip should never have gone over the red line never mind the parking bay line. Should there be extraordinary circumstances meaning it was unavoidable then a wing man should have been provided.
The catering truck under any circumstances was not the cause of the accident.
What do you think the red demarcation lines are for? They denote the edge of the taxiway/stand.
There was certainly no need for your childish 'Whatever' comment.

[Peter Fanelli]

Was the aircraft being marshalled in?


Probably wouldn't matter much. Since I moved to the United States I've reached the conclusion that good marshalling is pretty much a dead art, both from the point of view of the pilot and the marshaller.

When I was a teenager I spent a lot of time at the airport and was suitably impressed at how a guy on the ground with a couple of table tennis bats could send a 727 dancing all over the tarmac and have it end up right where he wanted it because the pilot followed the instruction given by the marshaller.

These days here in the states it seems that as soon as you wave anything at a pilot they make a beeline for you where ever you happen to be located.

A signal to move straight ahead means just that, move straight ahead from the cockpit perspective in it's present direction, it doesn't mean come straight at me without passing go! When I want you to turn I will tell you.

Marshallers also need a kick in the arse, there was one I used to see on a regular basis who would keep his thumbs tucked through his pants belt loops so his entire range of motion for baton waving was limited to wrist movement, right up until it was time to stop the aircraft.

Sigh, it's so hard to find good help these days.

[call100]

True, its been a dying art since taken over by the handling agents in our neck of the woods. Turn over of staff seems to dilute the skills. This in turn dilutes the ability of pilots to follow a good marshaller. It's a vicious circle that needs to be broken to ensure the safety of the A/C on the ground. However, thats for another thread maybe.....
Suppose the reasons for this accident will come out soon enough.

[nugpot]

The plane should not have been anywhere near the truck. The wing-tip should never have gone over the red line never mind the parking bay line. Should there be extraordinary circumstances meaning it was unavoidable then a wing man should have been provided.
The catering truck under any circumstances was not the cause of the accident.
What do you think the red demarcation lines are for? They denote the edge of the taxiway/stand.
There was certainly no need for your childish 'Whatever' comment.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but ICAO Annex 14 (which prescribes all airport markings) does not mention red lines at all. Taxiway edge markers are stepped yellow lines and nothing precludes the wing from extending over the edge markers. It is there to keep the wheels from exceeding the LCN of the taxiway edge.

It has become an unofficial standard to mark the limits for parking ground equipment with red lines. This is not ICAO and also means nothing to aircraft. At some airports the stand limits are also marked with red lines. This is also non-ICAO and again you are allowed to cross the red line.

BTW, in this specific case, the aircraft was being marshalled and the geography of the bay is such that the only way to enter the bay is to taxi as the -800 did. I agree that a wing walker would have been prudent, but as mentioned before, very few posters on this forum operate in Africa and you would not really have an idea about the difficulties involved in operating a large aircraft into Lusaka.

Just to be perfectly clear. In ICAO Annex 14, yellow lines govern the movement and limits of movement of aircraft and white lines (except on the runway) are there for vehicles. Only two countries have filed exceptions to Annex 14 Para 5.2.1.5: Austria and France.

Austria:
Additional markings are on aprons, i.e. white for service roads (passenger and service vehicles) and red for
parking areas of service vehicles and ramp equipment, orange for limit of apron control competence.

France:
The taxiway markings are yellow except when a taxiway centre line splits, in which case one of the split
centre lines is blue and the other orange.

You will note that there is nothing from Zambia.

[call100]

nugpot ..Thank you for the constructive lesson. I understand from other posts to that I should not apply UK logic to this situation. That's why I said it was either Taxiway or Stand demarcation. A/C in my neck of the woods only park on stands big enough for them and don't have to encroach roadways to get onto stands. So forgive me for thinking its wrong.
Who ever was responsible for the marshalling of the aircraft has a lot of answering to do. I still believe that the truck was parked OK and a wing tip man should be necessary for every arrival on that stand. The fact that its Africa doesn't change that.
Can anyone give me a URL for the stand layout at the airport. I've been trying to find one to no avail.
By the way please don't crucify me. As I said it was only my view after seeing the video. Angles etc. can be deceptive and I will be interested in the accident report. As I spend my working day trying to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen it can only serve to educate.
Thanks again nugpot...

[Bearcat]

unfortunetly the book stops at you know who.....

[nugpot]

call100

Sorry mate, no offense intended.

I'll give you a verbal description of the apron.

If you take the terminal building as South of the apron, running east-west (not true headings, just for illustration), you enter the apron from the north/northeast. The stand/bay is not a pushback bay (no tug available), so you park with the aircraft almost parallel to the terminal building facing about 285 degrees (northwest).

When parked, the whole aircraft is on the northern side of the red line you see on the video. To get a long a/c like the -800 to face in the required direction on the yelow line, you have to overshoot the line with the nose when entering to get the mainwheels on the right track. This causes the wing to cross the red line. As explained in my earlier post, red lines are not intended for aircraft and can be crossed.

I cannot comment on the Captain's intent or thoughts, but I know that Lusaka was never designed to accept 737-800's in that area of the apron.

[divinehover]

The Capt happens to be a world leader in accident analysis. He is in fact Chairman of IFALPA Accident Analysis.

When you have to, on a daily bases, operate into airfields with substandard ATC and substandared ground handling you are going to get these sort of incidents.

Accidents happen. They happen quickly and without warning. Let us all learn from this.

[nugpot]

The Capt happens to be a world leader in accident analysis. He is in fact Chairman of IFALPA Accident Analysis.

Thanks dh, I didn't know it was him. Thanks to him SAA has a superb incident/accident response program and maintains a "no-blame" safety culture.

I bet he is a wee bit miffed though................:E

[nugpot]

Found this via GoogleEarth:

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f37/nugpot/LusakaIntCropped.jpg

[Willit Run]

With all the comments about "demarcation lines", and white lines, and parking places and rules and regs, and Africa being a different place, and red lines not being proper, blah, blah blah; Boeing put windows on the planes for a reason. This is totally mind boggleing. There is only one person to blame with no other excuses even being tolerated. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[divinehover]

Dear Willit Run

Please, for the sake of the entire aviation industry, do not get involved in Flight Safety or any form of Accident Analysis. Thank goodness there were men far wiser than you that realised that people with your poor attitude have never contributed anything to reducing aircraft accident rates.
The man you are so quick to condemn more that likely contributes more to the aviation community in one month than you will in you entire career.

[overstress]

unfortunetly the book stops at you know who.....

You mean.....


Lord Voldemort? :)

[call100]

nugpot. No offence taken. Thank you for the pic (I couldn't get GE to zoom in enough) and the description. Things are much clearer now. That really is a nightmare. Lets see what the official line would be. From your point of view will it be a good investigation?
Thanks again.

[nugpot]

From your point of view will it be a good investigation?

I would bet on it, but you probably won't see the report. This should be an internal company matter. No injuries or deaths.

[groundfloor]

How come the pax was operating a VCR or phone or whatever? In the new wunderbar electric a/c a little EMI (Electro magnetic interference) could make matters far more interesting - how about an airbus tea trolley...:}

Yes the chances are minimal but you get someone with an old/repaired device with its shielding damaged sitting in the right seat on the wrong airframe and voila all the dominoes in a row...:bored:

In any investigation everything gets checked out so I should think the camera operator will have to explain?

To all those nana s pointing fingers - there are those that have and those that are going to (from the helo world re flying into wires) so try and learn something, I have re the posts on French differences...;)

[PAXboy]

groundfloorHow come the pax was operating a VCR or phone or whatever?I presume that you have travelled on commercial flights recently? Many pax do not consider the rules apply to them. Many of them do not know that a video camera might emit, albeit a small amount, RF interference. Some will not have listened to the P/A and some P/As do not mention this. The only certainty is that pax will continue to take such pictures. There is a video doing the rounds (and in another R&N thread) about a Tarom flight that encountered a vehicle on the active just prior to rotation.

This is the way it is and stopping it almost impossible, given that CC are strapped in at the time. Also, you can bet that the person taking the video thinks that they will have contributed to the research in the subsequent investigation.

[lomapaseo]

...Boeing put windows in these things for a reason!

Please help me understand what happened here. Maybe you could get your friend to help us all understand what happened here so we can all learn something. For the life of me, I don't understand why he did not stop after hitting the truck? Did he not feel anything? Was he not looking out the window?
Happy new year!

WR

Quite a harsh post with a degree of prejudging and suposition among your questions. I'm not sure that you are owed an answer to your questions posed in a finding blame vein.

I'm quite sure the plane was stopped (safely) without hurling the presumed percentage of unbuckled passengers from their seats, but that remains to be proved by a followup investigation of some sort. I really don't expect to see any public follow up investigation and presume that any publicly available hints to the results might be in what changes occur to that gate area (restictions on allowable planes and/or tow in, etc.)

[Flying Bean]

nugpot

The following question was sent to DCA Zambia

We would request clarification of the following apron markings at L.I.A.
>
> The Red Line Running along the concrete drain (East- West) on the edge
> of the Main Apron, next to the service road.
> Is this an official designation of the edge of the apron for aircraft operational purposes?


The following answer was received:-

“The Red Lines are Apron Safety lines demarcating the Apron area, marking limits of parking Areas for Ground Equipment, service roads and passenger' paths.

- The lines are narrower and are in different colour from the guidelines used for aircraft.

- This is a standard guide as per ICAO documents.”


So it would appear, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that there is no official (ICAO) line demarcation for the edge of an apron for aircraft operations.
The Red Line is for traffic OFF the apron

Nugpot – does this tie in with your reading of ICAO 14 ??

There is definitely no edge yellow line on the video. As you have pointed out there is only the taxi guide line track which could not be followed by the aircraft in the space available.
Where does that leave the Pilot?? And the Marshal?
:(

[nugpot]

As I said before, ICAO Annex 14 does not mention red lines at all. It is only mentioned in the differences filed by one state (not Zambia).

As for the marshaller and pilot. Who knows what SAA would say. The Captain is always responsible for the safety of his aircraft. Obviously there are mitigating circumstances when under the control of a marshaller.

There but for the Grace of God.....................

[Throttle Arms]

My interpretation of Annex 14.

The red lines are Apron Safety Lines as defined in Annex 14, Section 5.2.13.

Section 5.2.1.6 of the Annex indicates that Apron Safety Lines shall be of a conspicuous colour which shall contrast with that used for aircraft stand markings.

You can't blame the line painter or designer. If the pilot was following a centre line it's pretty clear that it was designed for a much smaller aircraft.

Someone made an operational decision to move an aircraft through an area not intended to accomodate such an aircraft.

This is an important lesson for airports, many of them will see aircraft in the future that are much larger than the critical aircraft used to plan (design) the airport. The onus is on the operations group to work with the physical limitations of an airport when moving larger aircraft around.

[nugpot]

I can't find 5.2.1.13, could you post text or check reference.

[call100]

Throttle Arms. Thank you.
If the airport has designated the area as safe for vehicle parking, roadway or passenger walkway and used the line to mark that area, then it should be aircraft free at all times.
The red line is used to stop vehicles etc. encroaching into the aircraft's manoeuvring/parking area. It would therefore be fairly obvious that the area should not have had the A/C wing over hanging it.
The catering truck was correctly parked.
This takes us back to the simple fact that the A/C was parked on an unsuitable stand.
Now from an Airport Ops point of view. That would be the airport authorities responsibility.
I have every sympathy with the pilot who should not have been put in that position. It is unbelievable that this has been going on for some time. Makes it an accident that was bound to happen sometime.

Thanks to some informative posts on here I realise that discussing basic safety issues used in that neck of the woods is a bit pointless.

[Throttle Arms]

Nugpot, reference has been corrected.

In this case, it also appears as thought the red paint coincides with the end of the load bearing portion of surface (although I don’t believe that was their intention with the red line). Taxi side stripe marking characteristics can be found in section 7.2.3 although it is only a recommendation.

If that airport was to be able to accommodate that aircraft, Annex 14 table 3.1 specifies that 24.5 m is required from the centre line to the edge of the apron. Without that distance, appropriate safety measures (wingwalkers, Voice NOTAM, verbal warning by ATC) should have been taken to prevent such an occurrence.

I don't really have a problem with operational flexibility. For example, many airports were designed with the 744 as the critical aircraft but now routinely host larger aircraft such as the 777's or the Antonov 124 (and eventually the A380).

With larger aircraft, the airport/airline/ANS people have to deal with these operational limitations every day.

You can spread the blame around, but no single party (PIC, airport/airline operations, marshaller...) will ever be absolved of all responsibility.

[glad rag]

If the airport has designated the area as safe for vehicle parking, roadway or passenger walkway and used the line to mark that area, then it should be aircraft free at all times. What line?
The red line is used to stop vehicles etc. encroaching into the aircraft's manoeuvring/parking area. How do they service or fuel the aircraft them?? It would therefore be fairly obvious that the area should not have had the A/C wing over hanging it. Really?

The catering truck was IN correctly parked outside a designated area.


This takes us back to the simple fact that the A/C was parked on an unsuitable stand. It was not parked it was being maneuvered by an authorised, trained and responsible person.
Now from an Airport Ops point of view. That would be the airport authorities responsibility. ??? Dunno where you're going with this.
I have every sympathy with the pilot who should not have been put in that position. Absolutely, then again if you take the money...

It is unbelievable that this has been going on for some time. Makes it an accident that was bound to happen sometime. Not bound, it increases the likelihood however.

Thanks to some informative posts on here I realise that discussing basic safety issues used in that neck of the woods is a bit pointless.
Why?? surely the whole point of this is communicating these very hazards on a wider front??

P.S. sorry forgot to ask if you have worked out what caused both air and ground handlers to get it wrong yet?? have a look at the video again and see if you can spot it..

[Bearcat]

lets call a spade a shovel here....the pic taxied the aircraft in day light into the truck...the truck fell over. The truck was on the port side of the aircraft. The PIC also sits on the port side and has full view of the port wing.

Incident over....tea and biscuits in some out fits other places you'll be out the door or others spending some extra time just re aquainting the starboard panoromic view for a while.

Lets all move on........

[PAXboy]

glad ragThis takes us back to the simple fact that the A/C was parked on an unsuitable stand.Reading the thread in African Aviation (and elsewhere), I gather that the service is usually operated by A319 and that the B738 is wider. So the local folks might not have realised that.

Yes, the PIC has command but aviation is rarely just one 'thing' that can be wrapped up and put in a neat space in the filing cabinet.

[divinehover]

Accidents are not about who's fault it is. It's about how can we prevent it happening again. So all the peaople trying to lay blame on this forum are obviously not professional pilots but wannabe insurence assessors and you have have no place on a professional pilots website.
Who's caused this incident/accident is of no relavence in preventing the same thing happening in the future. What caused the incident/accident is what matters.