QF incident - LAX

[klx400]

That's gonna hurt - Qantas crash in Los Angeles causes millions of dollars damage (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-crash-in-los-angeles-causes-millions-of-dollars-damage-20140228-33r3w.html)

[Astra driver]

At first I was really surprised this could happen at LAX as the airport has a policy of using an airport security car to watch the wingtip on every A380 when they taxi, but the article states this occurred as one was towed empty from the mx area to the gate. In this case a car would not have been present since the aircraft had not even made it onto a taxiway and would presumably have been monitored by ground personnel acting as "Wing walkers".

In this case somebody was clearly asleep at the switch.

[Hotel Tango]

Shouldn't cost QF that much, including the overnight stays. I guess that will be picked up by the handling company's insurance.

[A A Gruntpuddock]

I've asked this before and never got a satisfactory answer.

Why don't they have video cameras on the wingtips to help avoid such incidents?

With all the glass panels on the cockpits surely one could be switched to monitor the tips whilst taxying?

It could also be switched to cameras under the plane to monitor the wheels when away from other aircraft to avoid putting one on the grass or running over debris.

Even a handheld unit which could be stowed away when actually lined up on the runway would be less expensive than accidents.

[Heathrow Harry]

why not just fit the little beepers that you find in any car these days for reversing......................

[meekmok]

I've asked this before and never got a satisfactory answer.

Why don't they have video cameras on the wingtips to help avoid such incidents?

With all the glass panels on the cockpits surely one could be switched to monitor the tips whilst taxying?

It could also be switched to cameras under the plane to monitor the wheels when away from other aircraft to avoid putting one on the grass or running over debris.

Even a handheld unit which could be stowed away when actually lined up on the runway would be less expensive than accidents.

I would imagine the cost of retrofitting video cameras (or even designing in on new planes) would outweigh the cost from these relatively rare events.

I would also question how effective the cameras would be at night (the accident above occurred at 9pm local)

[av8r76]

My lowest end Infiniti has the most rudimentary camera and onscreen guidelines and it works fine. If not on current online aircraft, but certainly on future productions.

I understand the certification process will be more tedious and costly, but if we can avoid what could have been a lot worse Joburg BA snafu, isn't it worth the effort?

The wingtips on these planes are not visible from the flight deck. And if cameras can be installed for the sake of pax entertainment surely there has to be an out on the pretext of safety.

[Permafrost_ATPL]

In other news, Prang Airways A380 runs over a GPU as it taxies on stand.

"We were looking at the wingtip cameras" said the embarrassed captain

:E

[lomapaseo]

I don't see the relevancy of wing tip cameras in a fender bender where the guy on the ground is driving the ship

[KBPsen]

I don't see the relevancy...That's because you make the rookie mistake of actually reading the article and thinking things through. Can't have that around here.

[SloppyJoe]

I don't see the relevancy of wing tip cameras in a fender bender where the guy on the ground is driving the ship

There is always someone qualified (for towing ops) sitting in a pilots seat during towing. Tow bars brake, it is not uncommon and then the only way to stop is the aircraft brakes. During towing the hydraulic system for brakes is always pressurized.

That's because you make the rookie mistake of actually reading the article and thinking things through. Can't have that around here.

That pretty much sums up PPRuNe, people with no clue defending each others uneducated opinions.

[Trackdiamond]

Wingtip sonar based reflectors giving audio feedback similar to reversing cars?The feedback can be sent staight to the towing driver...as its of less relevance to the pilot since he is not reverse taxiing....just a brainstorm.

[SeenItAll]

I get the feeling that jumbo/super wingtips are to other wingtips as trailer parks are to tornadoes -- they attract each other.

[aterpster]

SeenItAll:

I get the feeling that jumbo/super wingtips are to other wingtips as trailer parks are to tornadoes -- they attract each other.

Before RNAV came along VOR stations were magnets for thunderstorms.

[KBPsen]

That pretty much sums up PPRuNe, people with no clue defending each others uneducated opinions.Says the man who never heard of towbarless tractors.

[kinteafrokunta]

How about the automatic collision avoidance systems and sensors connected to both airplanes and tow trucks? Any close proximity into the NTZ around the plane should trigger avoidance automatically like those already installed in hi-tech cars.:ok:

[TWT]

How about people taking a bit more care and watching what they're doing ?

[Desert185]

^^^yeah, that.

[underfire]

Wow....nice civil dialog here....

Easily avoidable ground op mistake, no amount of equipment can replace stupid.

(If they wanted to, they could put a different lens on the tailcam and see the wingtips.)

[Cremeegg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SloppyJoe
That pretty much sums up PPRuNe, people with no clue defending each others uneducated opinions.
Says the man who never heard of towbarless tractors.


Or the man who doesn't know his brakes from his breaks.

[Una Due Tfc]

I'm sorry, but there's a mechanic with a hand held under each wing tip, and hopefully under the tail. Their ONE JOB is to look ahead and up to spot potential hazards and call the truck and cockpit to tell their colleagues "stop". Heads are going to roll for this, and the mechs or coneheads have no excuses

[barit1]

Easily avoidable ground op mistake, no amount of equipment can replace stupid.

I can see already the next excuse: "We were going along fine until the camera broke...":eek:

[B-HKD]

B744 - VH-OEI repair & inspection will take approximately 2 days

A380 - VH-OQI Repair & inspection will take approximately 7 days

QF is operating a ferry flight QF6006 VH-OJC SYD-BNE to operate QF51/52 SYD-SIN-BNE which was to be operated today by VH-OEI whilst VH-OQF will operate a ferry flight today as QF6020 SYD-LAX.

[onetrack]

I'm sorry, but there's a mechanic with a hand held under each wing tip, and hopefully under the tail. Their ONE JOB is to look ahead and up to spot potential hazards and call the truck and cockpit to tell their colleagues "stop". Heads are going to roll for this, and the mechs or coneheads have no excuses

Maybe .. just maybe .. one mechanic called out "STOP" .. and the call was just a few seconds too late .. or the response was just a little too slow coming?

You know, just like the old story about the top-class helper you get, when reversing your vehicle?

"Keep coming! .... keep coming! .... keep coming! .... BANG!!! ........ STOP!!!

[gaunty]

Sometimes it's just not your day.

Our MRO is pushing one of our jets backwards into the very crowded hangar for maintenance, wingwalkers, and tug driver in 2 way hand held comms. And yes they had all checked in. Wing walker sees imminent contact with even bigger jet calls for tug to stop, its clear the driver didnt get it, he is wearing the very good defenders (Pelton) he was required by law to wear. New procedure written and headset defenders for tug ordered. :rolleyes:

By the time the walker got to the tug it was all over. We got away lightly at around $0.5M. :{

[underfire]

I have never used anything but hand signals...(military based)

Cant imagine why one would rely on voice in that environment... :eek:

[gaunty]

Interesting, hand signals didnt work either. But you're right.

[ExSp33db1rd]

[Interesting, hand signals didnt work either. But you're right.]


Won't repeat the story, but once nearly drove No.2 engine into the passenger bording thingy. First reaction from the airport staff was " The lead in and stop lights were on, it wasn't our fault", correct, I agreed, but you had all the loaders and engineers down there waiting for me to stop, and not one of them had the sense to jump up and down and signal me to stop.


( of course, they weren't qualified ground marshallers, so "it was more then their jobsworth" to interfere, I guess. Makes you weep.)


I wonder how many stood and watched the two QF aircraft get progressively closer and did NOTHING about it ?

[gaunty]

Birdseed :ok:

If the lights were on then you had every right to assume that ALL of the ground equipment was "behind the line".

They also had a responsibility to signal you in any manner possible if it was not.

Your professionalism was the final barrier to an allision.

So their bad was twofold.

I still see baggage handlers driving strings of full, or worse, empty igloo trailers across the apron at speeds that deny any means of prevention of damage to others and aircraft if it comes uncoupled. But nobody seems to take any notice.

[Tinwacker]

nearly drove No.2 engine into the passenger bording thingy

Why did you not stop your aircraft and flash the landing lights, the headset person could then connect and confirm clearance now assured and for you to continue with the guidance system..

Assuming pax boarding on the left side then the loaders would have been clear to your right out of vision of the thingy..

Again assuming a four engine aircraft, large four engine aircraft perhaps, you didn't see the people on the ground rushing to move the thingy out of the way or anybody jumping and waving. Your no.2 engine and the steps would have been passed your cockpit view where the action was taking place.

not one of them had the sense to jump up and down and signal me to stop.

So you would have seen that?? they probably thought that the driver would stop his aircraft too, as he is looking out of the window:eek: isn't he??

"it was more then their jobsworth"

...sounds a bit BA 1980ish

I wonder how many stood and watched the two QF aircraft get progressively closer and did NOTHING about it ?

Judgemental??
Have you ever tried to shout or listen on a noisy airfield or at a wing tip when wearing ear defenders as required to?? The onlookers, if any, wouldn't see the impending closeness of these two very large aircraft. They should and would be clear of aircraft apron movements:=

Fortunately these incidents are not that common and lets keep it that way, but reading this thread it's a daily event of doom and gloom:*

[SawMan]

The best protocol would be wireless AND hand signals. And not much expense to do that- none if they already have wireless headsets. A cost comparison of one incident versus the purchase of wireless would put the beancounters on your side as well. Wireless alone can fail- nobody knows if their transmitter is going to fail the next time it's keyed and similar for a dead receiver or garbled radio traffic going unheeded. Handsignals can go unseen. Both together more than doubles your chances at success so why not?

[LeeJoyce]

Here down under we use air horns

The wing walkers give you a toot and you stop, it's not rocket science

[awblain]

Hand signals sound OK, but you can't see both hand signalers at the same time. In a hangar there were presumably hazards both sides.

An air horn sounds better, but what if it's fumbled, empty or masked by other loud sounds and ear protection? A wingtip on an A380 is about as far from the tug as you'll get.

[glbtrtr]

The best protocol would be wireless AND hand signals. And not much expense to do that- none if they already have wireless headsets.

No much options to connect wireless all these people together
Flight interphone supports only one wireless headset on most planes
Service interphone may work but will create more issue as wing walkers may connect their xmtrs on the engines .
An additionnal wireless frequency only for wing walkers / tug driver may not work as another distraction for the driver as he as to drive first .

So far the extra staff next to the driver that sees the whole ops looks to be the best solution

[readywhenreaching]

pics and condensed infos here (http://www.jacdec.de/news/[email protected])
http://www.jacdec.de/fotos/news/2014/2014-02-27_A388+B744@KLAX_DRAWsmall.jpg

[llondel]

From an engineering standpoint, I'd put a big red button on the handsets used by wing walkers that were linked to the tug radio and controls in such a way as to either flash a red light obvious to the driver, or even to directly operate the brakes as an emergency stop. I'd have an encrypted signal too, to avoid idiots spoofing the transmission. There are other implications to the brake operations, of course, which might make it worse than the original problem.

[Koan]

Here is the real story.
Years ago airlines would employ all kinds of workers on full benefits.
These people would stay for decades in their positions, such as ramp agents, and
mechanics, and thus they would gain decades of experience enjoying a decent middle-class standard of living. Things did happen but these kind of preventable delays due to ground damage were rare.

Now all these jobs are farmed out to subcontractors who pay peanuts, and have high turnover. This is the cost of outsourcing.

[parabellum]

Have you ever tried to shout or listen on a noisy airfield or at a wing tip when wearing ear defenders as required to??


If this all took place in the hangar area, i.e. not on the live tarmac, then would you be wearing ear protectors for ground manoeuvring by tug? Loudest noise likely to be an APU unless someone is doing engine runs.


Definitely should have been a wing walker for the A380 and a wing guard for the B744 in my book.

[ExSp33db1rd]

[...sounds a bit BA 1980ish]


akcherly - Bombay 1990-ish.


Having re-counted the tale once on PPRuNe already I'm not inclined to repeat myself, but it was my fault, the lead in lights were directly ahead, but the stop light bar was at 90 degrees to my right, and in swinging my head back and forth I passed the stop position, you might ask what the co-pilot was doing, but the Buck Stopped With Me. Eventually I asked the Co-Pilot where the stop light view was, and "Christ !! we've passed it" and hammered the brakes just before I drove the engine into the gangway.


Of course, I was looking to the right, for the stop light, not to the left, or I might have seen the engine 2" away from disaster.


My beef was that the assembled engineering / loading staff would have watched me do it with no attempt to even try to signal to me, there were plenty in front who could have simply crossed their hands over their head, a universally understood sign.


One could argue that the cunning Indian design, that literally meant that one had to have an eye on the side of the head, was at fault, i.e. one of the holes in the Swiss Cheese ?


The simplest self-parking device I ever saw was simply a long mirror mounted on the wall of the terminal, one could see ones' own nosewheel and steer it down the white line until reaching a cross line labelled 707, or 747, or DC-10 or whatever. That was in Miami, simple, but it took an American to invent it, the rest of the World had a series of complicated and convulated ideas, and we were subjected to everyone of them.


KISS. A man with a pair of wands takes a lot of beating.


[Judgemental?? ] Agreed, we weren't there, were we ?

[D.Lamination]

Post Number one lists the Sydney Morning Herald headline:
Qantas crash in Los Angeles causes millions of dollars damage

Is it just me, or is this more appalling sensationalist journalism - calling a ground towing collision / hangar rash a "CRASH"??

In an aviation context a "crash" implies a major disaster during T/O, LDG or inflight.

Then again the SMH loves beating up QANTAS

[Jet Jockey A4]

"Here is the real story.
Years ago airlines would employ all kinds of workers on full benefits.
These people would stay for decades in their positions, such as ramp agents, and
mechanics, and thus they would gain decades of experience enjoying a decent middle-class standard of living. Things did happen but these kind of preventable delays due to ground damage were rare.

Now all these jobs are farmed out to subcontractors who pay peanuts, and have high turnover. This is the cost of outsourcing."

I could not agreed more!

[BEA 71]

Absolutely right. Experience and common sense made the work environment much safer. If the old farts were still on active duties, only a fraction of security staff were needed. Logical thinking was part of many training courses we attended. We could " smell " trouble. Then came the laptop generation...

[mickjoebill]

Pity some of the costly surveillance passengers are subjected to a mere 100 meters away, can't be applied to ensuring the security of half a billon dollars of the finest heavy metal…

[YRP]

Delam, I think one practical if not technical definition of a crash is as a sound, and I'm guessing this one made a decent crash sound. :E

[kinteafrokunta]

Post Number one lists the Sydney Morning Herald headline:
Quote:
Qantas crash in Los Angeles causes millions of dollars damage
Is it just me, or is this more appalling sensationalist journalism - calling a ground towing collision / hangar rash a "CRASH"??

In an aviation context a "crash" implies a major disaster during T/O, LDG or inflight.

Then again the SMH loves beating up QANTAS


.........and they classified the BA B744 taxi prang at Jo'burg an " incident "!!!
When someone pointed that out THAT IT WAS TECHNICALLY AN ACCIDENT, his/her post was removed pronto, before you could finish saying " utter codswallop "!:ugh:

[frangatang]

I suppose they could put a couple of patches on the 400 and pop it up to the dump at victorville which is where its heading soon anyway , if you believe the QF cuts coming!

[grafity]

Absolutely right. Experience and common sense made the work environment much safer. If the old farts were still on active duties, only a fraction of security staff were needed. Logical thinking was part of many training courses we attended. We could " smell " trouble. Then came the laptop generation...

You'll never guess who the lecturers were during my apprenticeship??? Old farts!! Their illogical thinking training methods were a bit hard to get used to alright, but thankfully we didn't have the "Smell Test" to contend with so we all got through with flying colours. :ok:

Laptop generation?? Get with the times man, it's smartphones and tablets now. No one uses laptops anymore. :}

Reality is BEA a lot of the old farts you speak of are struggling to keep up with the times. In the good old days you had a lot more time and people, and a lot less complicated. I'd happily trade in my gadgets for the cushy lifestyle you guys had. :ok:

As for this accident, I thought we waited for reports on PPrune. Or, is that only for pilots?

[SloppyJoe]

Says the man who never heard of towbarless tractors.

Oh I did not realize that when using a towbarless tractor there is no requirement for someone to be in a pilots seat having the use of the aircraft brakes. Or is this just more uneducated information like before?

Or the man who doesn't know his brakes from his breaks.

Yes, spelling is not my strong point. Did you think I meant when the tow bar took a break or it broke? Sorry if that confused you, you must have a very low IQ if it did. I meant if the tow bar does not continue to hold the aircraft. Not that I think it holds up the aircraft as I guess that may be confusing to you also given your previous comment. Think you better speak to an adult and they can explain it to you pictorially or if they have the time with the use of models.

[DC10Forever]

Now all these jobs are farmed out to subcontractors who pay peanuts, and have high turnover. This is the cost of outsourcing.

Normally I would totally agree with this. However at LAX QANTAS had hired their own towing crew directly employed by them just to move airplanes. They also bought a multimillion fleet of Douglas tractors to do the job so really they spared no expense. Menzies still does their baggage/cargo loading. This was done years ago after Swissport got into the nasty habit of banging their planes into other planes and poles.

[saudipc-9]

Quote:
Says the man who never heard of towbarless tractors.
Oh I did not realize that when using a towbarless tractor there is no requirement for someone to be in a pilots seat having the use of the aircraft brakes. Or is this just more uneducated information like before?

Quote:
Or the man who doesn't know his brakes from his breaks.
Yes, spelling is not my strong point. Did you think I meant when the tow bar took a break or it broke? Sorry if that confused you, you must have a very low IQ if it did. I meant if the tow bar does not continue to hold the aircraft. Not that I think it holds up the aircraft as I guess that may be confusing to you also given your previous comment. Think you better speak to an adult and they can explain it to you pictorially or if they have the time with the use of models.


SloppySeconds making friends again:=

[Robert Campbell]

At the rate that pilots are putting GoPro cameras on their Cessnas and other aircraft with speed tape or Duct tape, it wouldn't be very expensive to rig a camera on each wing tip for just ground handling, or to make a permanent installation of a GoPro or similar type of camera on each wing tip. A tablet type monitor could provide the video feed to the tug operator and mechanic in the cockpit. No wiring is required. Everything needed is an off the shelf item.

Of course the delay caused by getting the correct stamps of approval from various committees and inspectors will make implementation impossible for several years in addition to making the final cost of installation prohibitively expensive.