Virgin A340 smacks fence at JFK during pushback

[peekay4]

Seems to be another tug incident. It's reportedly G-VBUG, A340-642, MSN 804.

Virgin Atlantic plane hits blast fence at JFK | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV (http://pix11.com/2015/09/19/virgin-atlantic-plane-apparently-crashes-into-blast-fence-at-jfk/)

Plane Wing Hits Fence at JFK; No Injures Reported | NBC New York (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-Plane-Wing-Hits-Fence-JFK-Airport-No-Injuries-328367081.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_NYBrand)

https://tribwpix.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cprix28w8aaevnk.jpg?w=600

[ettore]

Swiss did even better than Virgin only two days ago :*

Flughafen: Swiss-Flugzeug rammt Passagiertreppe - - landbote.ch (http://www.landbote.ch/ueberregional/swissflugzeug-rammt-passagiertreppe/story/22150455)

[aerotransport.org]

Cars now have onboard ultrasonic sensors for parking assistance. Why not installed on wingtips ? Or is this a dumb idea ?

[Oakape]

Might be helpful when taxying the aircraft, but less so when being pushed back or towed.

Stay on the line, make sure all ground equipment is behind the clearance lines & if it looks tight, stop & get a wing-walker.

[sitigeltfel]

Looking at the scar on the fence, the wing appears to have been travelling (pivoting?) forwards when it struck.

[Capn Bloggs]

Looking at the scar on the fence, the wing appears to have been travelling (pivoting?) forwards when it struck.
It looks like a crack on the fence through which we can see the slanted edge of the building behind.

[Scuffers]

So, out of interest, who is ultimately responsible for the plane whilst being pushed by tug?

[bugged on the right]

Looks like the wing walker may have been updating his facebook page.

[Hotel Tango]

The solution is to stop paying ground personnel peanuts, hire staff with brain cells and ensure that they are adequately trained!

[TomU]

When I first encountered large swept wing aircraft (VC10) as an RAF technician, I was taught about "swept wing growth". Because of the landing gear geometry and wing plan, in a turn, the wing tip presescribes a larger arc that expected. I wonder if that is still taught to ground handlers.

[surely not]

There are a couple of simulator manufacturers who produce 3 screen push back simulators. The screen can be customised to show views of the stands and backgrounds at the airport of operation to increase the realism. It is also possible to show the view from above, the side, as well as from the tugs cab.

They can be set up to simulate tug and bar or towbarless push back tractors and aircraft types can also be specified. If you are at an airport that only handles narrow bodies then you wouldn't need an A380 or B777 simulated.

At a GHA I worked at the simulator was used both for initial push back training and also refresher training at stated intervals. There were a couple of stands with awkward push backs and these were obvious candidates to be in the database.

The visuals are good quality and we actually suspended 2 experienced push back drivers from operating tractors because they had some bad habits. They went through re-training and when we were satisfied they returned to the job.

There is some very good modern training available, but how many companies use it I couldn't tell you.

[DirtyProp]

Cars now have onboard ultrasonic sensors for parking assistance. Why not installed on wingtips ? Or is this a dumb idea ?
Not a dumb idea per se.
But everything that is part of the equipment of an airplane needs to be certified.
More paperwork, more hassles, more money.

[Compylot]

OK gentlemen, yet another robust discussion.

A couple of points that warrant further investigation.

Looking at the scar on the fence, the wing appears to have been travelling (pivoting?) forwards when it struck. Yes indeed the wing does appear to have been pivoting forward after it struck?

Can anyone gauge from the picture exactly how far and with how much energy said wingtip pivoted against the fence? Perhaps some of our more learned friends can come up with some calculations to determine how long the wingtip was scraped against the fence and with how much force before it came to the attention of either the flight crew or ground staff?

From this we should be able to determine the cumulative hours of log book time in the flight deck and the approximate ages of each flight crew member.

But before I jump to any conclusions...

Also..

There are a couple of simulator manufacturers who produce 3 screen push back simulators. The screen can be customised to show views of the stands and backgrounds at the airport of operation to increase the realism. It is also possible to show the view from above, the side, as well as from the tugs cab.I have been advocating pushback simulators for years now!

With the available technology there is no excuse to expect that ground staff involved with a push back shouldn't be trained to the highest standard.

IMHO this should involve endorsement on ground equipment which includes a mandatory simulator syllabus using the "3 screen push back simulator" and recurrent training on type to ensure proficiency.

Of course I'd expect only the brightest and best to apply to be trained for such positions and they may presume to be remunerated accordingly... but by mitigating such a risk and avoiding such "fence scrapes" in the future adding only a few dollars to each ticket, well worth the money spent, wouldn't you say?

My two cents..

[TowerDog]

. The solution is to stop paying ground personnel peanuts, hire staff with brain cells and ensure that they are adequately trained!

Great idea, but it probably won't happen.:sad:

[JW411]

Hotel Tango:

The solution is to stop paying ground personnel peanuts....

I wonder if you would be so kind as to tell us just how much tug drivers at JFK are paid?

[tatelyle]

The solution is to stop paying ground personnel peanuts, hire staff with brain cells and ensure that they are adequately trained!


Been saying this for years. Every new season you get new numpties, because they will not pay to retain good staff. And then they wonder why they shove our wing right through someone else's cockpit. Could have been nasty, that one.

And then you get new Redcaps each season too, which is another hole in the Swiss cheese.

Tate

[Hotel Tango]

Great idea, but it probably won't happen.

You bet it won't! It was just a little sarcasm on my part.

I wonder if you would be so kind as to tell us just how much tug drivers at JFK are paid?

I told you already: peanuts! (Just like most people in aviation today JW)!

[Bearcat]

Area where they park is very tight re fencing and room to manoeuvre.....doesn't surprise me this happened.

[oyster cracker]

Hotel Tango is correct: I blocked in at a station in y 737-400 where the ground ops had been outsourced from our mainline to a local "vendor". Our procedure was to shut down the #2 engine to expedite the baggage offload. That being done,a young ramper placed a plastic orange cone in front of the #1 engine which greedily ingested the orange cone. Orange confetti galore! The engine checked out after MX scoped it, but my concern was for the ramper. He could have just as easily been sucked into that engine.

[Woff1965]

How would they actually fix that. I thought the A340 had a composite wing without any joints.

[cessnapete]

The aircraft flew back yesterday to Lhr minus a winglet, they are removable. Like the B744 aircraft, cleared to operate with one winglet missing.
Presume damaged tip will be repaired and refitted.

[Basil]

Area where they park is very tight re fencing and room to manoeuvre.....doesn't surprise me this happened.
Which, of course, means that someone, or many, have probably predicted a scrape but nothing was done.
I'm having an attack of déjà vu.

[Basil]

The aircraft flew back yesterday to Lhr minus a winglet
I flew a type which was authorised to do that.
ONE missing was an Acceptable Defect but TWO was not - never understood that. Probably hadn't been considered, researched, demonstrated and certificated on the basis that to lose one winglet may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness :E

[Cazalet33]

The solution is to stop paying ground personnel peanuts, hire staff with brain cells and ensure that they are adequately trained!

It really doesn't matter how many peanuts you feed your monkeys if you hire fools.

Here's what two very well paid monkeys did to an innocent 747 (not to mention the well charted brick outhouse they clobbered).

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00495/144156636_2_495433b.jpg

[cessnapete]

I flew the B747- 400 which had the same MEL restrictions. Ok to fly with one missing but not both. Any engineering types here to explain why??

[Union Jack]

ONE missing was an Acceptable Defect but TWO was not - never understood that. Probably hadn't been considered, researched, demonstrated and certificated on the basis that to lose one winglet may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness - Basil

A historical precedent, admittedly in respect of a different form of travel, may be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RghKdGn8h5A :ok:

Jack

[smala01]

I flew the B747- 400 which had the same MEL restrictions. Ok to fly with one missing but not both. Any engineering types here to explain why??

I was told by someone who should know that it was due to cost reasons in certification. There is no engineering reason why it would be unsafe to fly with 2 missing winglets.

[BBK]

I was told that the reason you cannot dispatch with both winglets missing, on the 744 at least, was that it was due to the decrease in static wick dischargers. I can't verify that but it was from a colleague who is good on this sort of thing.

Anyone confirm or deny?

[Una Due Tfc]

There are B744s flying with no winglets fitted, domestically in Japan/Korea and some cargo ones in the US bringing parts to Everett for assembly I think. Fitting winglets to them only saves fuel if the sector is longer than a few hours, roughly 5 IIRC

[typhoid]

To certify the CDL for missing winglets, the OEM has to flight test the configuration.

To save cash for an option no one want to pay for, typically only 1 winglet removed is tested. If an airline wants 2 removed they can pay for the flight testing to the OEM. Basically it involves revising the performance numbers i,e, measure the increased fuel burn.

PS. I would be surprised static wicks would be an issue in this. The aircraft should have sufficient elsewhere to compensate. I think around up to 1 in 7 may be missing per typical design.

[wiggy]

Static Wicks:

According to one 744 CDL, and I paraphrase: 60 installed, despatch allowable with 23 fitted (45 needed if operation requires use of HF and/or ADF). Various comments about distribution of wicks :rolleyes:

To certify the CDL for missing winglets, the OEM has to flight test the configuration.

To save cash for an option no one want to pay for, typically only 1 winglet removed is tested.

That's what I've heard.