EZY LGW-AMS pushed back onto grass

[cap360]

EZY A320 LGW-AMS pushed back onto grass 29th Dec The Tug Crew then tried to pull the aircraft out of the mud without success. What happened next is beyond belief ! the Captain Calls for Taxi ! and is going to try to free the stuck aircraft. Only when the other EZY aircraft pushing back off the adjacent stand called him and said "do you realise are in the grass?" the reply was "yes the tug failed to pull us out" he was then advised to stay where he was and get help. !!

[noflynomore]

I'd have thought it beyond belief if he hadn't tried - though we don't know how deep it was sunk in.

What's the harm in trying? Isn't that the first thing you'd do? He'd look a right chump if they deplaned the pax, sent them off hours later in a spare and then found it came off the grass under its own power.

[Landflap]

Nofylnomore : Absolutely. Tis what we get all this dosh for eh ? Think outside the box sometimes but we do stand at sole risk if it all goes horribly wrong.

[Capt Fathom]

If you could power it out of the mire, there could be mud left on the wheels which could come off during takeoff and cause damage.
Best to leave it to the engineers to get it off the grass, carry out an inspection and clean it up! :ok:

[tubby linton]

EasyJet plane trying to take off at Gatwick delayed ?after pushed onto the GRASS' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4073120/EasyJet-plane-trying-Gatwick-delayed-pushed-GRASS-bungling-ground-crew.html) The ground looked frozen so should have been firm.Any idea what stand they were pushed from?

[763 jock]

Is this thread for real? Are people seriously suggesting that the best idea is to open up the taps and give it a go?

Are there any professional pilots actually on this site anymore?

[DaveReidUK]

Any idea what stand they were pushed from?

There's a rather confusing double-track on FlightRadar24 which suggests that it may have pushed from one of the 140 stands, in which case it presumably went straight back onto the grass to the south of Twy J.

[Good Business Sense]

763 Jock

Jeez 763 sooooo right - before I got to your post my jaw had already hit the floor.

[saddest aviator]

Oh come on does this really warrant so much criticism !! Many years ago at Gatwick in a B757 the tug had difficulty pushing back my aircraft because of too much deicing fluid spilt on the ramp. Solution crack the reversers! Of course under the direction of the ground crew and permission of the tower. We as a profession are now so terrified to think outside the box, fearing retribution from an aggressive management. Grow some :mad: guys and do what you are paid for.:rolleyes:

[Nil further]

AFAIK as soon as the aircraft has departed the paved surface it becomes a notifiable incident to the AAIB and the a/c should not be moved until the AAIB give the OK ?

[Nightstop]

I'd say it was pushed back from Stand 555, judging by the Emirates A380 in the background which always parks on 110, and taxiway QB is just alongside.
As for the suggestion that you attempt to power out of the mire, absolutely rediculous idea :=

[followthegreens]

We as a profession are now so terrified to think outside the box, fearing retribution from an aggressive management.

"Thinking outside the box" does not automatically generate a good idea...

I would suggest professional pilots leave shoving the throttles forward and shouting "Power!" to Mr Clarkson :cool:

[Black Pudding]

Then stupidity of anyone thinking you should try and power it out is beyond me. Anyone who thinks they should have tried that should never be allowed anywhere near the controls of an aircraft. It's the push back engineers fault. Their problem, not the Captains. Shut down the engines and await instructions from the office. The implications and risk trying to power it out may not only ladbto your career being over, but possibly injury or even a bit of time spent in jail. How stupid can some people be.

[GAZIN]

During my career I have seen aircraft helping the tug with engine power a few times, usually successfully. But it wasn't a good idea then and still isn't, it's too unpredictable.
If the tug couldn't extricate the aircraft then the situation required some careful consideration. The pilot wouldn't have had a complete picture of his situation without getting out and seeing for himself.

[Huck]

Oh come on does this really warrant so much criticism !! Many years ago at Gatwick in a B757 the tug had difficulty pushing back my aircraft because of too much deicing fluid spilt on the ramp. Solution crack the reversers! Of course under the direction of the ground crew and permission of the tower. We as a profession are now so terrified to think outside the box, fearing retribution from an aggressive management. Grow some bo...cks guys and do what you are paid for.

I'm paid to consider the hazards of my actions. I have absolutely no idea of the strains inflicted on the struts, pulling out of mud like that. This ain't a Jeep. The gear is being drug through the mud, while holding up the weight of the aircraft and any dynamic forces caused by hitting ruts or the edge of the pavement. Guts got nothing to do with it.

[A4]

Some of the "macho" responses on here sound like they're from a bygone era. As Commander you are LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for everything that happens on your aircraft and we live in a highly litigious world. Everything you say over the PA is recorded by 100+ iPhones and on the WWW before the engines have spooled down :rolleyes:

If you're about to do some "out of the box" thinking - which sometimes is perfectly acceptable - before doing so, just take a few moments to think how it will sound as you try to justify your actions if it all goes wrong/gets reported/appears on FaceBook/Twitter or any other (anti)social media outlet.

Your company will thank you for your extra effort to keep the program going.....right up until the point it all goes wrong....they'll then be sitting on the other side of the courtroom from you.

Don't be heros. Play by rules, do what is safe, do what is sensible. If the flight gets delayed/canned - so what, that's not YOUR problem, it's the company's to resolve.

We get paid "big bucks" to do the right thing - not to make up off the cuff clever ideas. K.I.S

[grafity]

During my career I have seen aircraft helping the tug with engine power a few times, usually successfully. But it wasn't a good idea then and still isn't, it's too unpredictable.
If the tug couldn't extricate the aircraft then the situation required some careful consideration. The pilot wouldn't have had a complete picture of his situation without getting out and seeing for himself.

I presume in this case if they called for taxi the tug had been disconnected. Looking at the pictures it could be that the reason the tug didn't stop was that it lost traction on ice and couldn't stop before the grass.

I'm paid to consider the hazards of my actions. I have absolutely no idea of the strains inflicted on the struts, pulling out of mud like that. This ain't a Jeep. The gear is being drug through the mud, while holding up the weight of the aircraft and any dynamic forces caused by hitting ruts or the edge of the pavement. Guts got nothing to do with it.

You really have very little understanding of the forces your landing gear is designed to be subjected to. Think of the strain on the struts when you're sitting on the breaks at ref thrust, or how's about the plowing it into the runway at 150 knots. If you're going to worry about anything it's engine FOD.


Moral of the story, logic says give it a go but that's not what they want you to do, so don't. Go have a cup of tea while someone else on big bucks gets to make their decision. :ok:

[davidjpowell]

Looking at this chap you can easily see what might go wrong...

zj0a0wtGQKo

[Ivan aromer]

An intresting selection of replies to this thread which I think reflects what we have become nowdays, too frightened of our own shadows, it's somebody else's fault, the company will have to sort it out, shut down and wait for help.
Oh dear has it really got that bad?
We are lateral thinking problem solvers, that what we get paid for, isnt it?

[16024]

AFAIK as soon as the aircraft has departed the paved surface it becomes a notifiable incident to the AAIB and the a/c should not be moved until the AAIB give the OK ?
Do you have a source for that statement?
I'm not suggesting we strap on our spurs (or tundra tyres) for every situation, or that I'd have tried off-roading in this instance, but just for some perspective here's the Fluff operating far from any paved surface:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hx4my.jpg

[paperHanger]

Meh, having flown a fair bit into places like EFRO, EKSN etc I fail to see the big issue. When it gets bad up there, they don't even try with the tug, if you can't move it with the fan's you are staying there. Sure, stuck axle deep in mud is one thing, wheels a couple of feet onto hard grass is nothing to wet your knickers about.

[DaveReidUK]

AFAIK as soon as the aircraft has departed the paved surface it becomes a notifiable incident to the AAIB and the a/c should not be moved until the AAIB give the OK ?Do you have a source for that statement?

A reportable accident/incident usually implies damage and/or injury, or at least a serious risk thereof.

So, for example, a runway departure on takeoff or landing could well qualify. Pushing an aircraft off the taxiway with a tug, no matter how embarrassing or inconvenient, probably doesn't.

[Dan Winterland]

AFAIK as soon as the aircraft has departed the paved surface it becomes a notifiable incident to the AAIB and the a/c should not be moved until the AAIB give the OK ?

It's a reportable incident, but it's not an accident. Unless it warrants at least being a serious incident, the AAIB won't be involved. ICAO Annex 13 refers.

[Icelanta]

Gentlemen,

Do look longer than your nose for crying out loud.

So you get pushed into the grass/mud. What do you think this will do to your tires, brakes, engines( or do you really think that throttling up close over unknown state of ground will not risk FOD?!)...indeed. you have NO IDEA what amount of soil is contaminating these surfaces.
Any sane person gets the aircraft pulled "on the dry" in a professional way and gets the aircraft inspected.
But alas, it seems that more and more children of the magenta are becoming Captain without a notion of Airmanship, Captaincy and common sense. And that is not against Easyjet, but a general observation.

[16024]

Mate: some "gentlemen" here were captains before the magenta line was thought of.
What do you do when there is no "dry" for a thousand miles in any direction?

[4468]

Icelanta

Couldn't agree more.

It's a very long time since I started flying! A time when Magenta was little more than a character in one of my favourite films!

When faced with attempting something in a jet I have not been trained for nor experienced, I may well take a cautious approach. A risk/benefit analysis! Here I can see one option that carries absolutely no risk. To life, machinery or my career. Against another option that carries an unquantifiable risk. To life, machinery and my career.

And what benefit is there from the second option? Is anyone SERIOUSLY suggesting going flying in these circumstances?

There are old pilots. There are bold pilots. But the only old and bold pilots live here on pprune, and it seems the older they get, the better they were!

[framer]

What's the big rush to get this flight away? Are we at war? Is there a medical emergency?
Sit on your hands, make some radio calls, keep the pax / crew informed ( there goes 3 minutes) , realise that the sun will still come up if it takes an hour or two to arrive at an engineering fix ( probably different tug or deplaning) and then chuckle to yourself about the story you'l tell on your next overnight.
All you folk who want to rev it up to keep on schedule sure must think your individual flights are critical.

[Ivan aromer]

EU 261 for a start

[16024]

Is anyone SERIOUSLY suggesting going flying in these circumstances?

Not me.

My crticism, as at post#21 ref post#10, was against people who hold up a completely imaginary rule book in the hope that it will keep them safe.

[Musket90]

As mentioned it looks like stand 555 area and I understand the push back procedure from
these stands for B737/A320 types is straight back towards the grass rather than a turn to
align with the taxiway centreline, maybe so to avoid delay to others on nearby stands.
Once tug disconnects and ground crew are clear the aircraft is then required to make a
sharp turn to pick up the centreline.

[scifi]

OK, so does anyone know how the Engineers got it out of the grass...?


My Guess is that the Engineer sat in the left seat and applied thrust, up to and including, TOGA, to get it moving...
Either that, or he used a Bigger Tug, or maybe two..

[Hotel Tango]

The world crumbles around us and we now have 2 pages of mainly rubbish centered around an aircraft pushed back into the grass. The world crumbles even more

[737Jock]

https://cdn3.scrvt.com/airportdtm/public/airportdtm/a20e6f8fbe0ec727/a73f7189f790a97cdd09060bacef9732/plane-a320-2.jpg

For some of you drama queens, here is a picture of an A320. Notice how the main gear is behind the engines?

When groundcrew normally pushes you back with the tail sticking far out on to the grass in LGW from these stands, do you really believe that there is constant debris flying backwards? The worrying thing here is that it seems it has become a sport in LGW to pushback aircraft as close as possible to the pavement edge from a mainwheel perspective.

But clearly the engines nor the nosewheel would be over unpaved surface if the main wheels are just over the edge. So all those dramatic videos are completely unrelated.

The plane was disembarked, nobody powered out. What is this thread even about?

[4468]

The plane was disembarked, nobody powered out. What is this thread even about?
I dunno, but this thread may be about, the captain called for 'taxi'? Because the tug had failed to pull him out?

Where was he taxiing to?

His colleague on the adjacent stand, didn't seem to think that was very smart??

Allegedly?:rolleyes:

Your view is unclear.

[noflynomore]

The posts above are a fascinating cross-section of the way attitudes to a practical job have changed over the years. They are also a sad testament to the apparent inability of the modern generation in general to react correctly to an argument (in the philosophical sense) and who take any statement as a rigid declaration of absolutes, then extrapolate wildly adding further self -generated absolutes completely unmentioned in the original statement and come up - unsurprisingly - with an entirely spurious conclusion.

Who, anywhere, has suggested that high power was suggested as a means as getting off the grass? No one. Yet most of the anti posts seem to have assumed this with lurid assumptions of airframe damage due to flying mud and debris and apparently from the vast amounts of power being applied...
Well, it wasn't. Not by anyone, yet those who sensibly suggested trying to drive out of the mire are lambasted for just this.

Then the naysayers rant on about damage to engines and airframe by flying mud once taxiing and t/o recommences. Who, exactly, suggested high speed taxi and t/o after this event? No one. Even so, is this actually a realistic as opposed to web-theatrical scenario? I doubt it.

The assumption made by so many that trying to move it by judicious use of thrust (as any judicious Captain might - or might not do, having first ascertained the nature/depth of his being stuck) is not addressed, it being merely assumed that vast amounts of thrust would immediately be brutally and unthinkingly applied. Do these people not know the meaning of "Professionalism"? "Judgement"? "Scale"? I gather not.

And then they go on to assume that having got unstuck, if indeed that was the result taxi would be commenced at injudicious speeds risking debris ingestion (another unlikely assumption) and airframe damage (yet another...) And then try a t/o on gear "damaged" by sitting in some mud... Did they do a technical course on airframes? Do they have any idea what it takes to damage tough stuff like undercarriage? We know they did, but they hardly seem to appreciate the physical properties of their machines to the n'th degree that they can repeat the books, verbatim.

No one who suggested trying to drive out mentioned unthinking amounts of power, even less of taxiing and taking off before an inspection. Yet this is the universal assumption by those decrying the "power out" suggestion. Where do you all get these wild assumptions? After all, aren't Professional pilots supposed to work from facts, not assumptions?

Are there really no variations of grey in the rigidly black and white minds of the magenta liners (if I may be allowed such a complex metaphor)? Just because your gear is off the hard is not necessarily a reason to throw all common sense recovery methods out of the window, any more than it is a reason to assume the guy who does is going to unthinkingly apply TOGA power to achieve it.

Nor is it a reason to assume that he then canters down the taxiway and gets airborne. Perhaps he uses a judicious amount of power and if freed gets an inspection done first, but just about every post above decrying the "power-outers" seems to have assumed just this.

Where has common sense gone? Where has Airmanship gone?

Is it really the case that once the figurative magenta taxiway centreline has been missed the whole shebang comes to a complete and automatic "nuffink more to do wiv me mate" jobsworth handswashing, cancellation and "let the office get us out of this one now"?

Nary a recognition that a smidge of grey might just exist in the rigid black and white responses above.

What do these people do if the tug pushes their tyres back into 10' deep soft snow at Prague and then loses traction? Do you call the "office" 800 miles away for the girls there to come out with shovels because there is no magenta line visible or do you first see if it is possible to taxi out?

Heavens!

I weep for this industry.

[DaveReidUK]

Who, anywhere, has suggested that high power was suggested as a means as getting off the grass? No one. Yet most of the anti posts seem to have assumed this with lurid assumptions of airframe damage due to flying mud and debris and apparently from the vast amounts of power being applied...
Well, it wasn't. Not by anyone, yet those who sensibly suggested trying to drive out of the mire are lambasted for just this.

Then the naysayers rant on about damage to engines and airframe by flying mud once taxiing and t/o recommences. Who, exactly, suggested high speed taxi and t/o after this event? No one. Even so, is this actually a realistic as opposed to web-theatrical scenario? I doubt it.

The assumption made by so many that trying to move it by judicious use of thrust (as any judicious Captain might - or might not do, having first ascertained the nature/depth of his being stuck) is not addressed, it being merely assumed that vast amounts of thrust would immediately be brutally and unthinkingly applied. Do these people not know the meaning of "Professionalism"? "Judgement"? "Scale"? I gather not.

That makes no sense at all.

The only possible reason for a captain to even contemplate powering the aircraft back off the grass onto the taxiway would be that he/she intended to go flying.

If I had been a passenger on board during that manoeuvre, I'd have been heading for the exit PDQ.

[4468]

noflynomore (good name!)

There is one undeniably safe course of action here. There is another course with unquantifiable risks.

Modern aviators are trained to use airmanship (along with new fangled CRM!) to minimise risk.

I accept previous generations were more gung ho.

[A4]

Well if you're still on the apron in Prague, then "powering out" through the tracks made in the snow during push would be a non-event. You're not comparing like with like.

[noflynomore]

Dave R. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If you can drive out of it with judicious use of power, having ascertained the extent of the bog-down why on earth not?
Your utterly unwarranted assumption re heading straight for t/o is exactly the irrational reaction I was trying to illustrate - I explained this quite clearly and despite that you have just jumped straight into accusatory remarks utterly contrary to any suggestion of mine and exactly as I was trying to illustrate!
That just isn't rational, if I may say so.

[Huck]

You really have very little understanding of the forces your landing gear is designed to be subjected to.

I was an aeronautical engineer before I was a pilot.

You have very little understanding of design loads versus experimental. Hopping up out of a muddy rut onto a reinforced concrete ramp is not analyzed or tested in any way. Not to mention certification. In essence the crew would be test pilots. Good luck justifying that. Stand before the Chief Pilot and point out that, you know, the loads on landing are pretty high too, so we thought......

[back to Boeing]

, having ascertained the extent of the bog-down why on earth not?.

Being sat on the flight deck facing forward about 10-15 metres forward of said bog down. How exactly do you do that?

[737Jock]

Well I don't see any proof that they called for taxi and wanted to power out. Nor do I see any recordings of what the groundcrew told the pilots.

Rumour network all you want, but to me it seems people are far too happy to jump on the blame wagon.

[737Jock]

You have very little understanding of design loads versus experimental. Hopping up out of a muddy rut onto a reinforced concrete ramp is not analyzed or tested in any way.

Well let's scrap that entire airframe shall we? Surely having it pulled out by a tug also damaged the nose-gear to this extent.

Amazing what arguments you guys are coming up with. While the fact is that nobody powered out of anything, and the aircraft is back flying as we speak.

[donpizmeov]

EZY is pay to fly, not pay to think.

[framer]

I like the way you use words noflynomore, enjoyable to read. I disagree with your angle on this though. Trying to tie it to the children of the magenta line is a real stretch. There are plenty of us who used to fly around with no automatics and who still do a three degree profile calculation constantly who would have recognised this as a rare situation where ( as 4468 said) There is one undeniably safe course of action here. There is another course with unquantifiable risks.
and as such made a decision to have this unusual situation resolved in a slow, measured, low risk fashion with suitable input from and Engineer who could assess the situation from the ground. If the Engineer requested some thrust be applied to gauge how effective that would be then that is fine, but to suggest that taking this measured approach is somehow related to being of a certain generation of pilots is demonstrating a need to lament how things used to be. On that note, 2016 was the second safest year in aviation history based on accidents per flight. Doesn't seem like it with all the news and information flowing into your lounge via the interweb does it? Rest assured, the incidents used to happen but you just didn't know about it.
That's my take anyway.
Cheers

[rmiller774]

Once the plane has been pushed off the hard surface into the soft surface and cannot be retrieved by the tug, the captain looses any say as to what should happen next.

[crippen]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/4a/54/be/4a54be30e4a8e5de10b6191f4c791434.jpg

[freshgasflow]

People are specialised for a reason. Flying crew are not engineers and engineers are not flying crew. Each may know something about the other, but ultimately this is largely an engineering issue. Before doing anything, one needs to make an assessment of structural issues (e.g how deep is it in the mud. 2 inches in ice mud or 12 inches ?) . Can one put equivalent of planks under front of wheels to eases path etc. Does one need to offload ?

Sometimes lateral thinking , without knowing the boundaries can be dangerous.

Clinton also got stuck in the mud.

https://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/012998clinton-plane-mishaps.2.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

Your utterly unwarranted assumption re heading straight for t/o is exactly the irrational reaction I was trying to illustrate - I explained this quite clearly and despite that you have just jumped straight into accusatory remarks utterly contrary to any suggestion of mine and exactly as I was trying to illustrate!

Yes, it's an assumption.

No, it's no more unwarranted than your own assumption that, having got back onto the taxiway under power, the captain was going to head for the gate or the hangar instead of the runway.

[fokker1000]

The ground was well frozen. That makes it pretty much as hard as tarmac i'd suggest.
A chat with the ground could quickly confirm if the wheels were sinking in or not….

Now, what that Antonov did in the previous video is something else!

[Chesty Morgan]

Dave R. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If you can drive out of it with judicious use of power, having ascertained the extent of the bog-down why on earth not?
Your utterly unwarranted assumption re heading straight for t/o is exactly the irrational reaction I was trying to illustrate - I explained this quite clearly and despite that you have just jumped straight into accusatory remarks utterly contrary to any suggestion of mine and exactly as I was trying to illustrate!
That just isn't rational, if I may say so.
In which case why the rush to get out of the mud?

Have you also ascertained the extent of any damage to the tyres, wheels, brakes, hydraulic lines etc? So you power out of the mess and then possibly can't stop...excellent idea.

Better off to lighten the load as much as possible before anyone attempts to do anything.

[Lancman]

Purely as a matter of interest, are there any lugs on the front of the main bogies for towing out in this situation?

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, there are. Debogging is documented in the ARM.

[Lancman]

Good, use them.

[A4]

@donpizmeov.

EZY is not PTF.

[Arfur Dent]

After being told on the headset (possibly with one engine already running) that the tug has pushed the aircraft onto the grass - and can't pull it forward - the responsibility of the Captain is to secure the aircraft, deal with the passengers and hand over to FOPS. It's certainly not his prerogative to ascertain whether the aircraft could/should be moved under its own power. Way above his pay scale and fraught with danger.
Having done all of the above, gather the crew and get a coffee, asking Crew Control what they plan to do with you all after such a traumatic incident (couple of de-stressing days off would be nice).:ok:

[T250]

As a poster said a few back, what is this thread even about?

Does anyone have the R/T recording? - No one here does.

Does anyone know the actual sequence of events? - No one here has evidence

Does anyone know if the ground crew even told the F/D, yes sir we've pushed you too far, please don't move? - Sounds like answer is NO, if another company was the one to report to ATC that they were stuck!


Maybe we should wait for a few more facts, rather than beating each other up on what we would/would not have done. Its all academic


That makes no sense at all.

The only possible reason for a captain to even contemplate powering the aircraft back off the grass onto the taxiway would be that he/she intended to go flying.

If I had been a passenger on board during that manoeuvre, I'd have been heading for the exit PDQ.

Have you considered that the captain actually hadn't got a clue he'd been pushed into the grass? In the absence of such knowledge, he would simply assume he is on the pavement still and hence the call for taxi

why are we all so quick to judge, save it for the facts that come out. Right now there aren't many

[Piltdown Man]

This was an understandable course of action, but it doesn't make it right. The thought of a tug heaving away on the nose gear is not good. Using engine thrust sounds a lot better. In this case it appears this crew wanted to go flying after being in the grass. But the problem with this is you have now been somewhere that has not been inspected and may have damaged your tyres, so you will need at least a quick once-over. But what do you write in the book? Assign you write down what has happened you will not be going flying. I can imagine a few phone calls between the engineers and the manufacturer and the "special" one-off inspections (to cover people's bums). The problem of our modern world and one I'll not miss when I retire.

The current regime under which most of us fly means that that we will not be rewarded for using common sense. The "system" would probably prefers us to fly legally into a mountain than illegally save our lives. But I'm guessing in this case engineers were close by, this was not a war zone and it was not a life-or-death situation so the best thing would have been to have thrown in the towel earlier.

In reality, aircraft are pretty tough and I doubt if any damage was done.

ps. I liked the pathetic request of the cabin crew for people to stop taking pictures. What is the point?

[Piltdown Man]

T250 is correct; we have been assuming that this crew knew they were on the grass! If not, it changes the entire thread into something else.

[T250]

In this case it appears this crew wanted to go flying after being in the grass.

No it doesn't.

Where is your evidence for this? Where have you all arrived at this assumption from?

To get to this assumption you are assuming:
1. Captain knew they were in grass, didn't care and intended to power out. There is no such evidence of this.

2. The ground crew/headset man actually admitted to the Captain he'd pushed him into the grass and therefore do not request taxi, don't move.
There is no such evidence of this.

3. In the absence of the above happening, how is Captain to know he's in the grass without an admission from ground crew or other external reference (ATC, other aircraft, passengers in cabin). Seems the ground crew did the push, then did nothing when it went wrong and just pi$$ed off as if nothing had happened!

4. It seems that there is ATC evidence/recording of another EZY company reporting over the R/T to the Captain in question something along the lines of 'are you aware you're in the grass'.
In light of this evidence, the Captain has obviously NOT been told by anyone else with external reference that the aircraft was in fact in the grass.

So on the basis of the above, the Captain actually knew very very little other than he had been pushed back. A standard pushback for 319/320 from stands 554-561. Until someone else (company EZY) actually told him they were in the grass, how can he be blamed for thinking and doing anything other than usual, 'Request taxi'.

But of course, don't let the facts above get in the way of EZY bashing, beating each other up and a good story for the press!

[Piltdown Man]

I thought my last post made that clear or have we crossed mid flight?

[DaveReidUK]

To get to this assumption you are assuming:
1. Captain knew they were in grass, didn't care and intended to power out. There is no such evidence of this.

2. The ground crew/headset man actually admitted to the Captain he'd pushed him into the grass and therefore do not request taxi, don't move.
There is no such evidence of this.

3. In the absence of the above happening, how is Captain to know he's in the grass without an admission from ground crew or other external reference (ATC, other aircraft, passengers in cabin). Seems the ground crew did the push, then did nothing when it went wrong and just pi$$ed off as if nothing had happened!

4. It seems that there is ATC evidence/recording of another EZY company reporting over the R/T to the Captain in question something along the lines of 'are you aware you're in the grass'.
In light of this evidence, the Captain has obviously NOT been told by anyone else with external reference that the aircraft was in fact in the grass.

If you're pushing straight back from Stand 555 (Stand 56, as was) in an A320 then once your bum is over the centreline of Twy Q, your wheels are on the grass, no argument:

http://www.avgen.com/EGKK%20Stand%20555.jpg

In the captain's defence, had it been Stand 554 then we wouldn't be having this debate. Likewise, if the flight had been op by an A319, we probably wouldn't either.

[flyingtincan]

so, in the end, how was it got off the grass?

[Mike Tee]

In the mid nineties whilst working out of Escravos, Nigeria I recall that an F27 left the paved area with the port gear whilst turning off the runway. The wheel bogged down in the very wet earth. The pilots tried to power the aircraft out and seriously damaged an engine. The aircraft was later towed out and was stuck at Escravos for weeks before a replacement engine was sourced and fitted.

[expurser]

This happened to me when I was CC at Aberdeen on a 1-11 in the early 80's. We were empty and positioning the a/c home. It had snowed lightly and we pushed back too far into the grass. The skipper was determined to get home as he was going out to a dinner party so he just powered us out of there. The a/c was shaking like a bugger at near full power but we popped out of the mud and he slammed the brakes on as we hit the tarmac. We then taxied out and took off

[737Jock]

Clearly main wheels not in grass when pilot is over the taxiline. Which makes DaveReid's post pretty much invalid. Case definitely not closed.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5jXVlAwpfiE/hqdefault.jpg?custom=true&w=168&h=94&stc=true&jpg444=true&jpgq=90&sp=68&sigh=b3fVX4YQa6f_2wGi01h4O6m-g6I

[DaveReidUK]

I don't recall anybody saying the case was closed.

And I have no idea what your postage stamp-sized photo is intended to prove, other than that not all EZY pushbacks end up on the grass?

[737Jock]

How about you count the number of concrete slabs between the nose-gear and the mainwheels. And then tell me again that the main wheels would be in the grass.

Not very correct to delete posts because you don't understand them Dave!

[Basil]

Some of the macho boys wouldn't like me.

Once left hotac and checked in for flight. Due breakdown in ops coms, flight was delayed with indeterminate ETD.
We returned to hotel where DFC 'phoned to say just rest at hotel, forget you came on duty and we'll call you. Skip asked 'All OK with that?'
Bas: 'No, I'm not. We're on duty. There is evidence that we came on duty and, if we have a completely unrelated incident, the AAIB will take us apart!'
Skip: 'Well, you'd better speak to the DFC!'
I did and we commenced another rest period.

Nothing was ever said.

I agree that there is a temptation to attempt to power out. It is one which should be resisted.

[DaveReidUK]

How about you count the number of concrete slabs between the nose-gear and the mainwheels

Sorry, I gave up counting in slabs a long time ago.

But if you're familiar with those new-fangled metre thingys, the relevant dimensions are:

Twy Q centreline to edge of paved surface: 14.5 m (approx)

Pilot's bum to MLG axles: 15.5 m (approx)

And then tell me again that the main wheels would be in the grass.The main wheels would be in the grass.

Not very correct to delete posts because you don't understand them Dave!I have no idea what you're talking about. Only mods can delete posts. I'm not one.

[bbrown1664]

Now I didn't see the incident and I suspect very few if any of the previous posters on this thread did either but give this some thought as it does not appear to have been mentioned yet.

The a/c was pushed back too far resulting in the main gear (one or both I don't know) ended up leaving the concrete and sitting on the frozen ground. Is the grass lower than the concrete? Is it just because of the "lip" that the tug was unable to extract the a/c from the frozen ground?

Assuming that this may have been the case, the tug would have been spinning its wheels on the concrete because of a lack of traction. One way to assist this would be to apply a little power to both a/c engines (to keep things aligned) and assist the tug. Knowing this may be a bit dangerous, the captain may have decided to get the tug out of the way before trying it.

Many years ago, a tug was struggling to get traction to drag a DC-10 into the hangar at Gatwick so the hangar manager who was trained to taxi, jumped into the left seat, started #2 and used a/c power to drive it into the hangar. Nobody died and sometimes, careful use of the available tools (engines) is all that is needed.

[737Jock]

Don't know where you get that information from Dave, as the pilots seats move forward and backward as well.
But the distance between MLG and nosewheel on a 320 is 12,64 meters. As such as long as the nosegear hasn't passed the taxiline you won't be on the grass. Which is visible from the stamp size photo as well.

As such the ground handlers must be pretty thick to push an aircraft with its nosewheel past the taxiline. I can only conclude that it has become a sport in LGW to do this.

[DaveReidUK]

But the distance between MLG and nosewheel on a 320 is 12,64 meters. As such as long as the nosegear hasn't passed the taxiline you won't be on the grass.

The nosewheel is irrelevant from the pilot's point of view. The only references that are relevant from the flight deck in this instance are the relative positions of (a) the pilot's bum/eyes, (b) the taxiway centreline and (c) the edge of the concrete. If (a) = (b) on pushback from this particular stand, then you're in the sh*t.

the pilots seats move forward and backward as wellIndeed they do. But good luck trying to slide your seat back far enough to get it over the nosewheel on either an A320 or your 737. :O

[pilotmike]

Fokker1000 suggests that:The ground was well frozen. That makes it pretty much as hard as tarmac i'd suggest. If this were the case, a tug would have been able to pull it forward as if it was on tarmac.

As this whole thread is about a tug that COULDN'T pull it forward, obviously the ground wasn't "...pretty much as hard as tarmac..." I'd suggest.:ugh:

Just saying.

[RAT 5]

so, in the end, how was it got off the grass?

flyingtincan asked the question. No reply: now I add my support to him. Forget the history of did it or did it not? Forget what the capt. could have should have done, or not. What did happen to release this a/c from it's misery? Then we can learn something should it ever happen to one of us. Equally, how did the tug driver allow this to happen or were there mitigating circumstances?

[crablab]

Agreed with Rat 5 - how did they get it out if a tug couldn't get it out in the first place? Lugs on the mainwheels have been mentioned so I assume someone got a couple of JCB's and some rope?

Also, on the whole who did what - from my understanding it is fairly common to call for start and taxi as you're being pushed back (ie. before you've been pushed onto the grass) and even then, the crew are going to be too busy looking forward to be concentrating on exactly how many cm they've been pushed back (no reversing cameras on an A320) unless there was a bump as they went over the edge I guess.

Either way, as it is illegal to publish (publically re-broadcast) ATC recordings in the UK it is very unlikely anyone external would be recording the RT (liveATC.net etc.) and thus we'll never know the exact series of events.

[DaveReidUK]

As this whole thread is about a tug that COULDN'T pull it forward, obviously the ground wasn't "...pretty much as hard as tarmac..." I'd suggest.

Or, as alluded to earlier in the thread, there was sufficient difference in level between the concrete and grass so that, once the wheels had gone over the edge, the tug couldn't safely lift the aircraft out via the towbar.

Or a combination of the two. :O

Either way, I'd be as interested as everyone else to know how the A320 was finally extricated. My money would be on being pulled by the MLGs.

[737Jock]

The point is that the pilots position in the flightdeck is extremely unreliable with regard to wheel position Dave! You can only decide this stuff based on external information. So good luck with positioning your bum on an unknown airfield from an unknown stand!

Aproximate distances matter F all, when it comes to this. Its either on the grass OR it isn't and most likely you won't know from the flightdeck.

[flyingchanges]

AirlineTV.net - Joe Patroni & The Boeing 707-300C (http://www.airlinetv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=6fffe2ee4ddf4a988880)

[Basil]

Those who think a little frozen 3mm of mud is going to support a jet transport mainwheel really need to stop posting. This place is for professional pilots.

[Nil further]

Basil- How do you or did anyone else know it was three mm of frozen mud when the alleged taxi request was made ?

[Basil]

Clearly I do not but it certainly wasn't permafrost!

[DaveReidUK]

The point is that the pilots position in the flightdeck is extremely unreliable with regard to wheel position Dave!

No, the point is that your original assertion

Clearly main wheels not in grass when pilot is over the taxiline.

is nonsense.

If you peer out any of the flight deck windows on that particular pushback and find that you're looking along the taxiway centreline, it means you've been pushed onto the grass.

If you're still having trouble visualising that, think of it the other way round - for your mainwheels to be (just) on the edge of the concrete, you need to have about three and a half metres of your nose still on the right (terminal) side of the yellow painted line.

Would a picture help?

[TBSC]

Pic from the cabin:
https://twitter.com/sophiethirlwell/status/814390270666113024/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Cows getting bigger]

If I were the aerodrome operator, I would be taking a good look at CAP 168, Chapter 3. Para 10 onwards is a good start.

[DaveReidUK]

Am I looking in the right place?

"3.10 It may be necessary to provide extra width at the end of a runway or starter extension to enable aeroplanes to turn around".

CAP 168: Licensing of Aerodromes (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20168%20Licensing%20of%20Aerodromes.pdf)

[Cows getting bigger]

No.

10.2.1 There should be room enough on the apron to provide for the number and types of aircraft expected to use it with adequate safety margins from obstructions including parked aircraft. The design of the apron should aim at facilitating the movement of aircraft and avoiding difficult manoeuvres which might require undesirable use of excessive amounts of engine thrust, or impose abnormal stress on tyres.

10.2.2 The dimensions of the apron should be such that the minimum clearance between a manoeuvring aircraft and any obstruction is 20% of wingspan.

In this respect, the grass would count as an 'obstruction' as you clearly can't go there.

[DaveReidUK]

OK, thanks.

For anyone reading the current (10th) edition of CAP 168 (July 2014), it's paras 3.142 and 3.143 on Page 110, URL as above.

I suspect that technically the apron does conform to those criteria, as there doesn't seem to be any physical reason why aircraft couldn't be turned through 90° on pushback so that they are already aligned with the taxiway before the tug disconnects. There's more clearance (about 50 m) between the stand and the taxiway than there is on many of the T5 stands at LHR.

Does anyone who is familiar with Gatwick know why straight pushbacks from that stand appear to be SOP ?

[Yaw String]

Took a wrong turn,last night,at DXB,missed the turnon to my stand.There was absolutely know way that ATC could allow me to make a sensible 180 turn,from J2 to J1, even though it would have been following dozens of lead-in lines,to adjacent stands,albeight,in an opposing direction.
If it isn't written down as an approved procedure,no one in this day and age is going to allow it..Just a sign of the times,and I understood the ATC point of view.
So, 10 mins later,we had orbited C block,and returned to park.
Just,important to remember,....if it saves lives,....do it,...regardless of the general rule!

The box is not titanium!...unlike our two battery boxes

[Groundloop]

10.2.2 The dimensions of the apron should be such that the minimum clearance between a manoeuvring aircraft and any obstruction is 20% of wingspan.

In this respect, the grass would count as an 'obstruction' as you clearly can't go there.

Grass is not an obstruction as you can't hit it with your wingtip!

[Fanatic]

Does anyone who is familiar with Gatwick know why straight pushbacks from that stand appear to be SOP ?
We asked ATC many moons ago. We laughed as they went quiet to find out why. An SOP with no reason we thought.:ugh: Anyway they came back with this:
It is so we can push multiple A/C together, also you may turn either way to taxi, left via R or right via Q. Sounds plausible? Will there now be a review? Personally, I think the risks are minimal. But at LGW a knee-jerk reaction seems to be the norm.

Seeing abject congestion & protracted delays at some other EU airports when 2 A/C ask for push simultaneously this sort of thinking is a breath of fresh air.

[T250]

Does anyone who is familiar with Gatwick know why straight pushbacks from that stand appear to be SOP ?
Pushing back to face north/south on taxiway centreline is incredibly congesting to all the other stands along that pier :confused: and only going to get worse when easyJet move their whole operation to North at the end of the month :cool:

It is so we can push multiple A/C together, also you may turn either way to taxi, left via R or right via Q. Sounds plausible? Will there now be a review? Personally, I think the risks are minimal. But at LGW a knee-jerk reaction seems to be the norm.
That is exactly why. All pushbacks seem to be facing north or south now.

Might seem a knee-jerk reaction, however think a review was needed anyway as there is also a ditch the entire length of the taxiway just behind the grass where the aircraft got 'stuck'. The consequences of the pushback pushing the a/c further into the grass could have resulted in the aircraft falling into the ditch!

[dhardesthard]

If the tow truck was unsuccessful I doubt he could have powered out. Powering out runs the risk of damaging the landing gear structure which would not be visible to the naked eye and what could happen next is anyones guess on the next taxi, t/o or landing!!!

[onlythetruth]

Would have thought it simple. If the tug can not pull it back off the grass then the ground is not hard enough for it to be "powered" out, without damagaing something.

[poldek77]

Originally Posted by 16024 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil further View Post
AFAIK as soon as the aircraft has departed the paved surface it becomes a notifiable incident to the AAIB and the a/c should not be moved until the AAIB give the OK ?
Do you have a source for that statement?

A reportable accident/incident usually implies damage and/or injury, or at least a serious risk thereof.

So, for example, a runway departure on takeoff or landing could well qualify. Pushing an aircraft off the taxiway with a tug, no matter how embarrassing or inconvenient, probably doesn't.

I found it in my company's OM-A as "Occurrence Reporting List". The official reference is: EU 2003/42/EC, ANNEX I - List of aircraft operations, maintenance, repair, and manufacture-related occurrences to be reported
EUR-Lex - 32003L0042 - EN (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32003L0042&from=EN)
and it says:
(r) Aircraft unintentionally departing from a paved surface.

IMHO it does not exclude an excursion during push-back

[LookingForAJob]

I found it in my company's OM-A as "Occurrence Reporting List". The official reference is: EU 2003/42/EC, ANNEX INow superseded by...reg 376/2014 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0376&from=EN).

Note that accidents and serious incidents are covered by different legislation - I forget the reference right now - but the things in 376 and the other reg are not mutually exclusive, so you might hove to comply with both regulations for the same event.

[Musket90]

Just for the record, according to CAA web site, since July 2015 Gatwick is a EASA
Certificated aerodrome and not UK Licensed so EASA regulations apply therefore CAP168 is
no longer the regulatory document although presumably it can be used for reference or
guidance.

[noflynomore]

Powering out runs the risk of damaging the landing gear structure

Please explain any feasible way of damaging the landing gear by powering out.

I cannot think how this could possibly happen...

[Una Due Tfc]

Well if it's a steep/sharp drop off your tyres might be damaged for a start.

[NSEU]

A tow bar has shear pins to prevent too much force being applied on the gear during a tow. Is a tow crew (by regulation) allowed to pull aircraft off grass or are they not even allowed to try? If allowed to try, what stopped the aircraft moving? Shear pins breaking or tug wheel traction?

Well if it's a steep/sharp drop off your tyres might be damaged for a start.


I'm sure tyres can survive a small drop off a ledge if they can withstand landing forces. The main concern would be fore-aft strains on nose gear (strut assemblies, etc) if being towed or fore-aft strains on the main gear if being powered out.

[Una Due Tfc]

My thinking was if the edge/lip of the concrete was sharp, ie not rounded, it might damage the tyres.

[No Fly Zone]

I cannot believe some of the idiotic 'solutions' to this event that I've read in this thread. The authors simply cannot be professional pilots. Think it through a little bit... You're already off the tarmac and in the mud. The PIC has likely NOT seen the wheels, the tug routine did not work, you've still got a load of SLC in the back and some are suggesting to Power your way back onto the hard surface?: Say WHAT? I don't want to be anywhere near your airplane, ever. IMNHO, the ONLY acceptable response is as follows:
1. Make arrangements to get the SLC off and back to the terminal,
2. Shut it down and leave the aircraft, YOU are done for the day!
3. Recovery and damage inspection is for the Mx engineers alone.
OMG!!

[ironbutt57]

agreed No Fly...

[Arfur Dent]

So how did they get the jet back on terra firma?

[Mr Magnetic]

It never got airborne...

[noflynomore]

I'm sure tyres can survive a small drop off a ledge if they can withstand landing forces. The main concern would be fore-aft strains on nose gear (strut assemblies, etc) if being towed or fore-aft strains on the main gear if being powered out.

Three points here.

Tyres. Quite!

Nose gear. The towbar fuse prevents this. Not a factor.

Main gear. Thank God landing gear isn't that weak or we'd have a collapse every time we landed or put on power against the brakes. Surely no one is suggesting that gear that repeatedly withstands the phenomenal forces of landing and emergency braking including landing with drift etc could possibly be damaged by power against brakes? How could full power engine runs ever occur if this was even remotely possible? (and before some expert pops up with only "but that's only one engine at a time" that results in the same forces on the main gear leg on that side - on a twin...). Anyway, no one has even remotely suggested using TOGA power to break out of the mud so this fanciful scenario is completely irrelevant.

Aircraft occasionally jump chocks - does that damage the gear? It may damage other things, wingtips, vehicles, laundry etc but not the gear.) And as this is achieved relatively easily under power why would/could motoring out of a similar sized (depth) depression in earth back onto the concrete damage anything?

[ZeBedie]

I wouldn't want to power out of the mud, for at least two reasons - if you're in deep, how close are the intakes to the ground and are you going to ingest mud/stones? And if you're successful, your tyres will be shedding mud during the takeoff - where will it go and what damage will it do? Any mud left on the gear will freeze solid during the flight - what problems might it cause? Oh, and how will those very expensive brake packs fair with a dollop of mud inside them?

Powering out of the mud would be unwise and irresponsible IMHO.

[letMfly]

I'm sure that the captain would not have been contemplating using anything near TOGA power to get off the grass but to illustrate what can happen: Several years ago at Aberdeen a B734 came off the yellow centreline on lineup to maximise the TODA on the rather short runway. The pilot then held it on the brakes until take-off power was achieved before rolling, unaware that the thrust had dislodged some concrete from the threshold and removed around ten tons of earth and sod. Unfortunately this happened in the dark so the tower ATCO was unaware and the following aircraft didn't remark on what had happened until the B734 was almost airborne. The captain elected to continue to Gatwick even when an airfield inspection revealed a large, six foot deep hole at the end of the runway! On parking up at Gatwick, it was discovered that one side of the tailplane was badly damaged and half of the elevator on that side was missing. Amazingly the crew said the aircraft flew normally with no vibration etc, but it certainly was a lucky day for them and their pax.

[DaveReidUK]

Amazingly the crew said the aircraft flew normally with no vibration etc, but it certainly was a lucky day for them and their pax.

The damage done by the chunks of asphalt hitting the tailplane/elevator:

http://www.skybrary.aero/images/thumb/B734_d1_Dp1.jpg/400px-B734_d1_Dp1.jpg

http://www.skybrary.aero/images/thumb/B734_d2_Dp2.jpg/400px-B734_d2_Dp2.jpg

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5423022de5274a1314000afb/Boeing_737-436__G-DOCT_06-07.pdf

[fokker1000]

All credit to the Boeing designers! That amount of damage and flies well! Top job!

[NutLoose]

We had a Ten taxi one bogie off into soft grass but as he was still rolling a squirt of power brought him back on to hard stuff, if it had stopped, he wouldn't have got it out.

[golfyankeesierra]

This must surely be the most unprofessional thread on a professional pilots website, ever! :ugh:

[KayPam]

Yes but it was hilarious.
People thinking you're going to destroy your aircraft by applying a slight thrust VS people thinking they can make a decision without even looking at their aircraft.

[OMAAbound]

Surprised this thread has got so much attention!

Let's, for a moment, use something called "common sense", so, the rug pushes them onto the grass, it gets stuck, can't get out people on here are suggesting the CA should open the taps and "have a go" as there's "no harm in trying!" LUDICROUS!

So, imagine this, said CA opens the taps, a/c jumps the mud/grass, catapults forward at a rate of knots, smashes through the terminal glass and before he knows he's ordering a latte and croissant!

I'm sure management, the lessors, gatwick airport or Mr Insurance would mind because "he was having a go, and there was no harm in trying!"

Possibly the worst statement I've ever read on this site!

[4468]

People thinking you're going to destroy your aircraft by applying a slight thrust VS people thinking they can make a decision without even looking at their aircraft.
Not at all. Nobody said you'd destroy your aircraft. Just that you'd be an idiot to try and then go flying. If you're not going flying, then why on earth would you even bother trying something, you aren't trained for, with no visual assessment and with customers on board????:rolleyes:
Just shut down, get the pax off, and go home.

[TWT]

So,after all this,how did they extract the aircraft from its predicament ?

[autoflight]

There are some limited cases where it would be appropriate to attempt powering out of a bog. Unprotected military aircraft like a Caribou DHC4 under attack in a war zone would be one that I can think of. There might be lower levels of urgency where such action could be considered. IMHO, a problem pushback is not one of them.

[Jet II]

So,after all this,how did they extract the aircraft from its predicament ?

Dont know how they did it in this case but the usual method is to lighten the aircraft as a much as possible, dig out the earth in front of the wheels and lay out steel planking and then tow it out. Afterwards you wash off and carry out detailed inspections of the gear assembles.

The whole procedure is detailed in the Manufacturers Aircraft Recovery Document - if you choose not to follow that and damage the aircraft then your arse ends up in a sling. :ouch:


http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l212/sids666/B737-600%20700%20800%20Aircraft%20Recovery%20Document.jpg


http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l212/sids666/B737-600%20700%20800%20Aircraft%20Recovery%20Document%202_1.jpg

[unworry]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C02BOefWQAElCtI.jpg

[unworry]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C03mGALWQAAEDC1.jpg

[ACMS]

Is that it?

Crickey a lot of willy waving in here and that's all it was.

( not that I'm suggesting to just taxi off.......)

[DaveReidUK]

The second photo, showing a pair of tugs, would suggest the A320 was about to be towed off the grass by cables attached to each of the main gears, exactly as prescribed in the Aircraft Recovery Manual.

[Trossie]

7 pages of nonsense! Of course you should try to 'power it out'! This guy tried:
http://cdn.aviation-safety.net/photos/accidents/20110110-1-C-1.jpg
(Note the vegetation stripped away behind both engines, that could not have been idle power!)

[Tongue very, very firmly in cheek for this post! ;)]

[pax britanica]

If you are going to go 'off piste' having ten main gear wheels in two pairs is probably a good idea -along with no health and safety issues for risking the ground crew being sucked into engines or run over.

[cap360]

For those who thought it's fine to get pulled out or taxi out ... think again .. The Tug broke 3 sheer pins The stress on the nose gear £1.2 million repair cost ....

[DaveReidUK]

Strange that the aircraft in question has been flying more or less continuously since the day after the incident.

[unworry]

The second photo, showing a pair of tugs, would suggest the A320 was about to be towed off the grass by cables attached to each of the main gears, exactly as prescribed in the Aircraft Recovery Manual.

yes Dave, you're quite correct!

If I had also posted the third photo in the series, we could have all moved on -- thread and aircraft alike -- but where's the fun in that ?

:hmm:

[4468]

Strange that the aircraft in question has been flying more or less continuously since the day after the incident.
Don't think there's anything 'strange' in that. The engineers seem to have done what the ground maintenance manual told them to do. Followed by full inspection.

No story!

Had the flight crew done what they're not trained to do. With customers on board. Then gone flying after the aircraft had departed the paved surface. With no inspection....

Then that's a story!

This aviation business really ain't that tricky if you break it down into bite sized pieces, eh?!

[DaveReidUK]

Don't think there's anything 'strange' in that.

I was referring to the OP's assertion that they pulled the aircraft out by the nose gear, which they supposedly wrecked in the process but still had it flying again by the next day ...

Pull the other one, as they say ... :O