Tow truck on fire

[gearlever]

Nobody injured, however tow-truck driver in hospital.
https://youtu.be/wId8RSu3Ofw

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

And one A340 probably written off due to fire/heat damage to the avionics compartment and flight deck...

[cheesebag]

Looks expensive!

[Newforest2]

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=212015

That will be two units w/o.

[gearlever]

And one A340 probably written off due to fire/heat damage to the avionics compartment and flight deck...

Indeed. First news about the plane were only about "minor damage". :hmm:

[BAengineer]

And one A340 probably written off due to fire/heat damage to the avionics compartment and flight deck...


LH might be quite pleased about that - good insurance payout on an old A340.

[Less Hair]

That depends. That truck was LH's as well.
BTW: Six people were injured after smoke inhalation.

[readywhenreaching]

RIP D-AIFA
https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/1006194564389064705

[gearlever]

Looks like the door strap is of excellent quality.

[Wycombe]

Airframe aged 17 apparently - no doubt lots of useful/valuable bits that LH maintenance will be happy to add to their spares pool.

[BluSdUp]

I was going to suggest TurtleWax , until I saw picture at post #8.
Does anyone know how long it took for the fire brigade, that looks a tad more then 90 sec burn time.
I am guessing 5 min from start to extinguished ?
Sad to see such a nice AC go, but the MoneyMen loves it. no doubt.

[Firstpost]

Just a practical thought. Would this count as a hull-loss? Pretty rotten to get a hull-loss in the statistics because of this.
And in that direction, if it's not a hull-loss in that sense, does anyone know the criteria? I'd say it's not the same thing (in the statistics for safe airline) to have an aircraft destroyed in an accident during operation or destroyed by something like this incident, or even damaged beyond repair at night by vandals.

[lomapaseo]

Just a practical thought. Would this count as a hull-loss? Pretty rotten to get a hull-loss in the statistics because of this.

Depends on whose statistic?

It's usually important to insurance carriers.

and safety studies usually set things like this aside that don't threaten the users

[WOTME?]

Had an O2 fire on an Omani Air Force BAC 1-11 in around 1980,burnt out around the same area as this.A working party was despatched from Hurn & the wings & tail removed.The whole lot was shipped back to Bournemouth & re-inserted on the production line for a new front end to be built on.
Can't see the same happening here.

[infrequentflyer789]

Just a practical thought. Would this count as a hull-loss? Pretty rotten to get a hull-loss in the statistics because of this.
And in that direction, if it's not a hull-loss in that sense, does anyone know the criteria? I'd say it's not the same thing (in the statistics for safe airline) to have an aircraft destroyed in an accident during operation or destroyed by something like this incident, or even damaged beyond repair at night by vandals.

I believe that under ICAO Annex 13 it will count as an "aviation accident" IF any crew (at least, or crew and pax) were on board for the flight (sounds like this may not be the case), if so, and it's written off, then it's a hull loss. Otherwise it would just be a total loss for insurance purposes.

Hull losses are also a financial decision rather than an extent-of-damage indicator - airlines can (and do...) game the stats, if they want to, by paying to repair aircraft that are actually uneconomical to repair. Equally, the odds of a write off depend on how old the airframe is, be pretty rotten to get a hull loss purely because your new a/c went tech and you had to take the much older spare, wouldn't it?

There are many other problems with "hull loss" as a classification. How do you classify crashes on test flights for instance? How about crashes when showing off (badly) at airshows? How do you handle Malaysian, for instance? Two 777 hull losses, but MH17 is being excluded from some safety stats (I believe) because it was shot down, a terrorist act, not an accident (how, by what, or by whom is disputed, by one country at least), however MH370 is included, despite the fact that it also has a disputed cause and might have been a terrorist act, or a fire, or <insert favourite conspiracy theory here>.

Hull losses are just not that much use for "safe airline" stats, there are generally so few of them that you can decide what you want to conclude, collect your stats, analyse each incident and pretty much pick an exclusion criteria that is "fair" and will deliver the conclusion you wanted.

[tdracer]

Two 777 hull losses, but MH17 is being excluded from some safety stats (I believe) because it was shot down, a terrorist act, not an accident (how, by what, or by whom is disputed, by one country at least), however MH370 is included, despite the fact that it also has a disputed cause and might have been a terrorist act, or a fire, or <insert favourite conspiracy theory here>..
Safety stats routinely exclude "acts of war" - which MH17 clearly was (granted there is still some debate on the who, there is no question about the 'what'). Similarly, hijacking are routinely excluded. MH 370 is included simply because a cause hasn't been established - if and when a cause is established then it might be excluded (depending of course on what the cause turn out to be).

Flight test accidents are a bit different - in-flight shutdown rate definitions specifically exclude shutdowns done for testing or flight training purposes, but actual crashes during flight test are never intentional. I would think that if something crashed while operating on an experimental ticket would be excluded (by definition, operating on an experimental ticket means a non-certified configuration) but I don't really know.

[Locked door]

Interesting you say MH17 is discounted as it was an act of war. A significant number of airlines were actively avoiding that area when it happened due to risk assessing the political situation, shouldn’t they be rewarded for proactive safety?

[Foxxster]

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=mGUM_1528740608

[ph-sbe]

but MH17 is being excluded from some safety stats (I believe) because it was shot down, a terrorist act, not an accident (how, by what, or by whom is disputed, by one country at least), however MH370 is included, despite the fact that it also has a disputed cause and might have been a terrorist act, or a fire, or <insert favourite conspiracy theory here>.


MH17 does not have a disputed cause. MH17 was willful murder in the 1st degree, supported and covered up by the Russian Government, followed by blatant disrespect for the remains of the flight crew and passengers. Similar to KAL007.

In the case of MH370, it is fair to have all kinds of theories because that's what they are: theories. Very little actual evidence exists.

[sandos]

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=mGUM_1528740608

Thats a valiant effort, any idea what sort of exploded? I guess it was something in the tug and not from the aircraft. They were lucky there wasn't a bigger explosion. Thinking oxygen tanks, that could have been interesting.

[skadi]

According to a german newspaper the turbocharger of the towtruck exploded...

skadi

[Stan Woolley]

Has such an event ever happened with a loaded aircraft with the crew in the flight deck?

Secondly I was surprised to hear that there was nobody on board. I thought that there had to be someone to set and release the brakes, how does the tug driver get it on and off?

[Tom Sawyer]

Thats a valiant effort, any idea what sort of exploded? I guess it was something in the tug and not from the aircraft. They were lucky there wasn't a bigger explosion. Thinking oxygen tanks, that could have been interesting.

Same thing happened to me few years ago (funnily enough while towing an A340) and it was a high pressure hydraulic leak spraying on to the hot engine. As it was a towbar and not towbarless tug we were able to disconnect the towbar and let the aircraft roll back under control of the brake rider (luckily the ramp had a slight slope backwards). We couldn't put the fire out either despite best efforts, but luckily no damage to the airframe at all. Believe the tugs (Bliss Fox) were modified after that to have a fire suppression/extinguisher system installed.

[Tom Sawyer]

Has such an event ever happened with a loaded aircraft with the crew in the flight deck?

Secondly I was surprised to hear that there was nobody on board. I thought that there had to be someone to set and release the brakes, how does the tug driver get it on and off?









Certainly with some Airbuses there is a connection point on the Nose Leg that can give the tug driver control of the aircraft brakes as they are electrically controlled, hydraulically actuated system, so with power connected from the tug, the appropriate control system in the tug and sufficient accumulator pressure, the brakes can be released/set. Can't remember full details of the system (just the basics from my various Airbus type courses) as never used, or seen the system used anywhere but appears LH tugs may use the system. All my experience is based around tug driver/headset operator/brake rider operations both towbar and towbarless tugs.

In reply to your PM as well Stan.

[Stan Woolley]

You learn something every day. Thanks Tom.

I found this an interesting if tricky scenario from a pilots pov. If the driver bails out when he’s on headset too, the crew are blind to what’s happening. I realise it may be the same when an engine catches fire, but this just seems to me more sinister. :ok:

[SMT Member]

Has such an event ever happened with a loaded aircraft with the crew in the flight deck?

Secondly I was surprised to hear that there was nobody on board. I thought that there had to be someone to set and release the brakes, how does the tug driver get it on and off?


As Tom kindly explained, some 'busses have a toggle switch on the NLG to set/release brakes. On other types, or where the system is installed but not used, the driver will connect the tractor (usually, if not exclusively, a TBL type) and set its brakes. Then he'll enter the aircraft, release parking brakes, exit aircraft whilst closing the door and remove the jetty/stairs. Opposite procedure when towing has been completed. This is, at some airports, performed as a single-man operation - both push-back and towing.

[BAengineer]

What model of Airbus has a remote parking brake selector switch on the nose gear?. I am Licenced on A320 series, A330 and A340 and have never come across anything as described. The only components on the Nose gear are the Nose Wheel Steering bypass selector and the indicator light showing whether brakes are applied or not.

Is this a customer option on something like the A318 biz jet?

[krismiler]

The same thing happened 6 months ago with an SQ B777.

Considering the age of the aircraft involved and it's unpopularity on the used market it will likely have to be written off as repaires will cost more than its worth.

[Tom Sawyer]

What model of Airbus has a remote parking brake selector switch on the nose gear?. I am Licenced on A320 series, A330 and A340 and have never come across anything as described. The only components on the Nose gear are the Nose Wheel Steering bypass selector and the indicator light showing whether brakes are applied or not.

Is this a customer option on something like the A318 biz jet?


You maybe right that it is an option. Just been through the AMM for a couple of the Airbuses I work on for different operators and can find no reference or procedure for towing with a "remote" parking brake operation. Pretty sure it was discussed on my various type courses (A320/330/340/380) and SMT seems to have a similar idea to me. Time to get the course notes out if I can find them.

[BAengineer]

I'm struggling to see how a remote brake selector would work. If you are going to use reservoir pressure then you will have to get on the flt deck to check the gauges and possibly top up the pressure before you set off so you may as well use the parking brake switch that is on the flt deck.

[wiedehopf]

Ok so this is probably a really dumb question:

With a supertug that lifts the front wheels can't you just use chocks only?
Why would you even need the parking brake that is released when the aircraft is parked?

[BAengineer]

Not a dumb question at all. Some operators do exactly what you suggest.

[sb_sfo]

I'm with BAEngineer-never seen that system installed on any Airbus. This could have easily been a live pushback with hundreds of pax aboard. I had heard years ago that LH was towing departures almost to the runway threshhold- is this still the case? I have a hard time trusting the towbarless tractors, but they do move an aircraft in a hurry.

[gearlever]

I had heard years ago that LH was towing departures almost to the runway threshhold- is this still the case?

NO.
It was a trial, during fuel crisis.

NEVER EVER SOP.

[sb_sfo]

Gearlever, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. a "Hull Loss", if this is written off, it will be a hull loss in the statistics.
Almost every year, there are hull losses that are not the result of an "accident" as defined, or an act of war. The insurance market is quite smart enough to differentiate between a hull loss as the result of an accident, and one the result of some other misadventure --- several cases of cleaners managing to set fire to aircraft comes to mind.
Tootle pip!!

[EDML]

NO.
It was a trial, during fuel crisis.

NEVER EVER SOP.

No, there is a lot more behind it.

There is a project called "TaxiBot" that is certified to use a special tug controlled by the cockpit crew to bring a loaded airplane to the runway. It is certified for B737 and A320 and has been used for LH passenger flights departing FRA.

Marcus

[EDML]

Here is a video about the A320 certification in Tolouse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvG8kz1MJ1s

[BAengineer]

There is a project called "TaxiBot" that is certified to use a special tug controlled by the cockpit crew to bring a loaded airplane to the runway. It is certified for B737 and A320 and has been used for LH passenger flights departing FRA.

Marcus

Its an interesting concept but I am struggling to see the point. This system still has tug drivers in the cab so why go to all the expense of fitting extra steering systems in the aircraft for the pilot to steer when the tug drivers can just tow the aircraft to the departure point and drop it off.

[EDML]

Its an interesting concept but I am struggling to see the point. This system still has tug drivers in the cab so why go to all the expense of fitting extra steering systems in the aircraft for the pilot to steer when the tug drivers can just tow the aircraft to the departure point and drop it off.

The aircraft is not modified to use the system.

Marcus

[BAengineer]

The aircraft is not modified to use the system.

Marcus

So how does the pilot on the flight deck control the steering on the tug?. And I am still not clear what the benefits are of this system - replacing the tug driver with the pilot steering the tug gains what?. The tug driver is still there the cab and the tug driver does the pushback so what do you achieve by allowing the pilot to drive in a straight line rather than the tug driver.

I get the feeling that this is a great piece of technology that is looking for a purpose.

[DaveReidUK]

So how does the pilot on the flight deck control the steering on the tug?.

The same way the pilot controls steering when the aircraft is taxying - with the tiller. The TaxiBot detects steering forces on the nosewheel and turns the tug accordingly.

And I am still not clear what the benefits are of this system - replacing the tug driver with the pilot steering the tug gains what?. The tug driver is still there the cab and the tug driver does the pushback so what do you achieve by allowing the pilot to drive in a straight line rather than the tug driver.

Think of it as being at about the same stage of development as autonomous cars, which are only just emerging from the stage of needing a safety driver. The two main issues, neither insurmountable, which currently prevent a driverless TaxiBot are visibility in the pushback phase and the reluctance of airport authorities to allow the tug to return to base autonomously after releasing the towed aircraft at the runway.

[BAengineer]

The same way the pilot controls steering when the aircraft is taxying - with the tiller. The TaxiBot detects steering forces on the nosewheel and turns the tug accordingly.

Think of it as being at about the same stage of development as autonomous cars, which are only just emerging from the stage of needing a safety driver. The two main issues, neither insurmountable, which currently prevent a driverless TaxiBot are visibility in the pushback phase and the reluctance of airport authorities to allow the tug to return to base autonomously after releasing the towed aircraft at the runway.

I just had a look at the website for this product and given that the pilot has no direct control over the tug I dont see how it would be allowed on an airport without a driver in the cab. If the tug sensing mechanism fails or gets a fault there is no way for the pilot to control the direction of travel as he cannot remotely shut down the tug. Same with the engine, the pilot has no way of stopping it except by relying on the aircraft brakes.

So we have a tug that costs probably double that of a normal tug (due to the NWS sensor technology) but still needs a driver - so no cost saving at all, in fact the opposite. I dont see any market for this until totally automated cars are mainstream - come back in 20 years. ;)

[Cynical Sid]

I just had a look at the website for this product and given that the pilot has no direct control over the tug I dont see how it would be allowed on an airport without a driver in the cab. If the tug sensing mechanism fails or gets a fault there is no way for the pilot to control the direction of travel as he cannot remotely shut down the tug. Same with the engine, the pilot has no way of stopping it except by relying on the aircraft brakes.

So we have a tug that costs probably double that of a normal tug (due to the NWS sensor technology) but still needs a driver - so no cost saving at all, in fact the opposite. I dont see any market for this until totally automated cars are mainstream - come back in 20 years. ;)

Surely the tug could never overcome the aircraft brakes, so that is the ultimate protection, unless unmanned movement is allowed.

[DaveReidUK]

Surely the tug could never overcome the aircraft brakes, so that is the ultimate protection, unless unmanned movement is allowed.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In a competition between an aircraft and a tug, there is only ever going to be one winner, and it's not going to be the aircraft.

[The Bartender]

Surely the tug could never overcome the aircraft brakes, so that is the ultimate protection, unless unmanned movement is allowed.

The brakes will stop the aircraft just fine, but do brace for your landing when the tug pull away with your NLG.
I can assure you it will do that without hesitation. 😂

[Golf-Sierra]

So we have a tug that costs probably double that of a normal tug (due to the NWS sensor technology) but still needs a driver - so no cost saving at all, in fact the opposite. I dont see any market for this until totally automated cars are mainstream - come back in 20 years. ;)

From the website it would seem the purpose of the design is to overcome red tape.

Aircraft not having a Pilot in Control (PIC) when towed by a normal tractor: which is unacceptable for safety, accountability and regulatory reasons

[EDML]

1. It is a regulatory problem if it is not the pilot taxiing the plane.
2. There is a driver needed to bring the tug back.

It is about saving money on big and busy airports (imagine ORD) . You save maybe 30-45min engine runtime (fuel and engine time). Of course the tug needs a lot less fuel than 2-4 big jet engines running in ground idle. Of course that is good for the environment as well.

[BAengineer]

From the website it would seem the purpose of the design is to overcome red tape.

I saw that - but as currently there is no issue about tug drivers towing aircraft around airports I felt they were making rather more of it than needed.