Easyjet A320 and KLM B737 collide at Schiphol

[ANOpax]

Full story at airlive

A KLM spokesperson said the aircraft hit each other during the ‘pushback’.

KLM Boeing 737-800 was ready to leave for Madrid and the easyJet plane was on its way to London.

[ANOpax]

Story link with photo is here (https://www.airlive.net/breaking-easyjet-airbus-a320-and-klm-boeing-737-800-have-collided-on-the-ground-at-amsterdam-schiphol-airport/)

[DaveReidUK]

Well the Sun is in no doubt as to whose fault it was. :O

Video: EasyJet plane with Brit tourists on board crashes into aircraft at Amsterdam airport (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9467550/easyjet-plane-crash-amsterdam-brit-news/)

WTF were the two tug crews thinking ?

[fox niner]

Both aircraft were cleared to push at the same time, apparently. According to sources. Atc recordings back it up.

clear video of the incident happening:

https://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7717027/1cbc29f4

[Icanseeclearly]

Not pointing fingers...

I am pretty sure at Schipol (and the video seems to confirm it) the pushback crew consists of one person who is obviously driving the tug, I wonder how hard it is to see behind the aircraft sitting in the tug?

Miscommunication between fine flight deck and their pushback crew or ATC confusion, either way a tad embarrassing.

[Pistonprop]

Controller error, he says so himself on the frequency. He wrongly thought one of them (I can't remember which now) was at a different gate and thus cleared both to push.

[procede]

We have been told that it is down to the company who pull the planes onto the runway.
Wow, being wrong on so many levels at the same time in one sentence.

The controller gave push back clearance to both aircraft. Apparently he did not realise that this Easyjet flight was departing from the D pier and not the H pier, where Easyjet normally operates from. Off course the pushback drivers could have still prevented if they had realised it, but to their defence, the view from the push back truck isn't that good.

[FL370 Officeboy]

Cost cutting and minimum crews for every element of the operation means this sort of thing is inevitable. The tug driver, if working alone already has plenty to be keeping them occupied. Would it have happened with wing men? Unlikely - but they cost more money.

[pax2908]

It is OK. I am sure this is considered (with a conservative occurrence probability) when the decision is taken to reduce staff to minimum. Everyone is doing their job.

[Pilot DAR]

The controller gave push back clearance to both aircraft

So two tug drivers each have a clearance to push back - it's not an instruction. Each driver still needs to be satisfied it's safe before they move the aircraft. I bet wing walkers will seem less costly now!

Controller error,

Error yes, but I don't think responsibility.

[Pistonprop]

Unfortunately it is his responsibility. He and only he issued the pushback clearance.

[Maninthebar]

Ignorant question: were both tug drivers on the same frequency?

[Old and Horrified]

In my day it was the captain of the aircraft who received push back clearance and then communicated that to the engineer on the intercom who then communicated it to the tug driver. Is it different now?

[Pilot DAR]

Unfortunately it is his responsibility. He and only he issued the pushback clearance.

Yes the controller issued a clearance, however, the clearance does not constitute an instruction to push back. 'Same as "you're cleared for takeoff" is a clearance, not an instruction. ATC does not say to a pilot: "takeoff now". It is up to the pilot to determine that it is safe to takeoff, and begin when he/she is ready, and has a clearance. I can't see how it's different for a tug driver - "you're cleared to push back [when it safe to do so]" - if the tug driver chooses to wait to not run over a ramp hand, or wait for a baggage cart to be moved, or another jet to be out of the way, the tug driver is doing his job properly.

[Maninthebar]

Yes the controller issued a clearance, however, the clearance does not constitute an instruction to push back. 'Same as "you're cleared for takeoff" is a clearance, not an instruction. ATC does not say to a pilot: "takeoff now". It is up to the pilot to determine that it is safe to takeoff, and begin when he/she is ready, and has a clearance. I can't see how it's different for a tug driver - "you're cleared to push back [when it safe to do so]" - if the tug driver chooses to wait to not run over a ramp hand, or wait for a baggage cart to be moved, or another jet to be out of the way, the tug driver is doing his job properly.

I can see that. However, I would expect the tug driver is trained to expect that the clearance to push back reflects the Controller's monitoring of objects that s/he is aware of i.e (principally) other airframes.

The tug driver will be responsible for the safety of the action vis a vis objects unknown to the Controller, as you say, but the prime control over aircraft movements sits with Ground Operations no?

[Pilot DAR]

the tug driver is trained to expect ......

I can't say how tug drivers are trained, though I'm imagining some refresher training coming up soon, but, whenever I have moved a plane (either as a driver, or a pilot), I have satisfied myself entirely about a safe area, before I move. That might include a wing walker I trust, and can see directly.

[TURIN]

In my day it was the captain of the aircraft who received push back clearance and then communicated that to the engineer on the intercom who then communicated it to the tug driver. Is it different now?

Not where I work.
Schipol seems to have a different procedure.

[LookingForAJob]

Not where I work. So how does it happen where you work? And does your profile including UK mean that you work in the UK?

[pilotmike]

WTF were the two tug crews thinking ?

"I've been cleared to push"?

"As I was pushing, it suddenly got harder"?

"WTF was that crunching noise?"?

[eastern wiseguy]

Push approved.....not a clearance. The onus is squarely on the tug crew to make sure there is nothing in the way. Controller made an error...but if you remove wing walkers....well I sort of wonder who did the risk analysis for that and how they mitigated it.

[ehwatezedoing]

Unfortunately it is his responsibility. He and only he issued the pushback clearance.
No as explained by Pilot DAR.
Or think about runway incursion after being cleared to land.

[750XL]

Always found the 'one man push' procedure at Schiphol bizarre, single tug driver to do chocks, pins, pushback, etc etc...

Compared to the UK for example, where as a minimum you'll have a headset man, pushback driver, and a wing walker.

But hey ho, what do I know :}

Was at OSL not long ago and witnessed a single person tow the aircraft onto stand, chock it, put the bridge on, nip into the cockpit to do whatever brake riders do, come back down, and drive away in the tug. Impressive!

[CW247]

This industry operates at the edge of the safety margin entirely for profit or to satisfy the consumer by giving them ultra low cost flights. When will we realise aviation safety is absolutely compromised by a very unhealthy competition which now exists in this industry? We need to introduce a minimum cost per mile for flying with airlines competing not in terms of ticket prices but in terms of customer service and experience/comfort. The money should then be diverted to pay the staff better or simply hire more so the job can be done in a safer way. The regulators are asleep. Competition in aviation has reached a crisis point.

[tdracer]

This industry operates at the edge of the safety margin entirely for profit or to satisfy the consumer by giving them ultra low cost flights. When will we realise aviation safety is absolutely compromised by a very unhealthy competition which now exists in this industry? We need to introduce a minimum cost per mile for flying with airlines competing not in terms of ticket prices but in terms of customer service and experience/comfort. The money should then be diverted to pay the staff better or simply hire more so the job can be done in a safer way. The regulators are asleep. Competition in aviation has reached a crisis point.

Which would of course explain why aviation has never been safer :ugh:
That being said, I'd consider the practice of making the tug driver responsible for everything rather daft. There should be at least one spotter (with one of those really noisy compressed air horns) to make sure they're clear.

[FrequentSLF]

This industry operates at the edge of the safety margin entirely for profit or to satisfy the consumer by giving them ultra low cost flights. When will we realise aviation safety is absolutely compromised by a very unhealthy competition which now exists in this industry? We need to introduce a minimum cost per mile for flying with airlines competing not in terms of ticket prices but in terms of customer service and experience/comfort. The money should then be diverted to pay the staff better or simply hire more so the job can be done in a safer way. The regulators are asleep. Competition in aviation has reached a crisis point.
And what will be that minimum cost per mile and when should be increased? It will be just a big cartel. and BTW how that will increase safety when the past few years have been the safest?
Furthermore passengers are already charged a fixed costs to use airports and their facilities.

[Nil by mouth]

Really LOUD I'm reversing bleepers needed, or do tug drivers have really QUIET ear defenders?

[Pilot DAR]

Furthermore passengers are already charged a fixed costs to use airports and their facilities.

Fair enough, as a pax, I would happily pay $0.25 for every ticket, if doing so greatly reduced the chance that I would have to be disembarked, and delayed, waiting for a replacement plane, once during my passenger career. Whoever pays to repair those two planes is going to pass that cost along to me anyway. I'd rather pay extra wing walkers, than sheet metal repair technicians! Costs can be cut too much.

[tdracer]

Furthermore passengers are already charged a fixed costs to use airports and their facilities.
I was under the impression that the tug drivers and wing walkers are paid by the airline, not the airport - basically that those airport fees are used for things like airport infrastructure.
Is it different on the other side of the pond?

[FrequentSLF]

I was under the impression that the tug drivers and wing walkers are paid by the airline, not the airport - basically that those airport fees are used for things like airport infrastructure.
Is it different on the other side of the pond?
my understanding is that depends on airport, airlines agreement, some airports in SEA have a monopoly on the service...
but indeed you are right not all are the same

[FrequentSLF]

Fair enough, as a pax, I would happily pay $0.25 for every ticket, if doing so greatly reduced the chance that I would have to be disembarked, and delayed, waiting for a replacement plane, once during my passenger career. Whoever pays to repair those two planes is going to pass that cost along to me anyway. I'd rather pay extra wing walkers, than sheet metal repair technicians! Costs can be cut too much.

you already paying for that, and is a fix cost per seat/flight, not based on miles travelled. Pushing a plane for a 1 hour flight or 12 hour flight cost the same

[Pilot DAR]

I was under the impression that the tug drivers and wing walkers are paid by the airline, not the airport

I have no idea about Schiphol, but the European airport which handles my client's airplanes has airport employees, not airline staff, ground handle the planes. I know this, because we've had two "incidents". I recently discussed with the airport manager allowing us to move our own planes, as long as no one else's plane is around, and that seems likely, though a stretch of their rules. It will be less costly for them, after the rather expensive repairs which have been incurred by the airport. When we move the airplanes, we always have wingwalkers, and a following person. A few times, the airport staff have moved our planes without our assistance, and twice it did not work out so well.

[GXER]

Which would of course explain why aviation has never been safer :ugh:
That being said, I'd consider the practice of making the tug driver responsible for everything rather daft. There should be at least one spotter (with one of those really noisy compressed air horns) to make sure they're clear.
Or it could be that the industry has been living off the safety credit balance built up in earlier times. Perhaps continually improving safety requires continual investment and, if the investment does not occur or is sufficiently reduced, then the safety improvements run down like a clockwork spring.

[the_stranger]

I have no idea about Schiphol, but the European airport which handles my client's airplanes has airport employees, not airline staff, ground handle the planes.
Same at Schiphol.
KLM has it's own personnel, but there are 2 or 3 other handling companies.

[mike current]

Always found the 'one man push' procedure at Schiphol bizarre, single tug driver to do chocks, pins, pushback, etc etc...

Compared to the UK for example, where as a minimum you'll have a headset man, pushback driver, and a wing walker.



Wing walkers are optional, only certain airlines employ them.
The headset man (other genders are available) and driver are there, but airlines are starting to trial and use remote controlled Mototoks, which only require one person to operate.

[groundbum]

actually there is a low cost solution to all these low speed taxying bumps at airports, which crop up on pprune regularly.

The AI in driverless cars is superb at spatial awareness and anticipation. I can't imagine Google would break a sweat turning some of their technology into having the CCTV that's watching aprons and taxiways into an alert system for an imminent collision. Any human watching the video had at least 5 seconds notice that a crunch was going to happen. Ditto AI. Then it would just need a link to ground radio to say something like "all ground aircraft stop now-collision imminent" and sorted for very few pennies.

G

[ReturningVector]

Wing walkers are optional, only certain airlines employ them.
The headset man (other genders are available) and driver are there, but airlines are starting to trial and use remote controlled Mototoks, which only require one person to operate.

At Schiphol, Towbar operations are done with a driver and someone walking belongside with a headset.

Towbarless pushing, aka the lifting pushback trucks, only have a driver who does both the pushback and the talk out for engine start. This was also the case with both KLM and Easyjet in this incident.
So both pushbackdrivers would be monitoring an engine start as well. Also, the planes were almost directly behind each other, so it would be very hard to notice the other plane pushing back as well, as the fuselage will be blocking the pushbackdriver’s view.

[parkfell]

Wow, being wrong on so many levels at the same time in one sentence.

The controller gave push back clearance to both aircraft. Apparently he did not realise that this Easyjet flight was departing from the D pier and not the H pier, where Easyjet normally operates from. Off course the pushback drivers could have still prevented if they had realised it, but to their defence, the view from the push back truck isn't that good.

So the 'Swiss cheese' strikes again.

I just wonder if the Crews had stated the gate/stand when requesting pushback, the position stated might have proved the necessary prompt to delay the ATC instruction to push? ATC will know the apron layout like the back of their hand.
Might improved SA of just where the stands are mitigate the threat when crews listen out on the frequency?
Easy to sit back in ones armchair and pontificate.
No doubt a new FCN has already been written....

[ReturningVector]

So the 'Swiss cheese' strikes again.

I just wonder if the Crews had stated the gate/stand when requesting pushback, the position stated might have proved the necessary prompt to delay the ATC instruction to push? ATC will know the apron layout like the back of their hand.
Might improved SA of just where the stands are mitigate the threat when crews listen out on the frequency?
Easy to sit back in ones armchair and pontificate.
No doubt a new FCN has already been written....


Yes, both airplanes did use the stand number in their pushback request.
Full ATC and visuals, search YouTube for “Easyjet A320 and KLM B738 collide at Amsterdam” by VASaviation.
Sorry, can’t post urls yet myself :)

[DaveReidUK]

-XEIdm4-o7I