QF mishap YPPH 03/03/24

[Alice Kiwican]

According to Ch 7 news this morning 2 QF737’s have clipped wings pulling into the gate at YPPH.

Might grab some popcorn and see what facts ” come to light as the day wears on…..

[MickG0105]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/qantas-planes-collide-perth-airport/8f76d12e-c758-4a52-85a7-802d7334d83b

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1200/screenshot_20240304_094343_chrome_11bb07d1c6432cbdf2b008e87b 2a4b75e56dce0f.jpg

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I hope the crews/s are being looked after properly at a stressful time. Not strikebreaking airframes were they?

[43Inches]

I hope the crews/s are being looked after properly at a stressful time. Not strikebreaking airframes were they?

Interesting point, I was thinking how arriving at a marked bay would end like this, unless they are operating from non standard bays designed for smaller aircraft, say for FIFO... Seems like they had both come in from interstate, so not FIFO arrivals. That's not even close to separation, a good 5 meters from where it should pass. Anyway, nothing to see here, PR activated, rug lifted, broom sweeping...

[aussieflyboy]

What were the illegally outsourced ground staff doing? If they were paying attention surely they would have noticed the aircraft turning onto the wrong line and either changed the NIGS to a STOP or simply walked forwards waving their hands to indicate that the crew needs to stop.

[BuzzBox]

No doubt the ATSB will be all over it and we'll see a final report several years from now, with recommendations to prevent another occurrence. :ok:

[Slippery_Pete]

What were the illegally outsourced ground staff doing? If they were paying attention surely they would have noticed the aircraft turning onto the wrong line and either changed the NIGS to a STOP or simply walked forwards waving their hands to indicate that the crew needs to stop.

Those are the sorts of unrealised costs that the board and shareholders just don’t understand.

The cheapest option is never the cheapest option.

Now you’re looking at significant costs for:
1. Paying for Boeing to produce two repair schedules
2. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for engineers and parts to repair
3. Aircraft down-time for repairs (perhaps four aircraft weeks)
4. Subsequent increase in insurance premiums

Were these airframes brought in to cover NAA work? I expect the cost of this damage will be greater than the cost of just paying the NAA pilots what they deserve for the next 12 months.

[MickG0105]

It looks like QF939 from Brisbane had arrived at gate 19, and then a short while later QF857 from Canberra has arrived and headed for gate 18. Doubtless there will be a focus on the path QF857 has taken to the gate; a matter for those better qualified.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/990x933/screenshot_20240304_103835_flightradar24_c96ad3a027723842c59 f03f9576382b8e1f22db4.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1122x938/screenshot_20240304_103731_flightradar24_21081374772a97a1bb6 b8f3529b678e236379d9e.jpg

[LivingtheDream46]

Bay 18 verses Bay18A was it? it's nearly got me several times at night. Thanks "Perth airport" for the setup on a threat that should have been addressed years ago! sorry fellas I feel for you.

[Icarus2001]

NIGS active? On the wrong bay?

[walesregent]

Bay 18 verses Bay18A was it? it's nearly got me several times at night. Thanks "Perth airport" for the setup on a threat that should have been addressed years ago! sorry fellas I feel for you.

+1. Those lines can be hard to see at night, particularly in light drizzle. A bit late now but hopefully it has previously been reported to the SMS so the interested parties can’t claim ignorance and reflexively blame the crew.

[SandyPalms]

Yep. If it was going to happen, it was going to happen on 18. 2 different NIGS almost right next to each other, and lines that are very difficult to see. Hopefully there isn't too much damage, to aircraft anyway, I'd say the ego will suffer.

It's also a bay that mainline 737's hardly use in normal circumstances, 787 and A330 do, but the 737, hardly ever.

[Capn Bloggs]

2 different NIGS almost right next to each other
I doubt that they'd both be on together and the PIC would have to choose, and it was dark. And I very much doubt that 857, having been allocated bay 18 (I hope), would then choose to pick up the dotted Bay 18 line, without NIGS, and drive all the way to clock the jet on bay 19. Now, if the 18A NIGS was on and you were approaching the guidance from the south (so not having even got to the "18" on the ground)... Can't find it now but in the old days we weren't allowed onto the bay without a marshaller or NIGS; "Holding short of bay XX" was a not uncommon refrain.

[Big Silver Spoon]

With company policy that you can’t turn off the taxiway onto the gate without NIGs or marshalling, you’d have to assume the wrong nigs were activated or they were marshalled onto the wrong line.

Feel for the crew.

[Bleve]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1673x1223/img_4193_1c37cc575275abf8073c05749c8387f999aee903.jpeg

[MickG0105]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1673x1223/img_4193_1c37cc575275abf8073c05749c8387f999aee903.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/990x1127/screenshot_20240304_120039_google_earth_429cbf951cdc14c5e21d cc4b21d1603f6473d360.jpg

[logansi]

What were the illegally outsourced ground staff doing? If they were paying attention surely they would have noticed the aircraft turning onto the wrong line and either changed the NIGS to a STOP or simply walked forwards waving their hands to indicate that the crew needs to stop.

Odd comment considering receipt and dispatch of aircraft (other than the 787s) are still done by QF engineers.

[A320 Flyer]

So they parked on 18A instead of 18?

[Buttscratcher]

So I guess the ground staff genius' activated the 18A NIGS for them, with a 73' parked on 19.
The guys wouldn't have come in with no NIGS
Sounds like a setup

[MickG0105]

Noting the potential issue with the granularity of the ADS-B data, it appears that QF857 came to a stop for at least a minute, perhaps a bit longer, before starting to turn in towards the gate. Hopefully someone has ensured that the CVR is preserved this time.

[Potsie Weber]

So I guess the ground staff genius' activated the 18A NIGS for them, with a 73' parked on 19.
The guys wouldn't have come in with no NIGS
Sounds like a setup

That’s a bit harsh, there is likely an engineer also feeling pretty average themselves over this, perhaps wrong NIGS, but likely not being properly attentive on the stop button was the final hole in the Swiss cheese.

[600ft-lb]

So I guess the ground staff genius' activated the 18A NIGS for them, with a 73' parked on 19.
The guys wouldn't have come in with no NIGS
Sounds like a setup
You can't set the NIGS on 18A for a 737, the control panel won't let you.

[pocker pipty]

Maybe we shouldn’t point fingers at engineers just yet!

[1234fly]

Feel for the guys or girls! Only silver linings is it will cost qantas 2 planes out of service for a while and stop any strike breaking.

[KRviator]

Feel for the guys or girls! Only silver linings is it will cost qantas 2 planes out of service for a while and stop any strike breaking.If it's only a love-tap, can they both be unbolted and is the 737 certified to fly with only one winglet? Recall seeing several photos of a QF 747 about the traps with only one, but NFI if the baby Boeing can do the same.

[Icarus2001]

Maybe we shouldn’t point fingers at engineers just yet!

​​​​​​​Perhaps we should not point fingers at anyone yet? Until we know all the FACTS. Just a thought.

[dr dre]

If it's only a love-tap, can they both be unbolted and is the 737 certified to fly with only one winglet? Recall seeing several photos of a QF 747 about the traps with only one, but NFI if the baby Boeing can do the same.

At a minimum they should get authority to ferry it to a repair base.

The damage (on first glance) doesn't seem too bad - this AA 737 (https://simpleflying.com/american-airlines-boeing-737-pole/) made a much bigger gash in the wing when it taxied into a light pole in Dallas a few years back. That aircraft was repaired and back in service after a few weeks.

[maggot]

Perhaps we should not point fingers at anyone yet? Until we know all the FACTS. Just a thought.

Nah point fingers at the designer of that miserable bit of apron, lines, lighting and all.

​​​​​​​Haven't been there for a bit but there used to be an intam regarding the lines onto those bays in particular.

[framer]

The pause at 1300 UTC in MickGo’s post ties in with the recent requirement for aircraft to hold off on the taxiway until guidance is available. Maybe the data is accurate maybe not? In a rumour forum that might suggest that the crew were waiting for guidance onto their bay.
600-ftlb said You can't set the NIGS on 18A for a 737, the control panel won't let you.
which would suggest that the guidance that convinced the crew to carry on to the parking position came in a form other than NIGS. Pure speculation but it’s a possibility.

[Awol57]

Nah point fingers at the designer of that miserable bit of apron, lines, lighting and all.

​​​​​​​Haven't been there for a bit but there used to be an intam regarding the lines onto those bays in particular.
I suspect that design was only instituted at Qanta's request as they couldn't possibly do LHR direct without having an international transfer over that side. I don't recall 18A and 20A existing prior to that requirement.

[Saintly]

Wouldn't the marshall have realised the aircraft was off-line/not in line straightened aircraft up?

[NaFenn]

I suspect that design was only instituted at Qanta's request as they couldn't possibly do LHR direct without having an international transfer over that side. I don't recall 18A and 20A existing prior to that requirement.
They were installed for Virgin Australia's A330s around 2011 along with 17A.

[Capn Bloggs]

Wouldn't the marshall have realised the aircraft was off-line/not in line straightened aircraft up?
​​​​​​​It hasn't been established that they were being marshalled.

[Awol57]

They were installed for Virgin Australia's A330s around 2011 along with 17A.
Ah ok I was wrong on that, my bad. By the time I came back VA widebodies were using 147/148/149 so wasn't seeing any widebodies in those bays

[FullOppositeRudder]

Googling "Perth Aircraft Turnaround" will offer a 24 page PDF document which would appear to cover almost every situation - except perhaps that of a flawed design which, given the right combination of adverse factors, can still conspire to bring about a mishap of this kind.

[Capn Bloggs]

From The West today (5Mar):
A spokesman for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it had been notified of the “low-speed collision” but had decided not to investigate because it would be “unlikely to yield new safety lessons or safety benefit”.

[Buttscratcher]

Chairman's Lounge Platinum member?

[gordonfvckingramsay]

From The West today (5Mar):

So the fact that passengers were disembarking and possibly going down the stairs on the stationary aircraft was NOT a safety issue? The ‘jolt’ felt by passengers is not of concern?

No safety learning outcomes. That figures…

[framer]

Chairman's Lounge Platinum member?

I think that could easily be dismissed as a joke but am starting to wonder exactly how far the Chairman’s Lounge ‘reciprocity bias’ reach actually is.
I am also surprised that no Australian journalist has publicly asked the question as to whether any of the Fair Work commissioners involved in the upcoming IB declaration are members of the Chairman’s Lounge. If they refuse to state that they are not members then the story has legs and someone could make a name for themselves. Michael West? Kim Wingerei?

[josephfeatherweight]

From The West today (5Mar):
That's a really concerning attitude from the SAFETY Bureau.

[maggot]

That's a really concerning attitude from the SAFETY Bureau.
More to the point they probably consider it within the scope of internal safety investigation which will absolutely take place.

[josephfeatherweight]

That’s true - they should have said that.

[AmarokGTI]

From The West today (5Mar):

ATSB not investigating…

Did they also not investigate the Rockhampton bogging for the same reasons?

Not that both seemed to involve transport category aircraft taxiing the wrong way at night. Not that potentially line markings or marshalling or fatigue could have been a factor in either or both.

[sunnySA]

It hasn't been established that they were being marshalled.
An investigation by ATSB would establish this, oh, hang on a sec. I think passengers on both aircraft would expect an investigation.

What does the AsA report say?

[Capn Bloggs]

More to the point they probably consider it within the scope of internal safety investigation which will absolutely take place.
In effect, that's what the FAA said to Boeing.

There would be thousands of outside/Non-Qantas people, both pilots and groundcrew, that would be interested in, and learn from, this incident. Assuming that Qantas will not publicise it's investigation findings, we can only rely on the ATSB to learn from this. I understand that dealing with the (negative) press is an issue these days but flight safety will only be further enhanced if we are given the opportunity to learn from other's mistakes.

[Clinton McKenzie]

At least ATSB is consistent in the application of its paradoxical logic. It’s able to foretell the probabilities of an investigation yielding new safety lessons or safety benefit, even in transport category incidents, before all of the facts are ascertained.

Given that there’s very little left under the aviation sun that hasn’t been learnt about the many and varied ways in which aviation accidents happen, one wonders why ATSB bothers at all. Just leave it to operators (and local police and coroners) to sort it out.

But, then again, I suppose we do ‘need’ ATSB’s ‘nothing to see here; everything’s under control; no systemic problems in ATC and safety regulation in Australia; just pilot error; everybody move on’ reports. They make us feel ‘safer’.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

FFS, it's a couple of dents occurring at low speed right at the gates while one of the aircraft was parked. Why on earth would the ATSB get involved wasting time and resources on this? If they had not collided, would you want any resources input into the "breakdown of separation" or "near miss"? It's an internal QF problem as to how their aircraft receiving procedures broke down resulting in minor damage to two of their aircraft.

[Clinton McKenzie]

The short answer to your (perhaps rhetorical) question is: Yes.

The paradox is this: If it’s just a simply explicable error, it should only take ATSB a very short time to find that out and report accordingly. Investigating ostensibly simple incidents, and near misses, is important. That’s because of the word “ostensibly”. This has been learnt before.

You’ve evidently done your own investigation and ascertained the facts. What’s your explanation of the cause?

[neville_nobody]

FFS, it's a couple of dents occurring at low speed right at the gates while one of the aircraft was parked. Why on earth would the ATSB get involved wasting time and resources on this? If they had not collided, would you want any resources input into the "breakdown of separation" or "near miss"? It's an internal QF problem as to how their aircraft receiving procedures broke down resulting in minor damage to two of their aircraft.

However when things go internal important items can be covered up. Scenarios such as high fatigue can be glossed over. It also limits the media exposure.

[topend3]

Nah point fingers at the designer of that miserable bit of apron, lines, lighting and all.

Haven't been there for a bit but there used to be an intam regarding the lines onto those bays in particular.

Of course QF would have been involved in making the maximum stands possible on that apron, which then introduces many restrictions. Also the apron wasn't designed for A330, they have been shoe-horned in there, creating complex secondary bay arrangements.

[topend3]

I'd say 9-12 months

[compressor stall]

We prioritise our investigations to focus on accidents and incidents that have the potential to deliver the greatest public benefit through improvements to transport safety. We focus on the public interest where the safety of passengers and crew on an aircraft, train or ship is concerned, and when it comes to the significant costs that can result from an accident, particularly where there is significant damage to public infrastructure or an impact on the national economy.

2 aircraft touching wings on taxi in doesn’t really fit the above does it?

[maggot]

Of course QF would have been involved in making the maximum stands possible on that apron, which then introduces many restrictions. Also the apron wasn't designed for A330, they have been shoe-horned in there, creating complex secondary bay arrangements.
Possibly, although someone posted above that it was originally for the virgin 330 ops.

But, yeah. All about squeezing in what they can.

Better lines and lighting would go a long way.

[Lead Balloon]

2 aircraft touching wings on taxi in doesn’t really fit the above does it?Depends on why they touched wings, doesn’t it?

[Lookleft]

One word-geometry. Thats why they come together. The collision was inevitable once the PIC started to follow the 18A lead in line. Why he/she thought that line was the correct one is the why that should be looked at whether its Qantas Safety or the ATSB. As it involved Qantas aircraft at a Qantas terminal and doesn't really have any safety benefit for anyone else other than Qantas why would the ATSB be involved? I imagine that the safety outcome will be an some form of internal communication for pilots to be more familiar with the configuration of the bays or that they stop using Alpha bays altogether.

[topend3]

Possibly, although someone posted above that it was originally for the virgin 330 ops.

But, yeah. All about squeezing in what they can.

Better lines and lighting would go a long way.

Correct, that was when it started. Then when VA moved over to T1, QF continued it on with also getting INTL ops and 787s in to that ****box terminal.

[Capn Bloggs]

​​​​​​​
I suspect that design was only instituted at Qanta's request as they couldn't possibly do LHR direct without having an international transfer over that side. I don't recall 18A and 20A existing prior to that requirement.

​​​​​​​They were installed for Virgin Australia's A330s around 2011 along with 17A.
Upon perusing Google Earth, that isn't correct. 18A was not created until 2018. 17A was, but I don't believe that has ever been used by QF.

[non_state_actor]

A question for the ATSB is why they published this report for a similar type of accident but QF get to keep their safety report private.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-167


The objective of a safety investigation is to enhance transport safety. This is done through:

identifying safety issues and facilitating safety action to address those issues
providing information about occurrences and their associated safety factors to facilitate learning within the transport industry.

It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action.

[Capn Bloggs]

As it involved Qantas aircraft at a Qantas terminal and doesn't really have any safety benefit for anyone else other than Qantas why would the ATSB be involved? I imagine that the safety outcome will be an some form of internal communication for pilots to be more familiar with the configuration of the bays or that they stop using Alpha bays altogether.
I think it's more than that. First, there's no NIGS for a 737 on 18A. I believe you're not supposed to go onto a bay without guidance of some type (we weren't). So, were they being marshalled? By a contractor? Plenty of contracted marshalling goes on at Perth. What about staff on the ground watching? Bridge operator? That is why I think a public investigation and report would be a good learning experience. And as previously mentioned, if the reason is so clear-cut, then the report won't take long.

[A320 Flyer]

There is a current (pre-dated the event) FSO about the requirements for turning onto a parking bay. Basically
- NIGS (that states correct A/C) or a marshaller
- equipment is behind the lines
- green light on the bridge (as applicable)

If these aren’t satisfied then you’re not supposed to turn onto the lead in line.

In Perth we are always received by a QF engineer so I would be amazed if a contractor was directing the aircraft if they were following a marshaller.

[Icarus2001]

That is why I think a public investigation and report would be a good learning experience. And as previously mentioned, if the reason is so clear-cut, then the report won't take long.

Stop making perfect sense A.
The bottom line is that Q do not want an ATSB investigation, as that may get reported in the media and so the independent statutory body obliges them.
Q are happy, the ATSB is happy and the travelling public is happy as they are not informed,
It is just those pesky safety orientated pilots who are unhappy.
Imagine if pilots had a representative body like the AMA or the bar association to lobby for them? (no I do not compare our job to theirs just their ability to organise themselves)

[Lookleft]

The bottom line is that Q do not want an ATSB investigation, as that may get reported in the media and so the independent statutory body obliges them.

You mean like QF888 which had an engine shutdown due to a misdiagnosed fuel leak and diversion to a CTAF? Splashed all over the media? No, QF have enough bad publicity with BAU let alone a wingtip clash on the ground. The ATSB can choose to investigate or not to investigate, I can imagine that they don't consider this to be worth their limited resources to investigate.

[framer]

What about staff on the ground watching?
Watching their phones? I often look around the ground staff below the aircraft and count the number who are interacting with their phones. Not that long ago when I did the job I would have been pulled aside by the leading hand if I had done that and briefed on staying alert and scanning every aircraft for leaks and open hatches. I don’t blame any of them as they haven’t been trained up like we were but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a groundy to spot the pitot covers that have been left on or the fuel leak that’s just started, or the wing tip collision that is about to happen.
I should say that there are some awesome ground staff that do all of those things but often the number staring at their phones is in the majority.
Gotta go…just seen the shadow of a cloud racing across my back yard

[Pedotas]

Can someone who is not 'new around here' please post the Flightradar24 track of QF780 from MEL to PER on 3 March? It seems the aircraft headed north to the Longreach/Winton area before turning towards Perth, adding an additional two hours to the flight.

Does someone (else?) know what happened?

Unfortunately I cannot post it myself because 'I am new around here' - which is a misnomer as I have been a member since the late 90s under the handle of Pedota - but that seems to have disappeared.

Cheers

Pedota(s)

[topend3]

It is common practice in Perth for QF aircraft to be holding short of the stand waiting for an engineer, as even though their break room is 50m from the stands, and presuming they know when the flights are arriving, they are still unable to make it to the stand in time to hit the NIGS button. That has been an issue for years.

[dejapoo]

Watching their phones? I often look around the ground staff below the aircraft and count the number who are interacting with their phones. Not that long ago when I did the job I would have been pulled aside by the leading hand if I had done that and briefed on staying alert and scanning every aircraft for leaks and open hatches. I don’t blame any of them as they haven’t been trained up like we were but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a groundy to spot the pitot covers that have been left on or the fuel leak that’s just started, or the wing tip collision that is about to happen.
I should say that there are some awesome ground staff that do all of those things but often the number staring at their phones is in the majority.
Gotta go…just seen the shadow of a cloud racing across my back yard

The exact reason on the odd occasion we are requested to do an engine run on the bay I refuse to have any part of it. As if!! Swisscheese crew wondering around on their phones! I won't have a bar of it. Gotta be paid to care yeah $

[Chronic Snoozer]

Can someone who is not 'new around here' please post the Flightradar24 track of QF780 from MEL to PER on 3 March? It seems the aircraft headed north to the Longreach/Winton area before turning towards Perth, adding an additional two hours to the flight.

Does someone (else?) know what happened?

Unfortunately I cannot post it myself because 'I am new around here' - which is a misnomer as I have been a member since the late 90s under the handle of Pedota - but that seems to have disappeared.

Cheers

Pedota(s)

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/qf780#3437fc04

[Xhorst]

There seem to be a lot of posters on here who think that the function of a NIGS is to guide an aircraft onto the correct lead-in line.

[Xhorst]

Does someone (else?) know what happened?


ATC have been closing a lot of airspace lately.

[Warragul]

ETOPS restrictions due to unserviceable item(s) on aircraft perhaps? Been a few flights doing similar routes recently.

[C441]

Non-ETOPS and runway works in Adelaide?? Not sure why Edinburgh would not have been an adequate for ETOPS if Mt Isa was (by the look of the track).
Oh and it was PER - MEL not the other way.

[markis10]

Non-ETOPS and runway works in Adelaide?? Not sure why Edinburgh would not have been an adequate for ETOPS if Mt Isa was (by the look of the track).
Oh and it was PER - MEL not the other way.

Edinburgh cannot be used as an alternate, and lacks sufficient RFF capacity if it was for an A330

[Capn Bloggs]

Thread Drift!

@Pedotas, it is extremely rude to star a completely different topic in an already-running thread. Please start a new thread if you want talk or ask about something different.

[MMSOB]

All quiet here, which undoubtedly suits QF. Herein an overview, but no answers...

Let's first look at the gates in question, say, 17 - 19:
B737 and smaller can park all three simultaneously with no restrictions. However, for example, putting a wide-body on, say, Bay 18, immediately blocks-off Bays 17 & 19. Bay 18A is thus a work-around for a wide-body as it then only additionally blocks-off Bay 19.

Now let's look at the ground players:
'Alpha' Site coordinator/ 'Qantas Perth' 129.5MHz
'Kilo' In-terminal meet & dispatch
'Oscar' Tarmac meet and dispatch

My understanding Oscar is always an engineer for B737, probably because this type may be assigned either aerobridge or stand-off bays, with the latter requiring active marshalling. However, because wide-body always operate to/from aerobridges with NIGS appropriately trained contractors perform this role. There is NO possibility of random baggage handlers being assigned these tasks!

Now the sequence of events:

Around 150nm to go QF939 calls QF PER/ Oscar and is assigned Bay 19.

A short while later QF857 calls and is (presumably) assigned Bay 18A. Hmmm. If the tech crew here had 'local knowledge' would they not immediately query this allocation, given there is no compatible NIGS? On the other hand a crew less familiar with PER and at the end of a long day would understandably be more inclined to 'go with the flow'. Regardless, when eventually approaching the bays the timeline at post #16 indicates that 857 hesitated for a minute or so before committing to Bay 18A. So, there was some confusion/doubt which unfortunately 'flipped' the wrong way.

The assignation of Bay 18A seems unfathomable; so could it be unintentional? For example, could Oscar has assigned 18 to the crew, then through 'finger trouble' assigned 18A to Kilo and Oscar?

Whatever. The two final swiss cheese holes to align are Kilo and Oscar. Kilo unlikely to have the tarmac knowledge to spy something amiss, but surely this comment does not apply to engineer Oscar?

[MickG0105]

... The assignation of Bay 18A ... Assignation ≠ Assignment

[Capn Bloggs]

could Oscar has assigned 18 to the crew, then through 'finger trouble' assigned 18A to Kilo and Oscar?
Proofreader fail. ;)