Cabin door ripped off Jetstar plane, passengers stranded
Join Date: May 2004
Location: utopia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, help me understand. Why were the brakes released in the first place? Surely the procedure for the 717 is the same for every other Boeing. That is that the brakes arent released until cleared for push by ATC and engineering? If not - then something very very basic is wrong here.
I might be a disgrace, but I am correct. The mob is still fricking dangerous. And Keg? You are a self righteous fool. Your comments are so predictably nice on every occasion that they make me want to ralph.
I might be a disgrace, but I am correct. The mob is still fricking dangerous. And Keg? You are a self righteous fool. Your comments are so predictably nice on every occasion that they make me want to ralph.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hehe.... "ralph"!! I like it....... another good one from chuck. 
meanwhile what is this remote you're all referring to?
meanwhile what is this remote you're all referring to?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck - I think you've missed the point. It allegedly appears that the damaged aircraft was not intended to be moved at all. Ground staff have possibly moved the wrong aircraft by means of the wrong remote control.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: By the Bay
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Lurk,
I have seen these type of machines before,i.e driving the mainwheel tyres rather than pushing via the nose gear assembly, but I am not familiar with the "remote control" part of it. I understand that in some operations the crew are given turn direction commands from the engineer and manouver the aircraft into position steering via the tiller.
Is the "remote" connected to the "pushmotor" by a cable or some other means?
Who operates the remote and where does this person stand/walk when the push is commenced?
Can anyone from the 717 operation answer the above and perhaps advise the normal procedure used.
Interesting
Cheers,
I'm gone!
I have seen these type of machines before,i.e driving the mainwheel tyres rather than pushing via the nose gear assembly, but I am not familiar with the "remote control" part of it. I understand that in some operations the crew are given turn direction commands from the engineer and manouver the aircraft into position steering via the tiller.
Is the "remote" connected to the "pushmotor" by a cable or some other means?
Who operates the remote and where does this person stand/walk when the push is commenced?
Can anyone from the 717 operation answer the above and perhaps advise the normal procedure used.
Interesting
Cheers,
I'm gone!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really need to be a qualified engineer to check a door isn't connected to something other than the aircraft before trying to move it though?
...do you really need to be a qualified pilot to fly an aeroplane...
(Sorry, just thinking aloud and couldn't resist 
) This is a good example of two sets of eyes being better than one - and that's all it is.
Pass-A-Frozo you sound like management material to me - don't understand what someone else does or has responsibility for - then let's get rid of 'em
Saw the proposal for the tugs at Ansett and they were always going to be of concern. We were advised at the time that if they ran out of control they could tear the main gear of a B737 like a tin can if the brakes were parked.
Glad I'm not driving it
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike..."
Chuck,
At the risk of being repetitious, until Jetstar park one in a golf course (OR drop one on its nose!) YOU have no right to spout about who is and isn't dangerous.
Indeed, you seem to possess the self-righteousness that is a key factor in incidents like those I've alluded to.
At the risk of being repetitious, until Jetstar park one in a golf course (OR drop one on its nose!) YOU have no right to spout about who is and isn't dangerous.
Indeed, you seem to possess the self-righteousness that is a key factor in incidents like those I've alluded to.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can try, but helping you understand is probably beyond my capabilities as you are such a f*ckwit chuck mygutzup !
The park brake is released on arrival at the gate as a standard procedure.
Your constant harping on about Jetstar pilots being inferior to your magnificent skills and even trying to implicate them when an incident has been shown to have nothing to do with them just shows how pathetic you are.
What makes me laugh is your disparaging remarks about a group of people who come from such a wide ranging background and level of experience that trying to put them down as a group just shows how stupid you are.
Accidents happen no matter who you are or what level of training
you have undertaken.Just ask the the crew in Bangkok or the A330 crew who had their door ripped off or the crew that decided to ditch in Perth.Maybe speak to the guy's who overran the runway in Darwin.
You are the one that is the accident waiting to happen with your inflated ego.
Oh and by the way , mind you don't drop your captains navbag when you carry it to the terminal you miserable LITTLE pr!ck !
The park brake is released on arrival at the gate as a standard procedure.
Your constant harping on about Jetstar pilots being inferior to your magnificent skills and even trying to implicate them when an incident has been shown to have nothing to do with them just shows how pathetic you are.
What makes me laugh is your disparaging remarks about a group of people who come from such a wide ranging background and level of experience that trying to put them down as a group just shows how stupid you are.
Accidents happen no matter who you are or what level of training
you have undertaken.Just ask the the crew in Bangkok or the A330 crew who had their door ripped off or the crew that decided to ditch in Perth.Maybe speak to the guy's who overran the runway in Darwin.
You are the one that is the accident waiting to happen with your inflated ego.
Oh and by the way , mind you don't drop your captains navbag when you carry it to the terminal you miserable LITTLE pr!ck !
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: wa
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ba146 in Perth have never lost a door coz Dicko has got them parking in the vacinity of the Perth Flight Centre. Hate to park on an aerobridge. Would have to pull the JEPPS out to see how too do it!!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
It seems that some of you are STILL missing what would appear to be the CAUSE of this accident - yes, accident.
per favour of Lurk R:-
It allegedly appears that the damaged aircraft was not intended to be moved at all.
In other words, the aircraft concerned had the remote-controlled motor - that is attached to one set of mainwheels - INADVERTENTLY activated,
It still remains to be seen whether the "controller" for the (pushback) device of the fated aircraft was mistakenly swapped for another, or whether there was an actual MALFUNCTION.
It may well be that if there were more than 1 of these devices being operated - which are supposedly wire-less - there COULD be frequency crossover.
How about - instead of trying to blame SOME ONE, we look at what systems are being utilised, and the probability of error THERE!
Even with park brakes set ON, Chuck, it would take only a couple of centimetres of movement for a connected aerobridge to seriously damage an open cabin door.
As for Chuck's comment, "I might be a disgrace, but I am correct. The mob is still fricking dangerous."......Yes, Chuck you ARE a disgrace, by way of your unfounded, unprofessional digs.
And "NO", you are NOT correct!
If they were "fricking dangerous" (shades of that village idiot, Winstun), Chuck, then QANTAS - which oversees the Impulse operations - or CASA, would have acted.
And "Yes"...you are a disgrace, for posting UNFOUNDED statements about other "QANTAS-family" pilots!!
per favour of Lurk R:-
It allegedly appears that the damaged aircraft was not intended to be moved at all.
In other words, the aircraft concerned had the remote-controlled motor - that is attached to one set of mainwheels - INADVERTENTLY activated,
It still remains to be seen whether the "controller" for the (pushback) device of the fated aircraft was mistakenly swapped for another, or whether there was an actual MALFUNCTION.
It may well be that if there were more than 1 of these devices being operated - which are supposedly wire-less - there COULD be frequency crossover.
How about - instead of trying to blame SOME ONE, we look at what systems are being utilised, and the probability of error THERE!
Even with park brakes set ON, Chuck, it would take only a couple of centimetres of movement for a connected aerobridge to seriously damage an open cabin door.
As for Chuck's comment, "I might be a disgrace, but I am correct. The mob is still fricking dangerous."......Yes, Chuck you ARE a disgrace, by way of your unfounded, unprofessional digs.
And "NO", you are NOT correct!
If they were "fricking dangerous" (shades of that village idiot, Winstun), Chuck, then QANTAS - which oversees the Impulse operations - or CASA, would have acted.
And "Yes"...you are a disgrace, for posting UNFOUNDED statements about other "QANTAS-family" pilots!!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Whilst I don't like what Mark did in "that year", I do object to someone using a nom de plume that is a poor attempt to make postings under a thinly disguised veil.
Having known this person from quite a long time ago - in spite of his regretful decision - I would hope that the poster using the above title (the one before AN lame's) re-consider HIS position.
Having known this person from quite a long time ago - in spite of his regretful decision - I would hope that the poster using the above title (the one before AN lame's) re-consider HIS position.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: I'm TWO years old, it'd be a shame to ban me now......
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reeled him in....... didn't even put up a fight!
grease monkeez will never get over the ignominy of their own insecurity..........
Go on lame-y, we're all on your side. Honestly.....
Puh-LEASE! !! Bring back the limeys.......!!! No?
Ok. One minute of silence for the LAMEs everyone.
And to Kap 'em:
Well if it wasn't veiled what's the point of a nom de plume??? Do you even know what that means?? Anyway isn't that what everyone around here does???
What the:
Hell are you talking about?
**** are you smoking?
Hell can I get some??
You mean \'quit his job\'? Or \'NOT quit his job\'? Or apply for it back? Like you did??
Lemme think about it for a sec....Mmmmmmmmm......
*thinks*
*picks nose*
*inspects it*
*flicks it*
*gets idea*
Answer to Krap M:
Booger off!!!!
PS "HIS" ?? Why the **** is everyone so SEXIST around here???
grease monkeez will never get over the ignominy of their own insecurity..........
Go on lame-y, we're all on your side. Honestly.....
Puh-LEASE! !! Bring back the limeys.......!!! No?
Ok. One minute of silence for the LAMEs everyone.
And to Kap 'em:
someone using a nom de plume that is a poor attempt to make postings under a thinly disguised veil.
What the:
Hell are you talking about?
**** are you smoking?
Hell can I get some??
Whilst I don\'t like what Mark did in "that year",
I would hope that the poster using the above title re-consider HIS position.
*thinks*
*picks nose*
*inspects it*
*flicks it*
*gets idea*
Answer to Krap M:
Booger off!!!!
PS "HIS" ?? Why the **** is everyone so SEXIST around here???
Last edited by Rind Skin; 22nd Jun 2004 at 13:01.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have worked in the industry for over 15 years and throughout The last probably 10 years I have noticed a steady decline in standards all around.
This decline is rarely in the skills of the people at the coal face, but more of how the bean counters have more say in how the operation should be run. The people who then have to implement these changes are then classed as negative if they say anything against change so they just plod along. Don't get me wrong I am not against change if it for the better and if it helps everyone.
As to comparing this incident to the QF A330 incident one thing I would like to point out is that over the years QF have gone from a 2 man push back to a 1 man push back. The ATSB report says that the engineer had checked the door and was then standing at the nose of the aircraft ready to push back. If he was at the nose of the aircraft he most likely would have been on the opposite side to the door and therefore would not have seen the bridge put back on.
If this happened at QF with a 1 man operation can we expect more of these at J* due to it being a zero man operation done by remote control.
Sorry about the ranting about this incident but you would probably find the similar storys of cut backs for efficiency thoughout the airline.
This decline is rarely in the skills of the people at the coal face, but more of how the bean counters have more say in how the operation should be run. The people who then have to implement these changes are then classed as negative if they say anything against change so they just plod along. Don't get me wrong I am not against change if it for the better and if it helps everyone.
As to comparing this incident to the QF A330 incident one thing I would like to point out is that over the years QF have gone from a 2 man push back to a 1 man push back. The ATSB report says that the engineer had checked the door and was then standing at the nose of the aircraft ready to push back. If he was at the nose of the aircraft he most likely would have been on the opposite side to the door and therefore would not have seen the bridge put back on.
If this happened at QF with a 1 man operation can we expect more of these at J* due to it being a zero man operation done by remote control.
Sorry about the ranting about this incident but you would probably find the similar storys of cut backs for efficiency thoughout the airline.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Well if it wasn't veiled what's the point of a nom de plume??? Do you even know what that means?? Anyway isn't that what everyone around here does???
" Do you even know what that means?? - It was I who chose to use the phraseology - NOT you!
Yes, I do know!
"Anyway isn't that what everyone around here does??? " Most of us use nom de plumes (pen names/assumed names/pseudonyms/false names), but these are generally non-vindictive.
Aussies are renown for their sense of FAIR PLAY - even if it means LOSING at times.
Because, in the longer term, it means WINNING!
Oh my god, I don't believe I'm doing this...
Rhind, pull you head in! The Kap is right on this one, and you're making an A******E of yourself!!
I'm just going to lie down for a bit...
Rhind, pull you head in! The Kap is right on this one, and you're making an A******E of yourself!!
I'm just going to lie down for a bit...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar mishap blamed on poor training
Wed "Melbourne Age"
Jetstar mishap blamed on poor training
By Selma Milovanovic
Transport Reporter
June 23, 2004
Hundreds of Jetstar passengers had to be transferred to alternative planes after an airport ground handler used a remote control on the wrong aircraft, causing a plane to pull out of Sydney Airport still attached to a passenger airbridge.
Qantas's new budget airline was forced to cancel six flights after the 717 was grounded with serious damage to its front cabin door following the incident on Monday night.
It is believed that the handler, using the remote control to activate the "push-back" of an aircraft from the terminal, accidentally moved the adjacent 717 while it was still loading passengers.
Unions blamed a lack of training in the operation of the remote-control manless tugs that are used to push aircraft away from the terminal building.
Glenn Nightingale, a senior airline official from the Transport Workers Union, said: "Questions must be asked if training in this new technology is adequate when this guy made a blunder of using the wrong remote control."
The union is expected to hold a meeting today.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association claimed workers employed by the Qantas-owned Express Ground Handling were receiving as little as two hours' training.
But Jetstar's media manager, Simon Westaway, denied this. He said that maintenance staff were well trained and passengers' safety was a priority.
"The training on these units is not two hours," Mr Westaway said. "The training, which consists of both practical training and classroom briefing... is the equivalent of up to one week's training."
The mishap caused chaos for Jetstar passengers, with many forced to take alternative flights.
Victorian travellers who pre-purchased tickets for flights between Avalon Airport and Sydney yesterday morning were instead forced to fly in and out of Melbourne Airport. While Jetstar provided a 50-seat bus to shuttle passengers between Avalon and Melbourne Airport, some travellers opted to drive their own cars.
Mr Westaway said that while the damage to the plane's door was minor, the aircraft, which returned to service at 3.30pm yesterday, was halted as a precaution.
He said Jetstar had handled the disruption well, especially given the challenge of two airports for its Melbourne-based flights.
"Tullamarine to Avalon is not the length of the Sahara... We deeply regret the incident but disruption could occur on any airline," Mr Westaway said. "As we grow services into Avalon, the ability to recover quickly will increase dramatically."
But the aircraft engineers association federal secretary, David Kemp, said the incident was an example of Jetstar cutting costs at the expense of public safety.
He said similar mishaps were likely to happen again.
"You can save money by cutting out the tea and coffee, squeezing in more seats and not washing the aeroplane and the public will accept that... but I don't think they will accept aircraft that are maintained at a lower standard," Mr Kemp said.
=========================================
Jetstar mishap blamed on poor training
By Selma Milovanovic
Transport Reporter
June 23, 2004
Hundreds of Jetstar passengers had to be transferred to alternative planes after an airport ground handler used a remote control on the wrong aircraft, causing a plane to pull out of Sydney Airport still attached to a passenger airbridge.
Qantas's new budget airline was forced to cancel six flights after the 717 was grounded with serious damage to its front cabin door following the incident on Monday night.
It is believed that the handler, using the remote control to activate the "push-back" of an aircraft from the terminal, accidentally moved the adjacent 717 while it was still loading passengers.
Unions blamed a lack of training in the operation of the remote-control manless tugs that are used to push aircraft away from the terminal building.
Glenn Nightingale, a senior airline official from the Transport Workers Union, said: "Questions must be asked if training in this new technology is adequate when this guy made a blunder of using the wrong remote control."
The union is expected to hold a meeting today.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association claimed workers employed by the Qantas-owned Express Ground Handling were receiving as little as two hours' training.
But Jetstar's media manager, Simon Westaway, denied this. He said that maintenance staff were well trained and passengers' safety was a priority.
"The training on these units is not two hours," Mr Westaway said. "The training, which consists of both practical training and classroom briefing... is the equivalent of up to one week's training."
The mishap caused chaos for Jetstar passengers, with many forced to take alternative flights.
Victorian travellers who pre-purchased tickets for flights between Avalon Airport and Sydney yesterday morning were instead forced to fly in and out of Melbourne Airport. While Jetstar provided a 50-seat bus to shuttle passengers between Avalon and Melbourne Airport, some travellers opted to drive their own cars.
Mr Westaway said that while the damage to the plane's door was minor, the aircraft, which returned to service at 3.30pm yesterday, was halted as a precaution.
He said Jetstar had handled the disruption well, especially given the challenge of two airports for its Melbourne-based flights.
"Tullamarine to Avalon is not the length of the Sahara... We deeply regret the incident but disruption could occur on any airline," Mr Westaway said. "As we grow services into Avalon, the ability to recover quickly will increase dramatically."
But the aircraft engineers association federal secretary, David Kemp, said the incident was an example of Jetstar cutting costs at the expense of public safety.
He said similar mishaps were likely to happen again.
"You can save money by cutting out the tea and coffee, squeezing in more seats and not washing the aeroplane and the public will accept that... but I don't think they will accept aircraft that are maintained at a lower standard," Mr Kemp said.
=========================================