Ground collision YMML - Virgin/Jetstar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baggage Handler & Push Back Driver
Thats what you get when you have somebody throwing bags one minute and then pushing back an $85 Million Dollar aircraft (that he has no respect for) the next...
Bring back Engineer only pushbacks.
Thats what you get when you have somebody throwing bags one minute and then pushing back an $85 Million Dollar aircraft (that he has no respect for) the next...
Bring back Engineer only pushbacks.
Last edited by S70IP; 10th Aug 2013 at 16:59.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looking for the bridge of trust
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that Boeing require a separation of 50 feet of an aircraft APU exhaust and the wing tip of a moving/towing aircraft due to the wing fuel tank vent/nacca scoop.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Zephyrus.
Airlines these days contract work out to companies that have absolutely no Airline culture, train them to the minima and actually introduce operating systems that mean they don't have to do more than rudimentary instruction.
I have had bag snatchers help on load and trim issues, do the start up, marshall aeroplanes in, handle the phones and computer and they did it magnificently BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF THE AIRLINE AND THEY WANTED TO HELP!!!
One doesn't pledghe allegience to an Airline that would lose you in a second if they could outsource or automate the job.
However, despite the lack of "rats' arse" in general by the Airlines today, a little duty of care does still apply and a sound butt kicking would be warranted.
Best all
EWL
Airlines these days contract work out to companies that have absolutely no Airline culture, train them to the minima and actually introduce operating systems that mean they don't have to do more than rudimentary instruction.
I have had bag snatchers help on load and trim issues, do the start up, marshall aeroplanes in, handle the phones and computer and they did it magnificently BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF THE AIRLINE AND THEY WANTED TO HELP!!!
One doesn't pledghe allegience to an Airline that would lose you in a second if they could outsource or automate the job.
However, despite the lack of "rats' arse" in general by the Airlines today, a little duty of care does still apply and a sound butt kicking would be warranted.
Best all
EWL
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's right, Jack.
This won't change anything about how airlines do business. The legals will be sorted out and the blame game will start and finish with a head kicked.
Get the LAME's back doing this job as this is a prime example of what happens when a skills base is removed from the equation.
It's fortunate that a costly incident such as this is a result of improper gound handling rather than an event in the air.
This won't change anything about how airlines do business. The legals will be sorted out and the blame game will start and finish with a head kicked.
Get the LAME's back doing this job as this is a prime example of what happens when a skills base is removed from the equation.
It's fortunate that a costly incident such as this is a result of improper gound handling rather than an event in the air.
Even if both airlines had to pay cash for repairs, the money saved by having contracted rampies doing pushes vs engineers would be absolutely astounding.
Hence why engineers are not doing pushbacks.
The good old days are gone.
Hence why engineers are not doing pushbacks.
The good old days are gone.
Last edited by The Green Goblin; 10th Aug 2013 at 23:48.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YMML
Age: 32
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VA have their own rampies doing the domestic side. Now lets have a look here, there are multiple failings here and a bit of the ownership needs to be placed elsewhere.
The aircraft parking conditions are a major factor here, VGR was pulling into D2 and YID was pushing off E1. Now the first thing to look at here is that E1 and D2 can not be clearly seen from either bay due to the new terminal expansion. There is a light that says that an aircraft is pushing however not arriving.
Second issue, ATC had cleared the driver to push once VGR had parked, now I refer back to the last paragraph and the driver, acting under instruction of the ATCO would have trouble seeing VGR and thus should of had the knowledge to separate the clearances.
Third issue, the JQ pilot SHOULD of advised over the GND that they were holding short of the bay due to what ever the cause was. Thus ATC could of canx the clearance for YID and recleared once VGR proceeded to the full stop position.
Fourth issue, not as relevant however the current works on at D6 has played some part to this with the change in pushback procedures.
It's all well and easy to place sole blame on the driver but understand the facts before you got and solely accuse a single party for all issues.
The aircraft parking conditions are a major factor here, VGR was pulling into D2 and YID was pushing off E1. Now the first thing to look at here is that E1 and D2 can not be clearly seen from either bay due to the new terminal expansion. There is a light that says that an aircraft is pushing however not arriving.
Second issue, ATC had cleared the driver to push once VGR had parked, now I refer back to the last paragraph and the driver, acting under instruction of the ATCO would have trouble seeing VGR and thus should of had the knowledge to separate the clearances.
Third issue, the JQ pilot SHOULD of advised over the GND that they were holding short of the bay due to what ever the cause was. Thus ATC could of canx the clearance for YID and recleared once VGR proceeded to the full stop position.
Fourth issue, not as relevant however the current works on at D6 has played some part to this with the change in pushback procedures.
It's all well and easy to place sole blame on the driver but understand the facts before you got and solely accuse a single party for all issues.
no engineer on push back or no wing walkers
I am dead against removing LAME's from the pushback procedure which is what is happening all around the world now.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASY68,
An engineer on a headset, in control of the pushback, takes all of the "factors" that you raise as contributing to the incident into account while carrying out the task at hand.
An engineer on a headset, in control of the pushback, takes all of the "factors" that you raise as contributing to the incident into account while carrying out the task at hand.
It has to be assumed that humans ( tug drivers and ATC, pilots) will make mistakes because they will, guaranteed. With that in mind these fallable Humans need to work within ' error tolerant systems'.
Who is responsible for the systems?
Not the people operationally involved.
It would surprises me if the ethos driving the move towards replacing Engineers on pushback ( a change to the system) wasn't the same ethos that meant the Jetstar aircraft had to hold short of the gate. ie we can reduce staff numbers and get more work out of people and therefore be more efficient.
So in my mind these decisions to make the system less error tolerent are the greatest concern or causal factor.
Someone mentioned Insurance companies. If they refuse to pay out it might make the KPI chasers sit up a bit.
Framer
Ps I am not suggesting that operational staff aren't responsible for doing their job properly, just pointing out that it goes deeper than the ramp environment.
Who is responsible for the systems?
Not the people operationally involved.
It would surprises me if the ethos driving the move towards replacing Engineers on pushback ( a change to the system) wasn't the same ethos that meant the Jetstar aircraft had to hold short of the gate. ie we can reduce staff numbers and get more work out of people and therefore be more efficient.
So in my mind these decisions to make the system less error tolerent are the greatest concern or causal factor.
Someone mentioned Insurance companies. If they refuse to pay out it might make the KPI chasers sit up a bit.
Framer
Ps I am not suggesting that operational staff aren't responsible for doing their job properly, just pointing out that it goes deeper than the ramp environment.
Last edited by framer; 10th Aug 2013 at 22:58.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that ATC cleared Virgin to push once the Jetstar A320 was on the bay, which would have been relayed from the flight deck to the guy on the headset. I doubt that the guy on the headset would have been able to see the tarmac markings from where he was & probably couldn't see the NIGS as well, so assumed that the 320 was on position when it stopped.
If there was no wing-walker, it would be difficult to judge the clearance at the wingtip. From the flight deck it often looks awfully close, so it would be the same for him. He possibly assumed that the wingtip was clear even though it looked close, because he thought that the 320 was on the bay. No excuse, but when the picture often looks like that & on time performance is heavily pushed by management, people just tend to rely on past experience, rather than double checking.
I would not be surprised to find that the major problem here is that the 320 didn't advise ATC that it was holding short of the bay. It has happened a number of times around the world. If they didn't feel that they needed to advise ATC for some reason, the pushback clearance to the 737 should have alerted them to the fact that someone was pushing behind them & then they should have advised ATC. Some seem to think they operate in a vacuum & really need to lift their situational awareness. They need to know where the various bays are around the bay they are going on to & listen to ALL radio transmissions, not just on the ground, but in the air as well.
If there was no wing-walker, it would be difficult to judge the clearance at the wingtip. From the flight deck it often looks awfully close, so it would be the same for him. He possibly assumed that the wingtip was clear even though it looked close, because he thought that the 320 was on the bay. No excuse, but when the picture often looks like that & on time performance is heavily pushed by management, people just tend to rely on past experience, rather than double checking.
I would not be surprised to find that the major problem here is that the 320 didn't advise ATC that it was holding short of the bay. It has happened a number of times around the world. If they didn't feel that they needed to advise ATC for some reason, the pushback clearance to the 737 should have alerted them to the fact that someone was pushing behind them & then they should have advised ATC. Some seem to think they operate in a vacuum & really need to lift their situational awareness. They need to know where the various bays are around the bay they are going on to & listen to ALL radio transmissions, not just on the ground, but in the air as well.
Last edited by Oakape; 10th Aug 2013 at 23:31.