Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Ground collision YMML - Virgin/Jetstar

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Ground collision YMML - Virgin/Jetstar

Old 11th Aug 2013, 00:39
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth
Posts: 291
Looked today at the screens which has D2 with no NIGS and must be marshalled so if there was no ground staff to Marshall JQ in hence the stand off
falconx is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 00:52
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
framer, correct. Trading redundancy for efficiency is simply moving money from one managers pile to another, it doesn't necessarily change the profitability one iota. However, it is possible to get a short term profit bump until the inevitable costly incident occurs.

Insurance may well payout in this case. However, repeated claims would see the premium the insurers change increase. My understanding is insurance companies drove enormous change at Korean Air Lines after the large number of accidents and the Delta audit.
FYSTI is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 01:00
  #43 (permalink)  

Nunc est bibendum
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,395
There could be multiple issues here.

1. Was it a domestic VOZ or international? Domestic we pass on instructions to the driver. Internationally it's direct to the driver.

2. How congested was the SMC frequency for the JQ crew to call 'holding short' of the bay? I've had numerous occasions in MEL where I can't get a word in to request taxi (or advise holding short) due to SMC also reading our an airways clearance and so on. It would indeed be a tragedy if this prang was contributed to by lack of ATCOs.

3.Agree with EWL about having your own staff with a perception of having their own 'skin' in the game (or at least the metal owned by 'their' employer). I'd be very interested to see how the training of the pushbackers at VOZ and other sub contracting companies compares with legacy training. Same? Different? Longer? Shorter? HF issues covered? etc.
Keg is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 01:14
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
just glad no one got hurt.

take care of yourselves and your colleagues out there fellas, because all the casa box ticking and company policy and safety manuals that these clowns dream up aren't going to.

let mgmnt worry about the $
waren9 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 03:05
  #45 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,076
From an email earlier today

"TheJetstar aircraft was holding about 10 metres short of the gate becauseeither there was no marshaller present or the aero bridge wasn't positioned.

Directlyopposite (behind it) was the Virgin 737. It's gate is a little difficult topush from because the aircraft is up against the wall.

Virginhaven't used Engineers to push out their aircraft using Power Push Units for awhile. They use TA's now. I can't understand how the person operating the PPUon the Virgin aircraft wouldn't have sited the Jetstar aircraft behind him.

Evenso with Jetstar having it's red beacons on the push shouldn't have commencedfor the Virgin aircraft until Jetstar has extinguished his beacons which wouldhave meant he was at the gate and not holding short.

Oneof our other push out drivers was in the tug waiting to push one of ourcustomer's aircraft at the time. He told me that he didn't hear the Virginaircraft call up for his push clearance when the incident happened."

Regarding insurance, the airports insurance cover will also be involved but judging by the amount of damage caused it could well come within the respective airlines excess/deductible.
parabellum is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 04:40
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 45

2. How congested was the SMC frequency for the JQ crew to call 'holding short' of the bay? I've had numerous occasions in MEL where I can't get a word in to request taxi (or advise holding short) due to SMC also reading our an airways clearance and so on. It would indeed be a tragedy if this prang was contributed to by lack of ATCOs.

I arrived at MEL shortly before this happened. Despite rwys 34 and 27 being duty rays, 27 was doing it all. There was huge congestion physically and on SMC. Garuda was doing it's own thing, and taxying wherever they wanted, AirAsia forgot to park, and needed to be pushed 3m back, JitConnect didn't know where they were parked and China Eastern were just happy to be here.

We spent over 20 minutes getting from clear or 27 and onto the bay... It was busy.
Signature is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 04:46
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Perhaps they could get VicPol down there directing traffic. Like when the lights go out at an intersection in the CBD?
VH-Cheer Up is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 04:53
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
Not the cheapest labor syndrome is it?
skol is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 05:24
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
Oddly it was last Wed that the ALAEA received a letter from Virgin declaring their intent to reduce the number of Engineers in Mel to make way for more tarmac responsibility to be passed to Ramp staff.

Yes anyone can make a mistake but there are some key differences. No Engineer will push a plane back for at least 4 years and the average one will have over 20 years experience. Rampies can be pushing aircraft out after 6 weeks, for most it is just a job until they find something better or their backs are shot.

This would not have happened if they used Wing Walkers. The requirement for Wing Walkers on congested aprons is outlined in the respective aircraft Maintenance Manuals. Rampies cannot access Maintenance Manuals.

I'm looking forward to my Tues meeting with them.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 06:52
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
Make sure you mention that they were only a meter or so away from an APU disintegrating and APU fuel lines unloading onto 500degree metal. Maybe remind them of the BA A320 cowl latch cock up a few months back as well. The next thing you know we will have supermarket trolley collectors being head hunted for the job.
framer is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 07:00
  #51 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 486
You seem those trolley collectors at work , 200 trolleys together being pushed by one person operating an electric motorized pusher . Usually at speed through automatic doors and between people .
Toruk Macto is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 07:05
  #52 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 207
Thumbs up

Every airline wants to save a penny but spend a pound.Maybe ATSB will come out that require marshallers during pushback.
Bagus is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 07:48
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 121
Human nature at play...

"Engineers" will not guarantee that this type of incident will not happen again as they are as fallible as the next human being....
Yarra is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 08:03
  #54 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: OS
Age: 62
Posts: 190
Swiss Cheese - yet again,

Cost cutting to reduce manpower,
Low cost airline turn around times,
ATC congestion on frequencies,
JQ crew unannounced holding short,
SMC not aware to caution VOZ,
PB driver in a hurry to go to the next A/C.

It's the day all the holes line up...
Capt Groper is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 08:16
  #55 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
Engineers" will not guarantee that this type of incident will not happen again as they are as fallible as the next human being....
You either didn't read or didn't understand my post. You can push the aircraft around at 1 inch an hour and not guarantee a collision. Your chances increase as speed does. An Engineer is in nearly all cases going to be vastly more experienced than a baggage handler and the likelihood of a collision will reduce dramatically. For this function, an Engineer is not as fallible as the next human being.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 08:16
  #56 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2
Look I've been a LAME for 20+ years and involved in 1000's of pushbacks. I really think it is down to common sense, if it looks too close - check. I've got nothing against to ground handlers carrying out pushback. I would rather be well paid for my core work...
whitebait is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 09:52
  #57 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 121
ALAEA Sec. Yes I did read and did understand and also take your point on experience. Experience has to start somewhere though and requires a platform of good training. However my point is also correct, human beings are fallible and the industry has a history of where even the best training (perhaps what was missing in this incident?) and experience does not prevent accidents or people not adhering to SOP's, irrespective of how qualified they are in their field.

I recall a case where a LAME in MEL took out the stanchions of what is now the Virgin Domestic Concourse whilst driving a PBT. The building suffered severe structural damage and fortunately no one was physically hurt, some shocked staff and passengers though.The LAME was licensed to drive the equipment, was very experienced in PBT operations, yet ignored SOP's on two counts, the speed limit and the environment of where the machinery was being operated.

Tragically and sometimes fatally, some issues arise where training or precautions are not taken into account or even considered necessary in an airport environment with people assuming that others will not endanger their own lives or of others, as "common sense" will prevail. It doesn't. Common sense is not common with some humans, a human fallibility.

From a staff utilisation perspective, it is rational not to use Engineers, they are simply too expensive for such tasks and I agree with Whitebait. Use them on core functions of their valuable knowledge and qualifications.
Yarra is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 09:52
  #58 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 839
You don't have to be a LAME to be a good pushback operator, and I have seen some real pros in action.. But you DO need to have a professional attitude. There are, or used to be at least, some real pros. It's is a skill in its own right to be a good rampie and its a bloody hard job. A10 min a/c walkaround doesn't give you the full experience of being on the ramp for hrs. Its either hot or cold, dry or wet, allways noisy and allways dangerous and on top of that it's physically demanding. Nowdays you have the pressure of the boss wanting things done double quick because you are doing double the flights with half the staff of even a few years ago.

But the one worrying thing is, staff turnover. Its not unusual to talk to a rampie who has 4 months experience and he or she is the most experianced person on the crew.
nomorecatering is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 10:30
  #59 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 60
Posts: 340
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.
Four points:
1/. If the push-back of Virgin was given as a conditional clearance then the fact that Jetstar wasn't clear meant that Virgin should have waited/paused/stopped before scrapping paint.
2/. Every day there are aircraft towing to a gate/bay that isn't ready, that is, there is equipment blocking access to the bay.
3/. Every hour aircraft are arriving at gates/bays where the NIGS haven't been configured or the marshaller isn't on-site. Why?
4/. The amount of unnecessary RT on ground frequencies needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2013, 10:49
  #60 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44
Push back and ATC

Around about 1984 'clear pushback' was changed to 'pushback approved'.
The reasons were:
1. ATC has no authority on the apron
2. ICAO did it that way
3. ATC could no longer see all the apron area.
The 'Approval' is for the aircraft to push in order to access the taxiway, not to pushback because it is clear behind. Separation on the apron is the responsibility of the wing-walkers, tugs etc. Over the years ATC has bought in by providing ad-hoc traffic information, but no clearance exists, or is permissible.
40years is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.