Ground collision YMML - Virgin/Jetstar
It would seem that...
Cost cutting meant shortage of ground staff to marshall JQ so then held short while waiting.
Cost cutting meant no wing walker provided. (Because there has never been a problem before)
Cost cutting meant bag chucker does pushback instead of experienced engineer.
Cost cutting meant removal of ATC apron specific freq (121.2) along time ago when there were nowhere near as many movements as there are today.
Revenue raising meant increasing size of lettable terminal space that subsequently reduced apron area to absolute minimum.
In the meantime, those that have made the bonuses from said cost cutting etc wander off into the sunset to create havoc elsewhere.
Cost cutting meant shortage of ground staff to marshall JQ so then held short while waiting.
Cost cutting meant no wing walker provided. (Because there has never been a problem before)
Cost cutting meant bag chucker does pushback instead of experienced engineer.
Cost cutting meant removal of ATC apron specific freq (121.2) along time ago when there were nowhere near as many movements as there are today.
Revenue raising meant increasing size of lettable terminal space that subsequently reduced apron area to absolute minimum.
In the meantime, those that have made the bonuses from said cost cutting etc wander off into the sunset to create havoc elsewhere.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what airsupport says is correct it sounds more of a political decision rather than economic. I guess the question is how many accidents are you willing to wear to save your labour costs.
The decision to take away driving the tugs on pushouts from Engineers definitely was political.
As I said before though the Companies refused to allow Engineers to be removed from towing, and oddly we also kept doing pushouts from terminals IF the Aircraft was going on a test, training or ferry flight, we were removed from ALL revenue flights.
I am not sure about the taking away of LAMEs from pushouts altogether, that is off the headsets even.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,093
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4/. The amount of unnecessary RT on ground frequencies needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tick Tock
Aargh yes, yet again that good old issue raises its head, its called 'minimal standards'. The benchmark has been lowered and lowered over the years. In many cases instead of having a Gingerbeer on the headset complete with Gingerbeer wing walkers you now have guys who were plumbers and house painters 6 months ago now pushing back aircraft. That is the standard, 2013, and that is a fact.
I once had a 30 year + Gingerbeer stop us mid push (737-300) just after we started to roll. Why? Because he 'heard something that wasn't right'. Our panel showed nothing, then 2 seconds later bingo, there goes a red light on the display. Aircraft towed back into the blocks and U/S. Bloody unbelievable!! That is experience for you, unlike today's house painter pushing the aircraft around.
The Melbourne accident, at this point, looks like an accident that should not have ever occurred. Good weather, serviceable aircraft, vision unobstructed. One plane pulls up short by 10m and old mate on the adjacent bay doing the push misses the lot, including beacons?? It's either stupidity or inexperience. My guess is inexperience. Could it have happened with a 30 year + Gingerbeer in charge, yep of course it could. But not as likely. It's a simple analysis, over time you take away the qualified Engineer and wing walkers and this is what you get.
I know of another pushback stopped by a rampie who was on the headsets because he thought he spotted a fuel leak. It was water from a aircon pack doing its job on a stinking hot summer day. He had no idea of absolutely anything about an aircraft. Scary ****.
Mr Borghetti and other penny pinching bean counters you reap what you sew. Welcome to a lesson in karma
P.S Anybody wishing for an ATSB 'recommendation' out of this, keep dreaming.
Anybody thinking CAsA could give a toss about this you are also dreaming.
I once had a 30 year + Gingerbeer stop us mid push (737-300) just after we started to roll. Why? Because he 'heard something that wasn't right'. Our panel showed nothing, then 2 seconds later bingo, there goes a red light on the display. Aircraft towed back into the blocks and U/S. Bloody unbelievable!! That is experience for you, unlike today's house painter pushing the aircraft around.
The Melbourne accident, at this point, looks like an accident that should not have ever occurred. Good weather, serviceable aircraft, vision unobstructed. One plane pulls up short by 10m and old mate on the adjacent bay doing the push misses the lot, including beacons?? It's either stupidity or inexperience. My guess is inexperience. Could it have happened with a 30 year + Gingerbeer in charge, yep of course it could. But not as likely. It's a simple analysis, over time you take away the qualified Engineer and wing walkers and this is what you get.
I know of another pushback stopped by a rampie who was on the headsets because he thought he spotted a fuel leak. It was water from a aircon pack doing its job on a stinking hot summer day. He had no idea of absolutely anything about an aircraft. Scary ****.
Mr Borghetti and other penny pinching bean counters you reap what you sew. Welcome to a lesson in karma
P.S Anybody wishing for an ATSB 'recommendation' out of this, keep dreaming.
Anybody thinking CAsA could give a toss about this you are also dreaming.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good posts and discussion guys. I wish some of you could write my notices.
I flew from Mel today and thought I would have a look at another Virgin push out from the same gate. They have not learned one thing from this.
Gates D2 and D4 were occupied. Aircraft pushing from Virgin E1. Baggage Handler pushing with a towbarless unit. Handler walking on rh side of aircraft with, you guessed it, no Wing Walker on lh side of aircraft.
The Handler has absolutely no visibility of the left of the aircraft as he is pushing backwards with a remote control towards a parked aircraft on D2. There is not much room even with the 738 on D2 fully parked.
The argument over Engineer versus Baggage Handler is one thing, the way the departments have responded to this is another issue. You reckon they would have thought to do it safely at least for a while.
I flew from Mel today and thought I would have a look at another Virgin push out from the same gate. They have not learned one thing from this.
Gates D2 and D4 were occupied. Aircraft pushing from Virgin E1. Baggage Handler pushing with a towbarless unit. Handler walking on rh side of aircraft with, you guessed it, no Wing Walker on lh side of aircraft.
The Handler has absolutely no visibility of the left of the aircraft as he is pushing backwards with a remote control towards a parked aircraft on D2. There is not much room even with the 738 on D2 fully parked.
The argument over Engineer versus Baggage Handler is one thing, the way the departments have responded to this is another issue. You reckon they would have thought to do it safely at least for a while.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Good luck with changing their minds fed sec but...I just cannot see any manager changing their minds and admit they may have been wrong. It would be admitting liability.
Procedures will be re-written, people counseled or sacked, it will be risk assessed and work-shopped to death.
Then another newb will do it again down the track sometime.
I'd love to be wrong.
Procedures will be re-written, people counseled or sacked, it will be risk assessed and work-shopped to death.
Then another newb will do it again down the track sometime.I'd love to be wrong.
Last edited by ampclamp; 12th Aug 2013 at 10:51.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just hearing a little more about this today. Our members get along great with the Baggage Handlers. There is no issue between the two groups and they feel like these extra responsibilities have been thrust upon them unfairly.
Apparently the Baggage Handlers have over previous months complained countless times to Virgin Management that they require additional staff on that bay to walk the wings and check for clearances. they have been repeatedly told that they do not require them and denied the additional labour.
The manager who has been rejecting them was interviewing all those involved in the accident. He is a systems analysts with no Aviation background. I have no doubt he put himself in charge of the investigation to cover the process that led to the bingle. ATSB walked in to the process and recognised immediately that this manager should have no involvement in the investigation. At least one step has worked as it should.
Apparently the Baggage Handlers have over previous months complained countless times to Virgin Management that they require additional staff on that bay to walk the wings and check for clearances. they have been repeatedly told that they do not require them and denied the additional labour.
The manager who has been rejecting them was interviewing all those involved in the accident. He is a systems analysts with no Aviation background. I have no doubt he put himself in charge of the investigation to cover the process that led to the bingle. ATSB walked in to the process and recognised immediately that this manager should have no involvement in the investigation. At least one step has worked as it should.
Also going back to Keg's post #45.
What a shambles this system is. I don't know why Melbourne chooses to operate differently to every other international port I've operated into but this direct to the driver bit doubles the transmissions required on SMC for every pushback.
1. Was it a domestic VOZ or international? Domestic we pass on instructions to the driver. Internationally it's direct to the driver.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Virgin are unwilling to provide extra staff as wing walkers, I would then expect that wing walkers are not required in such circumstances as per their Procedures Manual. If it is required, then extra staff MUST be provided otherwise the company will be in breach of their own procedures.
Can anyone advise on this? I DO know it's in Qantas Towing Procedures Manual for maintenance purposes, but not sure at ramp locations.
Can anyone advise on this? I DO know it's in Qantas Towing Procedures Manual for maintenance purposes, but not sure at ramp locations.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALAEA Fed Sec,
Also when PPU's are used the dispatcher (engineer or pilot) doesn't stay on one side of the aircraft, they move around looking out for any obstacles.
Post edited after re-reading ALAEA Fed Sec post.
Also when PPU's are used the dispatcher (engineer or pilot) doesn't stay on one side of the aircraft, they move around looking out for any obstacles.
Post edited after re-reading ALAEA Fed Sec post.
Last edited by BPA; 13th Aug 2013 at 01:12.
Say for example there was a fatality in a situation similar to this. I wouldn't like to be the person who signed off on the risk assessment for single person 737 pushbacks especially when can't see an entire 1/2 of the aircraft unless you're 1ft tall.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ampclamp, I agree entirely, management won't admit to the mistake, but they don't need to mate because $3 million worth of damage is all the proof you need!
If it is true that the buffoon manager who is partially responsible for this mess is running the VA internal investigation, or in any way involved, then this shows a mentality of possible cover up, and executive management would be well aware of this, so another sham is unveiled. Who the hell is running ground operations at senior airport level and higher up at The Village?
Will the ATsB investigation include a review of emails of concern from ramp staff regarding manpower and a lack of wing walker issues? Have safety reports been put in by the ramp staff expressing their safety concerns? And if so, what has been the documented response from the company?
As Fed Sec says, he himself has noted the same or similar issue still taking place even after the accident, so where is CAsA? Are their inspectors not capable of such basic surveillance and can't make similar observations or findings? Does this accident not rate highly in their book, they would rather chase 172 pilots scud running or write up a farmer for leaving coffee stains on the seat of his R22?
And I agree with Fed's comments, the issue isn't between rampies and Gingerbeers per se, both groups work pretty well together at VA. The issue quite simply is that it is cheaper to have a rampie push aircraft than a licensed engineer. Safety and/or risk doesn't come into management decision process, the bottom line and bonuses are what count.
This incident had the potential to be a hell of a lot worse. Will the airlines wake up to themselves?
If it is true that the buffoon manager who is partially responsible for this mess is running the VA internal investigation, or in any way involved, then this shows a mentality of possible cover up, and executive management would be well aware of this, so another sham is unveiled. Who the hell is running ground operations at senior airport level and higher up at The Village?
Will the ATsB investigation include a review of emails of concern from ramp staff regarding manpower and a lack of wing walker issues? Have safety reports been put in by the ramp staff expressing their safety concerns? And if so, what has been the documented response from the company?
As Fed Sec says, he himself has noted the same or similar issue still taking place even after the accident, so where is CAsA? Are their inspectors not capable of such basic surveillance and can't make similar observations or findings? Does this accident not rate highly in their book, they would rather chase 172 pilots scud running or write up a farmer for leaving coffee stains on the seat of his R22?
And I agree with Fed's comments, the issue isn't between rampies and Gingerbeers per se, both groups work pretty well together at VA. The issue quite simply is that it is cheaper to have a rampie push aircraft than a licensed engineer. Safety and/or risk doesn't come into management decision process, the bottom line and bonuses are what count.
This incident had the potential to be a hell of a lot worse. Will the airlines wake up to themselves?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised that there's been very little commentary on how close this was to a catastrophe 
Probably only a meter or two away from slicing the APU fuel feed line, and had that have happened there wouldn't be much "cheese" between fuel leaking from the severed fuel line, said fuel igniting on the red-hot APU exhaust and the resulting (smallish but not yet a disaster ) fire, finding fuel vapours from the other aircrafts fuel vents.
No-one's going to guarantee the flame arrester in the NACA duct is going to prevent a disastrous explosion when it is exposed to a raw-fuel fire.
A serious accident suddenly turned into a catastrophe !
As always, in these circumstances the many layers of cheese have failed, but if the company knew that there was limited visibility and yet only rostered one person to carry out the pushback then the manager concerned should be tied to a chair, have matchsticks made to prop their eyes open and made to watch this series of videos.
Actually, ANYONE working in the aviation industry should be made to watch this video as part of their re-certification each year for whatever their job is.
Probably only a meter or two away from slicing the APU fuel feed line, and had that have happened there wouldn't be much "cheese" between fuel leaking from the severed fuel line, said fuel igniting on the red-hot APU exhaust and the resulting (smallish but not yet a disaster ) fire, finding fuel vapours from the other aircrafts fuel vents.
No-one's going to guarantee the flame arrester in the NACA duct is going to prevent a disastrous explosion when it is exposed to a raw-fuel fire.
A serious accident suddenly turned into a catastrophe !
As always, in these circumstances the many layers of cheese have failed, but if the company knew that there was limited visibility and yet only rostered one person to carry out the pushback then the manager concerned should be tied to a chair, have matchsticks made to prop their eyes open and made to watch this series of videos.
Actually, ANYONE working in the aviation industry should be made to watch this video as part of their re-certification each year for whatever their job is.
ST
(If you haven't seen these videos, download them and when you've got an hour to spare become much more informed !)
