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.

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.

Why then don't we say "intending to pushback" or "request traffic for pushback" instead of "request pushback"? ATC does have part-responsibility in this scenario. If it passed traffic to the Virgin on the Jetstar then fine.

Economic rationalism is great...right up to the point where that winglet knocked the tailbit off.

I am intrigued with some of the assertions made here, and fail to understand why it has become the domain of a LAME to be able to move aircraft better than anyone else. Coming from a carrier background where aircraft are moved around with inches to spare on a pitching, moving deck at night by junior ratings with proper training and then given the responsibility due: none of them were engineers!

ISTM that there is a degree of job preservation going on here by those whose profession is to maintain the machines: not move them around the tarmac. Maybe a proper result would be to make the rampy's job one that is properly recognised and duly rewarded? After all, they are responsible for moving multi million $$$ assets.

Although I drive helicopters I was averaging 6 movements a day into and out of QF at YMML, so I was quite familiar with the way it is (or was) done!

With Tulla being designed & built back in the 60's I'd say that their future prediction traffic (ground & Airborne) wise was nothing like we have now.
Gee they actually designed & built the place (International spacing/parking wise) to suit the then jet of the day 707/DC8. Even the hydrant system was outdated & unable to service B747's side by side the day they opened the joint to international at first.
It's any wonder we have had an incident here & am sure there are a LOT of close calls that we never hear about.

Like our Rd system here in Oz we have neither the foresight or the ability to think way ahead & build for 2moro rather for 2day only!!

Tulla Airport is outdated & a disgrace where the shopping precinct & car parking take priority, we must look like hick backwoods folk to the advanced countries out there!!.


Wmk2

"Economic rationalism is great...right up to the point where that winglet knocked the tailbit off".

And the flip side???. A company pays Engineers to push aircraft and they can still do the same type of damage...that would make an incident more difficult to understand if all companies subscribed to the view that Engineers only should do push backs......

I would be interested to know if this type of incident has increased since the function was removed from that of exclusively Engineers...

Let's just stay with the facts shall we.

Wingtip loss number 1: Right hand wing versus tail dock, Melbourne Jet Base. LAME

Wingtip loss number 2: Left hand wing versus stationary B737 elevator, Brisbane Hangar. LAME.

Wingtip loss number 3: Left hand wing versus stationary AirNZ B737, taxiing from Christchurch Hangar, Flight Crew

Wingtip loss number 4: Left hand wing versus Jetstar APU Exhaust, pushback Melbourne Airport. Ground Crew.

It's pie in the sky stuff to say that if it was a LAME it wouldn't have happened.

If it IS the procedure in the maintenance manual, "rampies" should have understood and been conversant with the procedure in their training (assuming they had some).
A copy would have been placed in an accessible location and subject to regular revisions.
As with any vital procedure such as that involving movement of aircraft in a congested area, LAME's are accustomed to a "checking and checking again" culture. This is a culture that comes with the experience of taking responsibility at high levels.
It's unreasonable, in my view, to thrust people without this culture into activities that require it.
True.
Though in a misguided attempt to save a few dollars, this management looked to putting lesser paid and less experienced employees into positions that they shouldn't be in without that attitude.

Yes it's true you don't have to be a LAME to do pushbacks, but the culture and attitude of a LAME sure helps.

Ultimate responsibility
 

Going back a bit but Keg mentioned the differences between Domestic and International push-back procedures in MEL and who the instructions are given to by ATC, i.e via the aircraft for domestic and directly to the push-back driver for international.

Being involved in both regularly, the underlying factor no matter what the situation, is that the person on the headset is in charge of the push-back and is ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE for the push back.

Not trying to hang anyone here but if the VA push-back was un-sighted by the headset operator on the blindside then the push should not have started in the first place.

If VA are conducting push-backs in confined spaces without wing walkers then there is an element of culpability here me thinks.:ok:

I could write a book about this stuff and link you to countless references but my key message is this. The accident would have been less likely to have occurred if Virgin used Engineers to push the plane out. Forget your "how do you know that" response, I said less likely. This is because Engineers are more likely to be vastly more experienced than a baggage handler on the many aspects of the tarmac operation. That is why the limits and dangers are listed in Maintenance Manuals.

Baggage Handlers can be thrust into the headset role after only a few weeks. Many of them come and go and view the job as a transitional thing until they settle on a career. Some stay in Ramp and are great guys but their role is not one where problem solving is integral to what they do. It is more a production line mentality. Engineers are wired differently and usually err on the side of caution. It's just the way it is on Commercial Ramps. Your Navy or RAAF analogy is not the same, you don't have casual labour.

Your question is embedded with the incorrect assumption that it is not an Engineers job to "move them around the tarmac". Like I said it is in our manuals in controlled versions for a reason. It is part of our profession.

Job protection? Well that is the result of what I am advocating. Its not wrong for me to do that. If they were to replace a Pilot, Policeman, Doctor, Garbo, Cook, Train Driver or Ambo with another person without the appropriate skills, training or experience to do a job and it had such a similar dangerous or expensive outcome, you would hear the same from them. You would also hear from managers in those industries defending their cost cutting decisions.

This suggestion would also reduce the likelihood of an accident. I suspect it would be cheaper to use Engineers though, they are on the tarmac anyway.

Just an addition to the discussion on this accident. I have pushed hundreds of aircraft off the gate (D2) where this incident occurred. Never once did I do so without a Wing Walker. I've never seen a baggage handler use one.

The radio clearance is usually something like - clear to push when the Jetstar 320 has passed. It's up to the bloke on the headset to determine when that has occurred and he does not listen into the radio traffic as his mic is direct to the cockpit. There may be a holding short call from the parking aircraft that is heard by the tug driver but unless explicitly told to hold, the outgoing aircraft is free to continue.

They must be pretty dumb, or their training is seriously deficient if it takes all those years to learn to push a plane backwards safely:E

While I am retired now, and have no intimate knowledge of this incident, I am amazed at some of the responses IF you are in fact Pilots.

I was involved in towing Aircraft all my 40 something year career and in these pushouts from when they started, the ONLY reason things have changed is the usual reason to save money.

We LAMEs and AMEs used to do all the towing too until the TWU wanted to take it from us, the Company agreed to industrial pressure from them and gave them all the pushouts (the driving NOT the headsets) but refused to give them all the towing. A lot of us thought IF you are going to do that let them do ALL the towing, like from the hangar in the middle of the night when it is raining but the Company would NOT. We found out why later when several times the TWU called a snap stoppage leaving Aircraft trapped at the gates. Then the Company said these Aircraft had to go to the hangar for some reason so were towed away by the LAMEs/AMEs for 10 minutes then brought back to the terminal and parked in a way they could just taxi out. :rolleyes:

Anyway back to the topic, I am amazed ANY Pilot would be in favour of this idea, surely you would prefer to have an LAME on the headset for departures?

I remember on a contract some 20 years ago pushing back at Taipei I was in the jump seat and there was a minor problem, the Captain started to explain the problem to the Guy on the headset who just ignored him and finished his ONLY job of getting us off the bay.

On another contract after that out of JFKNY, come our first departure and I went to do the headset duties for the pushback we were told that is NOT how it works here, the tug driver does all that. The Driver got the Aircraft away from the terminal okay, but as she disconnected the towbar and backed away the Aircraft followed her, she did NOT even know to ask/tell the Crew to park the brakes. After that the Pilots insisted we LAMEs did all the pushbacks.

Of course nobody is perfect, but when you have LAMEs who have spent their whole Lives looking after Aircraft why on Earth would you NOT use them when they are available? :ok:

Agreed. I've personally seen baggage handlers involved in about 10 company safety violations in Sydney in the last 2 months (events logged in a notebook and in some cases photographed). This is one person's observations, so you can multiply this by a hundred or so to get a true value of the total number of violations.

It's ironic that engineers now have to lug around those witches hats on every transit in Sydney because baggage handlers have run over and broken aircraft refuelling lines in the past. I also seem to recall one baggage handler snapping off a VHF antenna with his head when he drove under an aircraft in a small tug at speed.

If SOPs where followed this accident would not have happened, end of story.

SRM, Do you have proof SOP's weren't followed? If you do have you notified the ATSB? If you don't why post saying they weren't followed?

I originally posted saying I was against LAME's being removed from pushbacks. Some posters have touched on the reason why.
LAME's have already proven their ' buy in' to the industry and their ability to take responsibility. Not everyone has arrived in adulthood with the ability to take responsibility, LAME's are more likely than your average Jo off the street to be experienced and practiced at it.
If you take your ramp staff and put them through the appropriate training that weeds out the ones that aren't that way inclined and then pay them commensurate with the responsibility that the job holds then I have no problem. But as Fed Sec said, then it wouldn't be economically advantageous anyway.

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.

Maybe then but I think now days the primary driver is cost cutting.
You see it every single day while operating, not quiiiiiite enough staff to get the job done on time and staff who are 'transient' due to the low pay so that they never get a chance to build experience and feel secure in their job.

Nothing against the guys, but I can agree. Some some stuff has gone down in Syd by ramp employees of an organisation I will not name that you simply would not print hear.