QF mishap YPPH 03/03/24
 

According to Ch 7 news this morning 2 QF737’s have clipped wings pulling into the gate at YPPH.

Might grab some popcorn and see what facts ” come to light as the day wears on…..

https://www.9news.com.au/national/qa...7-802d7334d83b

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....75e56dce0f.jpg

I hope the crews/s are being looked after properly at a stressful time. Not strikebreaking airframes were they?

Interesting point, I was thinking how arriving at a marked bay would end like this, unless they are operating from non standard bays designed for smaller aircraft, say for FIFO... Seems like they had both come in from interstate, so not FIFO arrivals. That's not even close to separation, a good 5 meters from where it should pass. Anyway, nothing to see here, PR activated, rug lifted, broom sweeping...

What were the illegally outsourced ground staff doing? If they were paying attention surely they would have noticed the aircraft turning onto the wrong line and either changed the NIGS to a STOP or simply walked forwards waving their hands to indicate that the crew needs to stop.

No doubt the ATSB will be all over it and we'll see a final report several years from now, with recommendations to prevent another occurrence. :ok:

Those are the sorts of unrealised costs that the board and shareholders just don’t understand.

The cheapest option is never the cheapest option.

Now you’re looking at significant costs for:
1. Paying for Boeing to produce two repair schedules
2. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for engineers and parts to repair
3. Aircraft down-time for repairs (perhaps four aircraft weeks)
4. Subsequent increase in insurance premiums

Were these airframes brought in to cover NAA work? I expect the cost of this damage will be greater than the cost of just paying the NAA pilots what they deserve for the next 12 months.

It looks like QF939 from Brisbane had arrived at gate 19, and then a short while later QF857 from Canberra has arrived and headed for gate 18. Doubtless there will be a focus on the path QF857 has taken to the gate; a matter for those better qualified.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b8e1f22db4.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e236379d9e.jpg

Bay 18 verses Bay18A was it? it's nearly got me several times at night. Thanks "Perth airport" for the setup on a threat that should have been addressed years ago! sorry fellas I feel for you.

NIGS active? On the wrong bay?

+1. Those lines can be hard to see at night, particularly in light drizzle. A bit late now but hopefully it has previously been reported to the SMS so the interested parties can’t claim ignorance and reflexively blame the crew.

Yep. If it was going to happen, it was going to happen on 18. 2 different NIGS almost right next to each other, and lines that are very difficult to see. Hopefully there isn't too much damage, to aircraft anyway, I'd say the ego will suffer.

It's also a bay that mainline 737's hardly use in normal circumstances, 787 and A330 do, but the 737, hardly ever.

I doubt that they'd both be on together and the PIC would have to choose, and it was dark. And I very much doubt that 857, having been allocated bay 18 (I hope), would then choose to pick up the dotted Bay 18 line, without NIGS, and drive all the way to clock the jet on bay 19. Now, if the 18A NIGS was on and you were approaching the guidance from the south (so not having even got to the "18" on the ground)... Can't find it now but in the old days we weren't allowed onto the bay without a marshaller or NIGS; "Holding short of bay XX" was a not uncommon refrain.

With company policy that you can’t turn off the taxiway onto the gate without NIGs or marshalling, you’d have to assume the wrong nigs were activated or they were marshalled onto the wrong line.

Feel for the crew.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....999aee903.jpeg

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3f6473d360.jpg

Odd comment considering receipt and dispatch of aircraft (other than the 787s) are still done by QF engineers.

So they parked on 18A instead of 18?

So I guess the ground staff genius' activated the 18A NIGS for them, with a 73' parked on 19.
The guys wouldn't have come in with no NIGS
Sounds like a setup

Noting the potential issue with the granularity of the ADS-B data, it appears that QF857 came to a stop for at least a minute, perhaps a bit longer, before starting to turn in towards the gate. Hopefully someone has ensured that the CVR is preserved this time.

That’s a bit harsh, there is likely an engineer also feeling pretty average themselves over this, perhaps wrong NIGS, but likely not being properly attentive on the stop button was the final hole in the Swiss cheese.

You can't set the NIGS on 18A for a 737, the control panel won't let you.

Maybe we shouldn’t point fingers at engineers just yet!

Feel for the guys or girls! Only silver linings is it will cost qantas 2 planes out of service for a while and stop any strike breaking.

If it's only a love-tap, can they both be unbolted and is the 737 certified to fly with only one winglet? Recall seeing several photos of a QF 747 about the traps with only one, but NFI if the baby Boeing can do the same.

​​​​​​​Perhaps we should not point fingers at anyone yet? Until we know all the FACTS. Just a thought.

At a minimum they should get authority to ferry it to a repair base.

The damage (on first glance) doesn't seem too bad - this AA 737 made a much bigger gash in the wing when it taxied into a light pole in Dallas a few years back. That aircraft was repaired and back in service after a few weeks.

Nah point fingers at the designer of that miserable bit of apron, lines, lighting and all.

​​​​​​​Haven't been there for a bit but there used to be an intam regarding the lines onto those bays in particular.

The pause at 1300 UTC in MickGo’s post ties in with the recent requirement for aircraft to hold off on the taxiway until guidance is available. Maybe the data is accurate maybe not? In a rumour forum that might suggest that the crew were waiting for guidance onto their bay.
600-ftlb said which would suggest that the guidance that convinced the crew to carry on to the parking position came in a form other than NIGS. Pure speculation but it’s a possibility.

I suspect that design was only instituted at Qanta's request as they couldn't possibly do LHR direct without having an international transfer over that side. I don't recall 18A and 20A existing prior to that requirement.

Wouldn't the marshall have realised the aircraft was off-line/not in line straightened aircraft up?

They were installed for Virgin Australia's A330s around 2011 along with 17A.

​​​​​​​It hasn't been established that they were being marshalled.

Ah ok I was wrong on that, my bad. By the time I came back VA widebodies were using 147/148/149 so wasn't seeing any widebodies in those bays

Googling "Perth Aircraft Turnaround" will offer a 24 page PDF document which would appear to cover almost every situation - except perhaps that of a flawed design which, given the right combination of adverse factors, can still conspire to bring about a mishap of this kind.

From The West today (5Mar):

Chairman's Lounge Platinum member?

So the fact that passengers were disembarking and possibly going down the stairs on the stationary aircraft was NOT a safety issue? The ‘jolt’ felt by passengers is not of concern?

No safety learning outcomes. That figures…

I think that could easily be dismissed as a joke but am starting to wonder exactly how far the Chairman’s Lounge ‘reciprocity bias’ reach actually is.
I am also surprised that no Australian journalist has publicly asked the question as to whether any of the Fair Work commissioners involved in the upcoming IB declaration are members of the Chairman’s Lounge. If they refuse to state that they are not members then the story has legs and someone could make a name for themselves. Michael West? Kim Wingerei?

That's a really concerning attitude from the SAFETY Bureau.