Another Virgin cover up in it's infancy
Another Virgin cover up in its infancy
Come on boys!!
"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the incident, which occurred when a pilot released his brakes under direction from air traffic control"
Since when did ATC, and not the engineer tell the pilot to release brakes........about time these journos shut up until they can report facts. Journalists are a very negative influence on our perceptions of reality due to their ignorance and inability to tell it like it is!
How about a new thread hi-lighting our journos inability to report facts?
"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the incident, which occurred when a pilot released his brakes under direction from air traffic control"
Since when did ATC, and not the engineer tell the pilot to release brakes........about time these journos shut up until they can report facts. Journalists are a very negative influence on our perceptions of reality due to their ignorance and inability to tell it like it is!
How about a new thread hi-lighting our journos inability to report facts?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The party.
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basicially all comes down to experience.
Virgin have have engaged the services of ground crews with enough training to know all the dangers involved working around 737 aircraft.They would all be forte with the leading edge devices and the area's to avoid with running engines.NOT.
There has been 23 ground staff worldwide turned into mince since the 737 started ops .
I'm sure the same "trained" people doing turnarounds will notice possible/probable airworthiness defects.
To be candid a friend once asked what a guy was doing putting oil out of a blue can into the round things on the side of the aircraft.Obviously the engines were inside.
AN LAME,should we start a forum on the stupid questions asked over the years by the people now doing engineering tasks.
My experience of 25 years is that it is the smallest thing overseen that brings down the big bird.
Virgin have have engaged the services of ground crews with enough training to know all the dangers involved working around 737 aircraft.They would all be forte with the leading edge devices and the area's to avoid with running engines.NOT.
There has been 23 ground staff worldwide turned into mince since the 737 started ops .
I'm sure the same "trained" people doing turnarounds will notice possible/probable airworthiness defects.
To be candid a friend once asked what a guy was doing putting oil out of a blue can into the round things on the side of the aircraft.Obviously the engines were inside.
AN LAME,should we start a forum on the stupid questions asked over the years by the people now doing engineering tasks.
My experience of 25 years is that it is the smallest thing overseen that brings down the big bird.
Mainwheel,
I don't believe that it is an experience thing.
Don't get me wrong I much prefer engineers doing pushbacks, however don't make the mistake of believing that ONLY engineers can do push backs.
In NZ they use those remote pushback jiggers that push the mains back, and one bloke at the front plays with the remote control, talks on the headset etc..
The engineers need to make a persuasive case to ensure that others don't come and knock off the pushback jobs - you can get almost anything if you can show a valid safety or economic reason why engineers should do push backs.
And by that I mean a reasoned argument, not an emotional one - "we have always done pushbacks etc". I am sure that the pilot body will back you if you can develop a reasoned argument.
As for the "trained" people picking up airworthiness defects - you can't use that as a reasoned argument. The people doing the pushback are there for about 5 minutes of the turnaround.
A LAME does the walkaround and signs the release prior to the departure, so a properly trained eye SHOULD find the defects that are evident. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be engineers with red flags walking in front of the aeroplane all the way to the active runway, watching like hawks for any bits to fall off prior to departure - the 5 -10 minutes between commencing the push and getting airborne are unlikely to reveal any significant problems not already evident during the walkaround.
In conclusion, get your workmates together and develop a sound reason WHY engineers should do pushbacks. Present it to the appropriate people and seek backing from the other groups involved - the pilots.
You stand a much better chance of having a win if you do that rather than suggesting that the companies are shonky and cutting corners.
With regard a statement made in another post on this topic -
- I have yet to see anyone walk into a CFM whilst the aeroplane is in the air!
I don't believe that it is an experience thing.
Don't get me wrong I much prefer engineers doing pushbacks, however don't make the mistake of believing that ONLY engineers can do push backs.
In NZ they use those remote pushback jiggers that push the mains back, and one bloke at the front plays with the remote control, talks on the headset etc..
The engineers need to make a persuasive case to ensure that others don't come and knock off the pushback jobs - you can get almost anything if you can show a valid safety or economic reason why engineers should do push backs.
And by that I mean a reasoned argument, not an emotional one - "we have always done pushbacks etc". I am sure that the pilot body will back you if you can develop a reasoned argument.
As for the "trained" people picking up airworthiness defects - you can't use that as a reasoned argument. The people doing the pushback are there for about 5 minutes of the turnaround.
A LAME does the walkaround and signs the release prior to the departure, so a properly trained eye SHOULD find the defects that are evident. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be engineers with red flags walking in front of the aeroplane all the way to the active runway, watching like hawks for any bits to fall off prior to departure - the 5 -10 minutes between commencing the push and getting airborne are unlikely to reveal any significant problems not already evident during the walkaround.
In conclusion, get your workmates together and develop a sound reason WHY engineers should do pushbacks. Present it to the appropriate people and seek backing from the other groups involved - the pilots.
You stand a much better chance of having a win if you do that rather than suggesting that the companies are shonky and cutting corners.
With regard a statement made in another post on this topic -
A sign of things to come,this one was on the ground.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Bayside
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the major contributing factors to this incident is the extreme congestion on this tarmac area. There is only one entry/exit to the tarmac, which can accommodate 5 B737s. These of course use pushback procedures for departure.
However, the tarmac is shared, and there are often up to 3 Saabs occupying tarmac positions, or waiting to enter or exit while 737s are pushing back.
While not making excuses for the DJ crew, who commenced to move without sighting the engineers thumbs-up, this was the case at the time of this incident and contributed to the breakdown in communication between the flight deck, ATC, and engineers. Also Runway 25 was in use for departures so the adjacent taxiway G was also congested with aircraft waiting to depart.
The sooner Virgin gains access to some of the former Ansett gates in SYD, the better for all concerned. It will reduce the possibility of any further dangerous incidents like this, plus provide the Virgin guests and staff with a proper check-in environment not provided by the grossly overstretched facilities currently available.
However, the tarmac is shared, and there are often up to 3 Saabs occupying tarmac positions, or waiting to enter or exit while 737s are pushing back.
While not making excuses for the DJ crew, who commenced to move without sighting the engineers thumbs-up, this was the case at the time of this incident and contributed to the breakdown in communication between the flight deck, ATC, and engineers. Also Runway 25 was in use for departures so the adjacent taxiway G was also congested with aircraft waiting to depart.
The sooner Virgin gains access to some of the former Ansett gates in SYD, the better for all concerned. It will reduce the possibility of any further dangerous incidents like this, plus provide the Virgin guests and staff with a proper check-in environment not provided by the grossly overstretched facilities currently available.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Perth
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dehav Driver, dont let economics get in the way of the real reason why the Engineers are on the headphones. They are not there for the 99% of pushbacks that are done without incident, they are there for when you have a problem on start. Imagine, "Cockpit to ground, we've got a hung start on number three." "Yep, the bags are on, you are good to go!" Comes the reply. Or the miriad of other technical problems that engineers deal with on start, that the tech crew, and no doubt the baggage handlers dont have a good working knowledge of. In my experience, the engineers save companies countless hours and thousands of dollars by avoiding un-necessary delays by suggesting "Fixes" to problems, not only prior to start, but during start and taxi.
Fellow drivers, how many times have a good engineer suggested a fix to a problem that is not "In the Book", but has saved massive delays and problems? No doubt, countless times. Engineers by nature look for fixes in the safety of the hangar, that pilots wouldnt dream of trying, for no other reason than there is not enough system information available to them (for good reasons) to attempt anything that is not in "The Book". If the MEL says "park it", it would be a very brave/stupid ramp guy, or pilot that would suggest otherwise.
Any company thinking of replacing this invaluable resource with anything other than appropriately trained engineers will do so at their own peril. It wont take to many potentially un-necessary delays to cost them a hell of a lot more than they will save by replacing them with a cheap operator trained in only the pushback procedure. Those guys on the other end of the headset are worth their weight in gold when you need them... The idea of calling the engineers on company frequency instead doesnt hold any water either. Much better to have a guy (or gal) on the spot, who has a first hand view of what is going on, did you ever play "Chinese Whispers" as a kid?
But, opinions are like @rseholes, everyone has one, just dont pick at mine...
Fellow drivers, how many times have a good engineer suggested a fix to a problem that is not "In the Book", but has saved massive delays and problems? No doubt, countless times. Engineers by nature look for fixes in the safety of the hangar, that pilots wouldnt dream of trying, for no other reason than there is not enough system information available to them (for good reasons) to attempt anything that is not in "The Book". If the MEL says "park it", it would be a very brave/stupid ramp guy, or pilot that would suggest otherwise.
Any company thinking of replacing this invaluable resource with anything other than appropriately trained engineers will do so at their own peril. It wont take to many potentially un-necessary delays to cost them a hell of a lot more than they will save by replacing them with a cheap operator trained in only the pushback procedure. Those guys on the other end of the headset are worth their weight in gold when you need them... The idea of calling the engineers on company frequency instead doesnt hold any water either. Much better to have a guy (or gal) on the spot, who has a first hand view of what is going on, did you ever play "Chinese Whispers" as a kid?
But, opinions are like @rseholes, everyone has one, just dont pick at mine...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of watching a safety video years back showing an incident on a US Navy carrier.
A ground engineer was sucked into the intake of what I believe to be an A-6 Corsair.
He somehow came back out in one piece (his safety helmet somewhat damaged) but his watch was sucked clean off his wrist and spat out the back.
The watch unbelievably was still functioning!
You guessed it - a Rolex!
As the man said "the watch took a lickin'.....but it kept on tickin'"
A ground engineer was sucked into the intake of what I believe to be an A-6 Corsair.
He somehow came back out in one piece (his safety helmet somewhat damaged) but his watch was sucked clean off his wrist and spat out the back.
The watch unbelievably was still functioning!
You guessed it - a Rolex!
As the man said "the watch took a lickin'.....but it kept on tickin'"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seat 0B
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Journos inability to report facts...
Pushback
Ahh... been there... done that... never works.
Just ask anyone in Reporting Points. The priorities of the news media is at times, incomprehensible.
Ahh... been there... done that... never works.
Just ask anyone in Reporting Points. The priorities of the news media is at times, incomprehensible.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pushback,
You are having a go at the media, which is OK, BUT since when did the engineer direct a pilot to release brakes prior to taxi???
How about you as a professional in the industry get your facts right first. How can we expect them (media) to report accurately when we can't.
Glass houses and stones!
You are having a go at the media, which is OK, BUT since when did the engineer direct a pilot to release brakes prior to taxi???
How about you as a professional in the industry get your facts right first. How can we expect them (media) to report accurately when we can't.
Glass houses and stones!
Last edited by Balinda; 21st Jul 2002 at 02:20.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My conclusion is the only sensible thing to do here is take all australians out of any technical job associated with flying in Oz and let expats do it instead. Where do I sign up and can you please make the (my) housing allowance decent enough for a nice macdaddy pad on the Gold Coast. Thanks
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets face it, the pilot in command authorizes himself to release the park brake and taxi, that is after the thumbs up from the ground crew and having recieved a taxi clearance. It is he who in the end is responsible.
