Another Virgin cover up in it's infancy
 

Daily Telegraph

Engineer almost sucked into jet
By JIM DICKINS
19jul02
A VIRGIN Blue ground engineer came very close to "ingestion" by a 737 jet engine during a communications mix-up at Sydney airport earlier this month.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the incident, which occurred when a pilot released his brakes under direction from air traffic control, rolling 2m towards the engineer.
The engineer, distracted by an aircraft taxiing nearby, did not realise the jet had moved.

The blunder followed an incident on June 11 when a Virgin 737 pilot was demoted to co-pilot for six months after overshooting Darwin runway.

The aircraft remained within the runway-end safety zone and there were no injuries or damage. However, the pilot failed to report the incident within the company's strict time limit and was disciplined.

The bureau released its preliminary report on that incident yesterday, noting visibility was good at the time and winds were light.

However, the runway was undergoing maintenance, reducing the landing distance available.

A Virgin spokesman said the pilot was disciplined for failing to report the incident soon enough, rather than the incident itself.

"It didn't meet our standards, even if it met the statutory requirement," he said.

"It was within the 48-hour statutory limit but he should have reported it immediately."

The bureau confirmed it was also investigating a case of potential "ingestion" at Sydney airport on July 4.

Virgin's spokesman said that incident occurred when normal departure procedures were suspended by the arrival of an air ambulance.

Virgin was conducting its own investigation but did not believe the engineer was in danger of being sucked into the engine. "He was closer than we would have liked him to be, but not in the danger zone," the spokesman said.

The pilot had been distracted by instructions from air traffic control and did not know the engineer was in danger. And the engineer was watching out for the propellers of a third aircraft, also delayed by the air ambulance.

Virgin stressed no passengers were ever in danger, but said the incident supported its argument that its current terminal space at Sydney was overcrowded.

Virgin wants to be allowed to occupy the old Ansett terminal as soon as possible.

"After two years of excellent safety at the airport this demonstrates that the facility has reached its capacity," the spokesman said.

Surely another indication that procedures are lacking. And Virgin want to put loaders on the headsets, carry out airstarts/connect GPUs. God help 'em!

:confused:

"when a pilot released his brakes under direction from air traffic control,................................says it all really, doesn't it! :rolleyes:

Question for AN LAME.
 

What revelations can we expect from you when

eventually reaches adolescence ?

Obviously some body apart from Jim Dickins thought it was dangerous, otherwise how did it make its way to ATSB???
Maybe the Daily Telegraph submitted it!!

Kaptin M
"when a pilot released his brakes under direction from air traffic control,................................ "

What ever happened to 'clear left/clear right' Doesn't that include engineers? (or are they simply classified as potential FOD?) :confused:

Whiskery

If it's a problem child just imagine it as a teen!:eek:

What are you saying Kaptin M ?
 

Are you saying that because ATC told the aircraft to taxi, that absolves Pilot responsibility for checking he is clear to proceed ?

OR

You are in agreement with AN Lame that the Pilot should have checked it was clear to proceed and not just assumed that the ATC instruction implied he was clear to taxi.

All this anti- Virgin (along with anti- QF) rubbish is becoming extremely boring.

Do we have nothing else to occupy our little minds besides these meaningless jibes?

We all know the Australian media can beat up to a sponge cake from the egg yoke of female mousespider. Alas they make something out of absolutely nothing. Yet we still have individuals taking their bait.

Lets raise the standard just a little!!

Good approach to safety there Shakespeare. Obviously you've never had an operating CFM56 sneak up behind you before. I'm sure the enginneer concerned, not to mention his family, will be grateful for your concern.
Besides, what is the point of this forum if not to discuss the industry and, amongst other things, how it all seems to be going down the gurgler at the moment from a standards perspective:confused:

I suppose if everything had to be ratified as "fact" prior to posting, this would be PPFaNe...:rolleyes:

Was the guy an Engineer?.Or someone trained for an hour or so to walk around an AUD$80 million 50+ton piece of metal with 140 or so Souls on board,about to be hurtled into the air.
A sign of things to come,this one was on the ground.

Despatch Clearance?.............. Sighted

- or is that missing from checklists these days.

IF this story is true, surely as someone already pointed out, receiving a clearance from ATC does NOT mean clear to taxi on its own. :rolleyes: :eek:

Most places you can get say a push back clearance from ATC, given to you because ATC are happy there is no conflict with any other Aircraft, they do not care that you may still have the aerobridge in to the Aircraft, all sorts of equipment around the Aircraft and an Engineer still removing tie down straps etc etc..... :(

I do know this was not a push back situation, but the same applies, ATC were happy for the Aircraft to move, but what about everyone else. :rolleyes:

I heard they almost ran over the Townsville refuelers foot the other day...............;)

So who are we going to ridicule today???

The Virgin Blue Captain??? The ATC??? or the Engineer????

Why don't we just blame the sun.... it could have been shinning on either, the captains face, sun reflecting off the ATC director sun glasses, but if the engineer had his back turned, the sun definatley wouldnt have been shinning out of his back side...;)

Anyone dumb enough to let an operating CFM-56 "sneak up" on him needs to go buy him/her-self a helmet with a good, strong chin-strap. Or maybe a hearing aid.

Personally I blame Reg Ansett.
If he hadn't started that airline, Abeles wouldn't have taken it over, screwed everybody and caused it to collapse. Virgin wouldn't have prospered and thus the engineer probably wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Bloody Reg.

203:

Don't be so silly. A yellow rotating light on top of the helmet is more important than a hearing aid.

did the cfm suck the attitude out of him?

Oh and don't forget to CLEARLY state that it was an ex AN pilot.

Even if it wasn't, Mr Huttner can again assign the problem to "them"and not the experienced (3000hrs total/ 500hrs on jets) "True" Virgins.

Lovely to have the Boss identify the problem.

AN LAME. I was not considering safety when I posted. I was more concerned with all the brain dead vitriol directed at Virgin and at times Qantas.

If I had a safety issue I would post it (if I thought necessary) so others could gain some benefit from my experience. It would be impartial and not in any way aportioning blame or casting aspersions as to who did what. WHAT ON EARTH DOES THAT ACHIEVE? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

A great deal can be learnt from the experiences of others. Correctly reported and scripted they are very beneficial. What is not beneficial is how some Australians on these threads resort to some of the most neolithic scribings known to man.

Rumours are great and in the right context are fine. When they resort to directing volumes of verbal diarrhoea at companies or individuals without base or foundation, and generally from an outdated uneducated source, they quite simply don't belong.

We all try to do our jobs as PROFESSIONALS, however from time to time ALL OVER THE WORLD, things do not go according to plan. Big deal. Most choose just to get on with the job. A pity we can not adopt some of that philosophy down here where some pilots think they know it all!

Shakespeare..TN copped it, AN copped it, VQ copped it, QF still cops it, all Australian institutions cop it. Why should DJ be different? Ignore the thread if you don't like it.

Some people post these types of threads out of spite. Others feel the need to explore the ramifications of such incidents. Some, like Pimp Daddy raise valid questions on the topic. Those of us who don't know the checklists find it interesting that there IS a check for it.

As I am back on the ramp these days, it interests me to know that things like this can happen. With my hearing protection on, and the amount of extra noise from other aircraft, like the passing prop in this topic, I also would not have had a concern about the aircraft next to me as I "thought" it wasn't going anywhere at that time. I would consider myself experienced on & around aircraft, but reading this & others like it remind that eternal vigilance is abso-friggin-lutely essential!!!:)

Pimp Daddy,

We've got it in ours!

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?

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.

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!

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.

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...:p

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'"

Journos inability to report facts...
 

Pushback

Ahh... been there... done that... never works. :rolleyes:

Just ask anyone in Reporting Points. The priorities of the news media is at times, incomprehensible.

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!

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;)

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.

Now that is the truth!!!