BA A320 Engine damage at heathrow
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the moon
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA A320 Engine damage at heathrow
Recently an accident occured at heathrow damaging a BA A320 engine.
Would anyone know about this incident? apparently the crew got the all-clear that the tug had moved away and the aeroplane taxied into the tug???
Would anyone know about this incident? apparently the crew got the all-clear that the tug had moved away and the aeroplane taxied into the tug???
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would anyone know about this incident? apparently the crew got the all-clear that the tug had moved away and the aeroplane taxied into the tug???
Placing the push-back tractor some 20 meters (or however much it takes for it to be visible from the cockpit) in front of the aeroplane, parked across the taxiway and with beacons flashing, until the guy on the head-set has disconnected and moved to a safe area, is a very sound procedure. Is that done at LHR?
Again, let me stress that the quote above might very well be what actually happen. However, accidents are rarely caused by any single factor.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Placing the push-back tractor some 20 meters (or however much it takes for it to be visible from the cockpit) in front of the aeroplane, parked across the taxiway and with beacons flashing, until the guy on the head-set has disconnected and moved to a safe area, is a very sound procedure
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham, Surrey. ENGLAND
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is (near) ancient history:-
Go here.....http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=232352
and read all about it!
Go here.....http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=232352
and read all about it!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage
If crew members are unable, even in the darkest of nights, to visible confirm that a rather large push-back truck with all lights flashing are clear of the taxiway, I humbly suggest glasses might be needed. Remember, I said it should be "20 meters in front of the aircraft or however much it takes to be visible from the cockpit".
Now if the push-back truck is below the line-of-sight from the cockpit we'd have ourselves a problem, but the whole idea is to park the thing at such a distance it will be visible.
BLK33
Thanks for link. Seems it was the ground crew who goofed on this occasion. Not the first time, won't be the last. Drive carefully!
If crew members are unable, even in the darkest of nights, to visible confirm that a rather large push-back truck with all lights flashing are clear of the taxiway, I humbly suggest glasses might be needed. Remember, I said it should be "20 meters in front of the aircraft or however much it takes to be visible from the cockpit".
Now if the push-back truck is below the line-of-sight from the cockpit we'd have ourselves a problem, but the whole idea is to park the thing at such a distance it will be visible.
BLK33
Thanks for link. Seems it was the ground crew who goofed on this occasion. Not the first time, won't be the last. Drive carefully!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the moon
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BLK
must be another incident - I work with the engines and we've just been notified of a repair and after seeing the pictures I thought someone on here may be able to shed some light on the matter. I never knew this has happened with BA before.
must be another incident - I work with the engines and we've just been notified of a repair and after seeing the pictures I thought someone on here may be able to shed some light on the matter. I never knew this has happened with BA before.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF - I'd humbly suggest that next time you're doing some investigation you make the effort to visit the flight deck and see what the visibility is like up there. I fly an aircraft with a 65m wingspan and a significant degree of wingsweep. Even craning my neck round the best I can see is the spinner of the outer engines and the leading edges of the wing outboard of that. If Mr Tug parks himself on the centreline 20m ahead of me then drives off towards my rear (as they often will do as this is the real world, not the classroom) then how do I know where he's gone? Maybe he's gone to remove some FOD. Or take a closer look at a panel he thinks may be open, or check if a gear pin is left in. Either way, I can't see him. I want him in sight and confirmation not only that he's clear but also that he will remain clear, and I only get that by having eyes on him at all times.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage
I do spend considerable time riding the jumpseat of aircraft various, albeit none with a 65 meter wingspan, and I do appreciate the limited forward, very limited sideways and non-existent rear views. However, we're discussing semantics here and I feel we're in general agreement. As for classroom vs. real life, you do have a point. But will you agree, that when real-life operations are done differently from what is taught in a classroom, it may lead to a potentially dangerous situation?
But just to make it clear, here's what we're teaching: After disconnecting push-back, it'll move forward on the taxiway and park across said taxiway, at a distance where it'll be visible from the fligthdeck. Once the guy on the head-set has moved to save distance, push-back will drive off the taxiway, in a direction where crew will be able to maintain visible contact.
Main reason we have this procedure is actually not to prevent an aeroplane from driving into the vehicle. Whilst that is expensive and embarrasing for all parties, it's basically "only" bent metal. We're doing this to prevent the poor sod on the head-set from being run over by the aircraft. And yes, it has happened. The purpose of parking the push-back truck in front of the aircraft is to give crew a visible indication there's someone down below who's still in the "dangerous" area. We can replace a push-back truck and an aircraft engine. We can't very well bring back an employee to life if he or she has been squashed under umpteen tons of aeroplane.
It's not just in the flightdeck SOPs prevail Carnage, and just like pilots people on the ground have their SOPs rehearsed and beaten into them time and again. Now if someone thinks he's clever and decide to do things differently, that's called "failure to follow procedures", and should it result in something very nasty happening, said person will face some sort of disciplining. It may even lead, as it may for aeroplane drivers, to legal action. If an airline or handling agent has not established safe and clear SOPs for their ground staff, that's called criminal negligence.
I do spend considerable time riding the jumpseat of aircraft various, albeit none with a 65 meter wingspan, and I do appreciate the limited forward, very limited sideways and non-existent rear views. However, we're discussing semantics here and I feel we're in general agreement. As for classroom vs. real life, you do have a point. But will you agree, that when real-life operations are done differently from what is taught in a classroom, it may lead to a potentially dangerous situation?
But just to make it clear, here's what we're teaching: After disconnecting push-back, it'll move forward on the taxiway and park across said taxiway, at a distance where it'll be visible from the fligthdeck. Once the guy on the head-set has moved to save distance, push-back will drive off the taxiway, in a direction where crew will be able to maintain visible contact.
Main reason we have this procedure is actually not to prevent an aeroplane from driving into the vehicle. Whilst that is expensive and embarrasing for all parties, it's basically "only" bent metal. We're doing this to prevent the poor sod on the head-set from being run over by the aircraft. And yes, it has happened. The purpose of parking the push-back truck in front of the aircraft is to give crew a visible indication there's someone down below who's still in the "dangerous" area. We can replace a push-back truck and an aircraft engine. We can't very well bring back an employee to life if he or she has been squashed under umpteen tons of aeroplane.
It's not just in the flightdeck SOPs prevail Carnage, and just like pilots people on the ground have their SOPs rehearsed and beaten into them time and again. Now if someone thinks he's clever and decide to do things differently, that's called "failure to follow procedures", and should it result in something very nasty happening, said person will face some sort of disciplining. It may even lead, as it may for aeroplane drivers, to legal action. If an airline or handling agent has not established safe and clear SOPs for their ground staff, that's called criminal negligence.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What bugs me about posts like these is that there are so many assumptions made about what exactly went on. I spoke to one of the pilots involved recently and got the low down on it but I will not be posting the details here as you all seem to have such a great idea of exactly what happened. Just wait for the official report and all will become clear.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here's what we're teaching: After disconnecting push-back, it'll move forward on the taxiway and park across said taxiway, at a distance where it'll be visible from the fligthdeck.
I think classroom discussions should be confined to the classroom and let the operators get on with it.
