Bent Fly Star at LGW
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, I was thinking about the evils that befall these aeroplanes when pilots and engineers aren't present, and the bizarre towing practices we see. For example, there has been a spate for some years of A32* nosewheel steering failures and landings with 90 degree nosewheel deflection. Any connection with overstressing on towing/pushback? I get surprised sometimes by violent pushes where you wonder whether the tug even has a clutch, or why it is so harsh, and that used to be on a 747! What hope little ones!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BHX
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
All pushback tugs are automatic transmission. The violent jerks on push are always down to either a heavy foot on the accelerator, or far more often a small towing pin going into a large eye on the bar giving room for the tug of aircraft to move before everything effectively becomes one again. This can also put a lot of pressure on the shear pins.
You really seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the no blame policy being used for groundcrew. Would you rather that something happened to your aircraft and the staff involved reported the event, or have them so scared of being disciplined or sacked that you found out several hours later at 35,000ft
Unfortunately the modern aviation industry constantly wants more for less, shorter ground times, cheaper handling, the list goes on. The end result is that management at the handling agents have to put pressure on staff to do more with less (equipment, manpower and wages). The vast majority of these staff take a great deal of pride in what they do and do all they can to ensure flights depart on time, and safely. During my years in the business I've seen things go from OK wages and some nice perks with enough staff and equipment to do the job to poor wages with little or no perks and the bare minimum staff and equipment. Maybe it is time to start looking in a different direction for the blame, the moral is definitely one of getting what you pay for.
Rant over, time for hat and coat.... TAXI
All pushback tugs are automatic transmission. The violent jerks on push are always down to either a heavy foot on the accelerator, or far more often a small towing pin going into a large eye on the bar giving room for the tug of aircraft to move before everything effectively becomes one again. This can also put a lot of pressure on the shear pins.
You really seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the no blame policy being used for groundcrew. Would you rather that something happened to your aircraft and the staff involved reported the event, or have them so scared of being disciplined or sacked that you found out several hours later at 35,000ft
Unfortunately the modern aviation industry constantly wants more for less, shorter ground times, cheaper handling, the list goes on. The end result is that management at the handling agents have to put pressure on staff to do more with less (equipment, manpower and wages). The vast majority of these staff take a great deal of pride in what they do and do all they can to ensure flights depart on time, and safely. During my years in the business I've seen things go from OK wages and some nice perks with enough staff and equipment to do the job to poor wages with little or no perks and the bare minimum staff and equipment. Maybe it is time to start looking in a different direction for the blame, the moral is definitely one of getting what you pay for.Rant over, time for hat and coat.... TAXI
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: sussex,england
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GroundHog Brum
Unfortunately you've said it in many words, when it should have been said it ONE. Good ground ops with constant and understood CRM with the operating flight crew is AN ESSENTIAL application to all operations. It is way past time that ground ops be appreciated for what they are, not just an ancillary to flight ops, but a portion of said ops.
Lets get back to the team application, air carriers must pay for the expertise they expect. GH companies must pay the staff for that expertise. Flt Crew get on a tug, tuggies get on the flt deck, brakemen to be (as they were) licenced engineers or crew members.
Auditor General
Lets get back to the team application, air carriers must pay for the expertise they expect. GH companies must pay the staff for that expertise. Flt Crew get on a tug, tuggies get on the flt deck, brakemen to be (as they were) licenced engineers or crew members.
Auditor General
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sussex
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying that this particular crunch has anything to do with what I'm about to say but having been on the receiving end of a tug driver's rant the other day, who knows.
Whilst on a remote stand trying to repair the aircraft IFE system, a tug driver came aboard to move the aircraft to it's departing stand. Nothing unusual about that but his remarks when told he would have to wait up to 10 minutes as we were software loading were somewhat unbelievable for 10.15 am. He went into a right rant about this being job and knock (early trap) and he wanted to get away, blah, blah, blah. As he was only 4 hours into an 8 or 12 hour shift makes you wonder that he might have been about to go to a second job. He kept mumbling for ages about being kept from going home (even though he would still be on the company's shift) getting more irate every minute. We on the other hand were not amused by his actions as we hadn't even had breakfast by then.
Yes the tuggies do do a good job but they also get away with murder depending on the company they work for. They also seem to make their own rules for driving about on the ramp areas (when not attached to an aircraft I hasten to add)
Whilst on a remote stand trying to repair the aircraft IFE system, a tug driver came aboard to move the aircraft to it's departing stand. Nothing unusual about that but his remarks when told he would have to wait up to 10 minutes as we were software loading were somewhat unbelievable for 10.15 am. He went into a right rant about this being job and knock (early trap) and he wanted to get away, blah, blah, blah. As he was only 4 hours into an 8 or 12 hour shift makes you wonder that he might have been about to go to a second job. He kept mumbling for ages about being kept from going home (even though he would still be on the company's shift) getting more irate every minute. We on the other hand were not amused by his actions as we hadn't even had breakfast by then.
Yes the tuggies do do a good job but they also get away with murder depending on the company they work for. They also seem to make their own rules for driving about on the ramp areas (when not attached to an aircraft I hasten to add)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Greater Manchester, UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My friend recently got a job with Aviance @ MAN...
He told me that if they report damage to an aircraft which they have caused no action will be taken... However, if they damage the aircraft and don't tell anyone they will be dealt with severely.
Sounds good to me, stops people 'chickening' out from reporting incidents thus causing accidents.
He told me that if they report damage to an aircraft which they have caused no action will be taken... However, if they damage the aircraft and don't tell anyone they will be dealt with severely.
Sounds good to me, stops people 'chickening' out from reporting incidents thus causing accidents.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where the air is thin!
Age: 44
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree RH get well soon we dont see enough of her up here at Man but saying that we are now going to have to wrap Foxy up in cotton wool to prevent any further problems!
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He told me that if they report damage to an aircraft which they have caused no action will be taken... However, if they damage the aircraft and don't tell anyone they will be dealt with severely.
Are you serious about ground handling staff travelling on the flight deck? Why? What exactly will it achieve? All that is required is that you do your job properly and carefully. Examples like this incident will not be solved by towers sitting on flight decks. Just don't wreck the flight decks!
Mistrust in Management
Rainboe
Oh I like it. Sort of blackmail? 'You punish us and we won't ever report anything!' Clever
However from a safety perspective it is far better that an incident/accident is reported (where the reporter understands that reporting will not result in immediate dismissal) than that any such incident goes unreported. Bearing in mind that many incidents are relatively minor in comparison to this one (in cost) but may be relatively major in terms of flight safety. (i.e. damage to pitot static systems).
BTW I think it might be a very good idea for pilots to experience a day with a push back crew, as well as learning a lot we would probably quite enjoy it.
Where I would have no problem with any member of ground ops sharing the flight deck for a day I suspect the bean counters wouldn't be so thrilled. (Ditto above!)
Also BTW I don't think that A****** will pick up the whole bill as their liability is limited - as for loss of revenue..............
Kind Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to previous posting about assessment of damages.
The airline would claim on the ground handler not only for cost of repair but also any degradation in value to the aircraft, down time, loss of pax revenue, lease of replacement aircraft, all these known as consequential losses. As to who pays - it depends on the ground handlers insurance policy - I would imagine that the airline would have insisted that any company towing its aircraft has the full works - if not then it could become litigious. Furthermore, the Lessor / Legal owner would want to ensure that the proposed repair would not diminsh the aircraft value and would insist that the Lessee / Operator made good in the event that the ground handler or its insurer would not or could not.
The airline would claim on the ground handler not only for cost of repair but also any degradation in value to the aircraft, down time, loss of pax revenue, lease of replacement aircraft, all these known as consequential losses. As to who pays - it depends on the ground handlers insurance policy - I would imagine that the airline would have insisted that any company towing its aircraft has the full works - if not then it could become litigious. Furthermore, the Lessor / Legal owner would want to ensure that the proposed repair would not diminsh the aircraft value and would insist that the Lessee / Operator made good in the event that the ground handler or its insurer would not or could not.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard Ground Handling Agreement
Towerman
It is likely that the towing was carried out under the Standard Ground handling Agreement (SGHA) between the carrier and the Handler.
The following are extracts from this standard agreement; I cannot recall which version this is from. (It is reviewed every 5 years and there have been some recent variances on negligence.)
it is generally accepted that the hander will pay the uninsured excess and the airline will pay the rest.
It is likely that the towing was carried out under the Standard Ground handling Agreement (SGHA) between the carrier and the Handler.
The following are extracts from this standard agreement; I cannot recall which version this is from. (It is reviewed every 5 years and there have been some recent variances on negligence.)
it is generally accepted that the hander will pay the uninsured excess and the airline will pay the rest.
ARTICLE 8
LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY
In this Article, all references to:
(a) “the Carrier” or “the Handling Company” shall include their employees,
servants, agents and subcontractors;
(b) “ground support equipment” shall mean all equipment used in the
performance of ground handling services included in Annex A, whether
fixed or mobile, and
(c) “act or omission” shall include negligence.
8.1 Except as stated in Sub-Article 8.5, the Carrier shall not make any claim against the Handling Company and shall indemnify it (subject as hereinafter provided) against any legal liability for claims or suits, including costs and expenses incidental thereto, in respect of:
(a) delay, injury or death of persons carried or to be
carried by the Carrier;
(b) injury or death of any employee of the Carrier;
(c) damage to or delay or loss of baggage, cargo or
mail carried or to be carried by the Carrier, and
(d) damage to or loss of property owned or operated
by, or on behalf of, the Carrier and any
consequential loss or damage;
arising from an act or omission of the Handling Company in the performance of this Agreement unless done with intent to cause damage, death, delay, injury or loss or recklessly and with the knowledge that damage, death, delay, injury or loss would probably result.
PROVIDED THAT all claims or suits arising hereunder shall be dealt with by the Carrier; and
PROVIDED ALSO THAT the Handling Company shall notify the Carrier of any claims or suits without undue delay and shall furnish such assistance as the Carrier may reasonably require.
PROVIDED ALSO THAT where any of the services performed by the Handling Company hereunder relate to the carriage by the Carrier of passengers, baggage or cargo direct to or from a place in the United States of America then if the limitations of liability imposed by Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention would have applied if any such act or omission had been committed by the Carrier but are held by a Court not to be applicable to such act or omission committed by the Handling Company in performing this Agreement then upon such decision of the Court the indemnity of the Carrier to the Handling Company hereunder shall be limited to an amount not exceeding the amount for which the Carrier would have been liable if it had committed such act or omission.
LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY
In this Article, all references to:
(a) “the Carrier” or “the Handling Company” shall include their employees,
servants, agents and subcontractors;
(b) “ground support equipment” shall mean all equipment used in the
performance of ground handling services included in Annex A, whether
fixed or mobile, and
(c) “act or omission” shall include negligence.
8.1 Except as stated in Sub-Article 8.5, the Carrier shall not make any claim against the Handling Company and shall indemnify it (subject as hereinafter provided) against any legal liability for claims or suits, including costs and expenses incidental thereto, in respect of:
(a) delay, injury or death of persons carried or to be
carried by the Carrier;
(b) injury or death of any employee of the Carrier;
(c) damage to or delay or loss of baggage, cargo or
mail carried or to be carried by the Carrier, and
(d) damage to or loss of property owned or operated
by, or on behalf of, the Carrier and any
consequential loss or damage;
arising from an act or omission of the Handling Company in the performance of this Agreement unless done with intent to cause damage, death, delay, injury or loss or recklessly and with the knowledge that damage, death, delay, injury or loss would probably result.
PROVIDED THAT all claims or suits arising hereunder shall be dealt with by the Carrier; and
PROVIDED ALSO THAT the Handling Company shall notify the Carrier of any claims or suits without undue delay and shall furnish such assistance as the Carrier may reasonably require.
PROVIDED ALSO THAT where any of the services performed by the Handling Company hereunder relate to the carriage by the Carrier of passengers, baggage or cargo direct to or from a place in the United States of America then if the limitations of liability imposed by Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention would have applied if any such act or omission had been committed by the Carrier but are held by a Court not to be applicable to such act or omission committed by the Handling Company in performing this Agreement then upon such decision of the Court the indemnity of the Carrier to the Handling Company hereunder shall be limited to an amount not exceeding the amount for which the Carrier would have been liable if it had committed such act or omission.
Notwithstanding Sub-Article 8.1(d), the Handling Company shall indemnify the Carrier against any physical loss of or damage to the Carrier’s Aircraft caused by the Handling Company’s negligent operation of ground support equipment PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT the Handling Company’s liability shall be limited to any such loss of or damage to the Carrier’s Aircraft not exceeding the limits stated in Annex(es) B which shall not, in any event, exceed USD 1,500,000 except that loss or damage in respect of any incident below USD 3,000 shall not be indemnified.
For the avoidance of doubt, save as expressly stated, this Sub-Article 8.5 does not affect or prejudice the generality of the provisions of Sub-Article 8.1 including the principle that the Carrier shall not make any claim against the Handling Company and shall indemnify it against any liability in respect of any and all consequential loss or damage howsoever arising.
For the avoidance of doubt, save as expressly stated, this Sub-Article 8.5 does not affect or prejudice the generality of the provisions of Sub-Article 8.1 including the principle that the Carrier shall not make any claim against the Handling Company and shall indemnify it against any liability in respect of any and all consequential loss or damage howsoever arising.
Last edited by STN Ramp Rat; 2nd Dec 2007 at 07:53. Reason: change of emphasis
