AA MD83? & tug argument at LAX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA MD83? & tug argument at LAX
Didn't see this one posted anywhere so maybe someone can fill in the details:
LAX 1/8/09
After pushback from the gate in LA, the pilot throttled
up to taxi before the tractor and tow bar were disconnected
from his/her aircraft.
LAX 1/8/09
After pushback from the gate in LA, the pilot throttled
up to taxi before the tractor and tow bar were disconnected
from his/her aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the a/c is back in service for several months.
DCA09FA022
1/8/09 is a bad date of incident.
KC135777
DCA09FA022
1/8/09 is a bad date of incident.
KC135777
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happened Last December
The NTSB Prelim report states:
Repair began in January:
NTSB Identification: DCA09FA022
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
Accident occurred Friday, December 26, 2008 in Los Angeles Intl Airport, CA
Aircraft: MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC-9-83(MD, registration: N9617R
Injuries: 129 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On December 26, 2008, at 0859 pacific standard time, American Airlines flight 1350, an MD-83 (registration N9617R), impacted its tug during pushback operations at Los Angeles International Airport. No injuries were reported to the 124 passengers, 3 flight attendants, 2 pilots, or the tug operator; however, the airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower portion of the forward fuselage.
The number 1 engine was started during the pushback. The tug operator stated that as he was preparing to transition the airplane from being pushed back to pulling it forward, the airplane began to accelerate forward. The tug operator applied the brakes but the airplane continued to move forward, causing the tug to jack-knife back and forth until it was impacted by the airplane. FDR data and crew interview statements indicate that an increase in power on the number 1 engine was commanded around the time the tug was preparing to pull the airplane forward.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
Accident occurred Friday, December 26, 2008 in Los Angeles Intl Airport, CA
Aircraft: MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC-9-83(MD, registration: N9617R
Injuries: 129 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On December 26, 2008, at 0859 pacific standard time, American Airlines flight 1350, an MD-83 (registration N9617R), impacted its tug during pushback operations at Los Angeles International Airport. No injuries were reported to the 124 passengers, 3 flight attendants, 2 pilots, or the tug operator; however, the airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower portion of the forward fuselage.
The number 1 engine was started during the pushback. The tug operator stated that as he was preparing to transition the airplane from being pushed back to pulling it forward, the airplane began to accelerate forward. The tug operator applied the brakes but the airplane continued to move forward, causing the tug to jack-knife back and forth until it was impacted by the airplane. FDR data and crew interview statements indicate that an increase in power on the number 1 engine was commanded around the time the tug was preparing to pull the airplane forward.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pushback procedure is probably the most underrated safety issue in our business. I can’t quote statistics but each year there are a number of deaths and serious injuries because of things going wrong. In more than twenty years of flying wide-bodies I myself have had a few close calls. On my current type (B777) the 300 is equipped with a nose wheel camera, this helps. But following the procedures by both ground and flight crew is essential. Be careful out there.
It Really IS Dangerous
The pushback procedure is probably the most underrated safety issue in our business.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: airports
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mention of headset guy anywhere or is it that the tug driver was doing this aswell?
It should be made standard to have three men per pushback - Tug driver, Headset Operator and a thirdman, unfortunately this is not cost effective for handling agents however a min of two is a must.
It should be made standard to have three men per pushback - Tug driver, Headset Operator and a thirdman, unfortunately this is not cost effective for handling agents however a min of two is a must.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should be made standard to have three men per pushback - Tug driver, Headset Operator and a thirdman, unfortunately this is not cost effective for handling agents however a min of two is a must.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Larne, UK
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very fortunate that the pushback driver and headset man didnt suffer injuries... i have had pilots apply the brakes prematurely during push and pulls when they are unfamilar with the airport
tugnbar, due to the type of tug and the bar used for the MD series, i would be very concerned if one person was doing all 3, especially with a wired headset, although possible it is very very dangerous and i dont think theres any ground handling firm that would make a 1 man pushback part of an SOP... nevermind airport authorities allowing it
tugnbar, due to the type of tug and the bar used for the MD series, i would be very concerned if one person was doing all 3, especially with a wired headset, although possible it is very very dangerous and i dont think theres any ground handling firm that would make a 1 man pushback part of an SOP... nevermind airport authorities allowing it
Join Date: May 2004
Location: airports
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No injuries were reported to the 124 passengers, 3 flight attendants, 2 pilots, or the tug operator; however, the airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower portion of the forward fuselage.
The number 1 engine was started during the pushback. The tug operator stated that as he was preparing to transition the airplane from being pushed back to pulling it forward, the airplane began to accelerate forward. The tug operator applied the brakes but the airplane continued to move forward, causing the tug to jack-knife back and forth until it was impacted by the airplane. FDR data and crew interview statements indicate that an increase in power on the number 1 engine was commanded around the time the tug was preparing to pull the airplane forward.
Not saying that having a headset operator would have avoided this however the headset guy would have probably been seriously injured had he have been in situ!!!
Does the final report mention a headset Operator, not confident that one was present. Yes a competent tug driver can quite easily carry out a push/headset/disconnection however should NEVER happen.
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
Possibly the throttles were open during the pushback phase? It happened after start up of No 1. Maybe as it wound up and suddenly identified thrust lever position, the thrust came on -relatively quietly in MDs? It doesn't sound like a genuine attempt to taxi forward.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think much of AAs shearpins!
Go and watch SAS at CPH and ARN. One man only drives the tug, with headset on. The only airlines at ARN that use more than 2 men for pushback are Delta, Continental, and US Airways. All Americans, is this some rule in the States?
i dont think theres any ground handling firm that would make a 1 man pushback part of an SOP... nevermind airport authorities allowing it
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Larne, UK
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go and watch SAS at CPH and ARN. One man only drives the tug, with headset on. The only airlines at ARN that use more than 2 men for pushback are Delta, Continental, and US Airways. All Americans, is this some rule in the States?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Smiles
Age: 68
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See shape of towbar!!
SwedishSteve is absolutely right there is a problem with the towbar shearpins here. The damage maybe could have been less severe, and certainly the risk to the ground crew would have been less, if the towbar shear pins had failed at a prescribed stress level. I have never seen a towbar bent that far before.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Up North
Age: 58
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a moment there, it sure looked like the towbar was welded together. Instead of having shearpins
And yes, SAS generally uses 1 man pushback. But thats with TBL's (TowBarLess), which graps the nosewheel and lifts it up. Works very well. Comm is another story
On larger AC types however, we (in SAS/OSL, that is..) do have an additional rampy or engineer, to walk the aircraft out.
And yes, SAS generally uses 1 man pushback. But thats with TBL's (TowBarLess), which graps the nosewheel and lifts it up. Works very well. Comm is another story
On larger AC types however, we (in SAS/OSL, that is..) do have an additional rampy or engineer, to walk the aircraft out.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Just trying to be helpful here, if that's OK. As has been pointed out, there are different types of tugs, with and without towbars.
Conventional type with towbar (like the one involved in this incident, though this one is larger):
Not that its unconventional, but another design without the towbar that would certainly make single-handing the task a bit easier:
Ah geez, I hate seeing my luggage on the tarmac after we've pushed back...
Conventional type with towbar (like the one involved in this incident, though this one is larger):
Not that its unconventional, but another design without the towbar that would certainly make single-handing the task a bit easier:
Ah geez, I hate seeing my luggage on the tarmac after we've pushed back...