QF incident - LAX
I'm sorry, but there's a mechanic with a hand held under each wing tip, and hopefully under the tail. Their ONE JOB is to look ahead and up to spot potential hazards and call the truck and cockpit to tell their colleagues "stop". Heads are going to roll for this, and the mechs or coneheads have no excuses
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easily avoidable ground op mistake, no amount of equipment can replace stupid.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B744 - VH-OEI repair & inspection will take approximately 2 days
A380 - VH-OQI Repair & inspection will take approximately 7 days
QF is operating a ferry flight QF6006 VH-OJC SYD-BNE to operate QF51/52 SYD-SIN-BNE which was to be operated today by VH-OEI whilst VH-OQF will operate a ferry flight today as QF6020 SYD-LAX.
A380 - VH-OQI Repair & inspection will take approximately 7 days
QF is operating a ferry flight QF6006 VH-OJC SYD-BNE to operate QF51/52 SYD-SIN-BNE which was to be operated today by VH-OEI whilst VH-OQF will operate a ferry flight today as QF6020 SYD-LAX.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, but there's a mechanic with a hand held under each wing tip, and hopefully under the tail. Their ONE JOB is to look ahead and up to spot potential hazards and call the truck and cockpit to tell their colleagues "stop". Heads are going to roll for this, and the mechs or coneheads have no excuses
You know, just like the old story about the top-class helper you get, when reversing your vehicle?
"Keep coming! .... keep coming! .... keep coming! .... BANG!!! ........ STOP!!!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes it's just not your day.
Our MRO is pushing one of our jets backwards into the very crowded hangar for maintenance, wingwalkers, and tug driver in 2 way hand held comms. And yes they had all checked in. Wing walker sees imminent contact with even bigger jet calls for tug to stop, its clear the driver didnt get it, he is wearing the very good defenders (Pelton) he was required by law to wear. New procedure written and headset defenders for tug ordered.
By the time the walker got to the tug it was all over. We got away lightly at around $0.5M.
Our MRO is pushing one of our jets backwards into the very crowded hangar for maintenance, wingwalkers, and tug driver in 2 way hand held comms. And yes they had all checked in. Wing walker sees imminent contact with even bigger jet calls for tug to stop, its clear the driver didnt get it, he is wearing the very good defenders (Pelton) he was required by law to wear. New procedure written and headset defenders for tug ordered.
By the time the walker got to the tug it was all over. We got away lightly at around $0.5M.
[Interesting, hand signals didnt work either. But you're right.]
Won't repeat the story, but once nearly drove No.2 engine into the passenger bording thingy. First reaction from the airport staff was " The lead in and stop lights were on, it wasn't our fault", correct, I agreed, but you had all the loaders and engineers down there waiting for me to stop, and not one of them had the sense to jump up and down and signal me to stop.
( of course, they weren't qualified ground marshallers, so "it was more then their jobsworth" to interfere, I guess. Makes you weep.)
I wonder how many stood and watched the two QF aircraft get progressively closer and did NOTHING about it ?
Won't repeat the story, but once nearly drove No.2 engine into the passenger bording thingy. First reaction from the airport staff was " The lead in and stop lights were on, it wasn't our fault", correct, I agreed, but you had all the loaders and engineers down there waiting for me to stop, and not one of them had the sense to jump up and down and signal me to stop.
( of course, they weren't qualified ground marshallers, so "it was more then their jobsworth" to interfere, I guess. Makes you weep.)
I wonder how many stood and watched the two QF aircraft get progressively closer and did NOTHING about it ?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birdseed 
If the lights were on then you had every right to assume that ALL of the ground equipment was "behind the line".
They also had a responsibility to signal you in any manner possible if it was not.
Your professionalism was the final barrier to an allision.
So their bad was twofold.
I still see baggage handlers driving strings of full, or worse, empty igloo trailers across the apron at speeds that deny any means of prevention of damage to others and aircraft if it comes uncoupled. But nobody seems to take any notice.
If the lights were on then you had every right to assume that ALL of the ground equipment was "behind the line".
They also had a responsibility to signal you in any manner possible if it was not.
Your professionalism was the final barrier to an allision.
So their bad was twofold.
I still see baggage handlers driving strings of full, or worse, empty igloo trailers across the apron at speeds that deny any means of prevention of damage to others and aircraft if it comes uncoupled. But nobody seems to take any notice.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: CGK to HKG
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedbird
nearly drove No.2 engine into the passenger bording thingy
Assuming pax boarding on the left side then the loaders would have been clear to your right out of vision of the thingy..
Again assuming a four engine aircraft, large four engine aircraft perhaps, you didn't see the people on the ground rushing to move the thingy out of the way or anybody jumping and waving. Your no.2 engine and the steps would have been passed your cockpit view where the action was taking place.
not one of them had the sense to jump up and down and signal me to stop.
isn't he??
"it was more then their jobsworth"
I wonder how many stood and watched the two QF aircraft get progressively closer and did NOTHING about it ?
Have you ever tried to shout or listen on a noisy airfield or at a wing tip when wearing ear defenders as required to?? The onlookers, if any, wouldn't see the impending closeness of these two very large aircraft. They should and would be clear of aircraft apron movements
Fortunately these incidents are not that common and lets keep it that way, but reading this thread it's a daily event of doom and gloom
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Inacave
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belt and Suspenders together
The best protocol would be wireless AND hand signals. And not much expense to do that- none if they already have wireless headsets. A cost comparison of one incident versus the purchase of wireless would put the beancounters on your side as well. Wireless alone can fail- nobody knows if their transmitter is going to fail the next time it's keyed and similar for a dead receiver or garbled radio traffic going unheeded. Handsignals can go unseen. Both together more than doubles your chances at success so why not?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand signals sound OK, but you can't see both hand signalers at the same time. In a hangar there were presumably hazards both sides.
An air horn sounds better, but what if it's fumbled, empty or masked by other loud sounds and ear protection? A wingtip on an A380 is about as far from the tug as you'll get.
An air horn sounds better, but what if it's fumbled, empty or masked by other loud sounds and ear protection? A wingtip on an A380 is about as far from the tug as you'll get.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Age: 49
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best protocol would be wireless AND hand signals. And not much expense to do that- none if they already have wireless headsets.
Flight interphone supports only one wireless headset on most planes
Service interphone may work but will create more issue as wing walkers may connect their xmtrs on the engines .
An additionnal wireless frequency only for wing walkers / tug driver may not work as another distraction for the driver as he as to drive first .
So far the extra staff next to the driver that sees the whole ops looks to be the best solution
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an engineering standpoint, I'd put a big red button on the handsets used by wing walkers that were linked to the tug radio and controls in such a way as to either flash a red light obvious to the driver, or even to directly operate the brakes as an emergency stop. I'd have an encrypted signal too, to avoid idiots spoofing the transmission. There are other implications to the brake operations, of course, which might make it worse than the original problem.
Here is the real story.
Years ago airlines would employ all kinds of workers on full benefits.
These people would stay for decades in their positions, such as ramp agents, and
mechanics, and thus they would gain decades of experience enjoying a decent middle-class standard of living. Things did happen but these kind of preventable delays due to ground damage were rare.
Now all these jobs are farmed out to subcontractors who pay peanuts, and have high turnover. This is the cost of outsourcing.
Years ago airlines would employ all kinds of workers on full benefits.
These people would stay for decades in their positions, such as ramp agents, and
mechanics, and thus they would gain decades of experience enjoying a decent middle-class standard of living. Things did happen but these kind of preventable delays due to ground damage were rare.
Now all these jobs are farmed out to subcontractors who pay peanuts, and have high turnover. This is the cost of outsourcing.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever tried to shout or listen on a noisy airfield or at a wing tip when wearing ear defenders as required to??
If this all took place in the hangar area, i.e. not on the live tarmac, then would you be wearing ear protectors for ground manoeuvring by tug? Loudest noise likely to be an APU unless someone is doing engine runs.
Definitely should have been a wing walker for the A380 and a wing guard for the B744 in my book.
[...sounds a bit BA 1980ish]
akcherly - Bombay 1990-ish.
Having re-counted the tale once on PPRuNe already I'm not inclined to repeat myself, but it was my fault, the lead in lights were directly ahead, but the stop light bar was at 90 degrees to my right, and in swinging my head back and forth I passed the stop position, you might ask what the co-pilot was doing, but the Buck Stopped With Me. Eventually I asked the Co-Pilot where the stop light view was, and "Christ !! we've passed it" and hammered the brakes just before I drove the engine into the gangway.
Of course, I was looking to the right, for the stop light, not to the left, or I might have seen the engine 2" away from disaster.
My beef was that the assembled engineering / loading staff would have watched me do it with no attempt to even try to signal to me, there were plenty in front who could have simply crossed their hands over their head, a universally understood sign.
One could argue that the cunning Indian design, that literally meant that one had to have an eye on the side of the head, was at fault, i.e. one of the holes in the Swiss Cheese ?
The simplest self-parking device I ever saw was simply a long mirror mounted on the wall of the terminal, one could see ones' own nosewheel and steer it down the white line until reaching a cross line labelled 707, or 747, or DC-10 or whatever. That was in Miami, simple, but it took an American to invent it, the rest of the World had a series of complicated and convulated ideas, and we were subjected to everyone of them.
KISS. A man with a pair of wands takes a lot of beating.
[Judgemental?? ] Agreed, we weren't there, were we ?
akcherly - Bombay 1990-ish.
Having re-counted the tale once on PPRuNe already I'm not inclined to repeat myself, but it was my fault, the lead in lights were directly ahead, but the stop light bar was at 90 degrees to my right, and in swinging my head back and forth I passed the stop position, you might ask what the co-pilot was doing, but the Buck Stopped With Me. Eventually I asked the Co-Pilot where the stop light view was, and "Christ !! we've passed it" and hammered the brakes just before I drove the engine into the gangway.
Of course, I was looking to the right, for the stop light, not to the left, or I might have seen the engine 2" away from disaster.
My beef was that the assembled engineering / loading staff would have watched me do it with no attempt to even try to signal to me, there were plenty in front who could have simply crossed their hands over their head, a universally understood sign.
One could argue that the cunning Indian design, that literally meant that one had to have an eye on the side of the head, was at fault, i.e. one of the holes in the Swiss Cheese ?
The simplest self-parking device I ever saw was simply a long mirror mounted on the wall of the terminal, one could see ones' own nosewheel and steer it down the white line until reaching a cross line labelled 707, or 747, or DC-10 or whatever. That was in Miami, simple, but it took an American to invent it, the rest of the World had a series of complicated and convulated ideas, and we were subjected to everyone of them.
KISS. A man with a pair of wands takes a lot of beating.
[Judgemental?? ] Agreed, we weren't there, were we ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post Number one lists the Sydney Morning Herald headline:
Is it just me, or is this more appalling sensationalist journalism - calling a ground towing collision / hangar rash a "CRASH"??
In an aviation context a "crash" implies a major disaster during T/O, LDG or inflight.
Then again the SMH loves beating up QANTAS
Qantas crash in Los Angeles causes millions of dollars damage
In an aviation context a "crash" implies a major disaster during T/O, LDG or inflight.
Then again the SMH loves beating up QANTAS