Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

China Southern A380 Prang LAX

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

China Southern A380 Prang LAX

Old 13th Nov 2016, 23:26
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is confirmed by the picture is that the aeroplane ran over the tug, not the other way round!
What is seen in the picture is solely the aftermath, but not the entire accident sequence.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 02:38
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cheese
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
News reports say the tug driver was treated for minor injuries at the airport and did not require hospitalization.
short bus is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 04:36
  #63 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,089
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LAX also use the stop and tow onto the bay procedure on some stands, maybe this occurred during the aircraft being pulled rather than pushed? Also, whatever happened to the ground crew calling the flight deck over the R/T, "All pins removed, tow bar disconnected all equipment clear, hand signals on the left" which meant that you had to wait to see the crewman on the left giving a thumbs up, where did that all go then?
parabellum is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 06:07
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ACMS
It's not unusual to hear foreign carriers requesting taxy clearance in HKG while the ground crew are still at the nosewheel.
At my former workplace, sometimes this was done to beat curfew. Sometimes technical delays brought the departure time too close to curfew for comfort. ATC could not give the aircraft clearance to takeoff if taxy clearance hadn't been given by a certain time before curfew. The engineers/pusback personnel understood the concept, but one or two flight crews had difficulty understanding this (or perhaps didn't feel comfortable bypassing normal procedures) and we had to tow the aircraft back to the gate for an overnight stopover.
NSEU is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 07:03
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Singapore
Age: 56
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is nothing worse than seeing 4 Trent 900s or a pair of GE90s burning away as you're trying to get the steering pin out or the towbar off - then wondering whether the crew know if you're actually still under there or not, especially as you can't really still be hooked into comms as you're wrestling with the towbar or chock (depending on headset of course).
CAR42ZE is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 07:51
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: johannesburg
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Silly question. What was the weather? Ground engineer may not plug in in a headset for push-back under certain conditions (example thunderstorms in the vicinity).
tafel is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 08:18
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There have been a number of reported issues with the A380 pushing the tug/towbar after engine start-up. Also at what point where the engines cleared to start? If still on the turn the force applied would also cause the bar to bend.

Also which company was handling? Looks like Swissport tug and Menzies bar

Last edited by Confirmed Must Ride; 14th Nov 2016 at 09:49.
Confirmed Must Ride is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 10:45
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It looks like tug and aircraft are both connected to the tow bar, so what caused the contact between them? Was this over-steer by tug? Was this jack knife caused by engine start taking place too early (as instructed by ground staff or by capt over eagerness). Was this some type of bypass system failure which somehow resulted in the nose gear straightening during turn? Did anything else hit the bar while under stress during the pushback?

Additionally, the bar is bent in the middle, why did the shearpins not break?

Lots of questions, has anyone heard any rumors of what actually happened?
groundagent is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 13:29
  #69 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,297
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
In addition to the latest posting, and as mentioned earlier: the tug tractor itself is NOT APPROVED for A380 by its manufacturer.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 13:32
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Milton Keynes-on-sea
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another point worth noting is that the GT110 at 50 tonnes weight only has a DBP of 35.3 tonnes. If the A380, which is still attached to it, weighed anything significantly over say 520 tonnes, the tractor wont push it or pull it. Whether this contributes to the end result is not clear at this time.
falcon12 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 16:10
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,449
Received 73 Likes on 40 Posts
Looking at the photo in #7, the tug cab has been lifted up and pushed sideways, its front left tyre has been deflated, and the tow bar is still connected at both ends and is bent. The tugs wheels are not turned, but are pointing more or less straight ahead.

The tug could not have caused this by driving into the nose gear because if it had, it would not end up 90 degrees to the aircraft, it would be more head-on. You can't drive into something sideways !

So the aircraft must have moved forwards - due to excessive engine thrust or ramp slope - which pushed against the tug and eventually bent the towbar. Then the aircraft hit the tug, turning it and and pushing it sideways, which deflated the front tyre probably by pushing it away from the rim, releasing the air. The tow bar shear pins probably did not let go because the force was mostly along the towbar, not twisting it sideways.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2016, 17:01
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Again, what we're looking at from the pictures is the aftermath -- not the full accident sequence.

E.g., engine start, tow bar snaps, tug immediately impacts plane / nose gear with high force. Then only afterwards the aircraft moves forward and drags the tug to final position we see in the pictures.

Or any number of alternative scenarios...
peekay4 is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2016, 13:13
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Milton Keynes-on-sea
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Uplinker
Agree with your summary of the events and would add it looks like the tractor is in 4 wheel steer mode.
Aircraft hit the tractor and no doubt the enquiry will establish how they manged to do that.
falcon12 is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2016, 13:38
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AC moved under its own power without confirming tug released .
fatbus is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2016, 09:07
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,405
Received 89 Likes on 40 Posts
Car42ze

Why would you disconnect the headset before the two bar? As a standard safety procedure I disconnect headset only after two bar and tug a clear of the nose gear area then and only then pull the steering lockout pin after clearance has been given from the flight deck.
1. The lead should be long enough. If it isn't get a new lead.
2. We have a three people on the push back. Driver, headset man and assistant to handle tow bar.

Unless it's a towbarless tug in which case only two are required, driver and headset.
TURIN is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2016, 10:28
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 223
Received 12 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by fatbus
AC moved under its own power without confirming tug released .
What's your factual source for this statement?
Bleve is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2016, 11:16
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 625
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unless it's a towbarless tug in which case only two are required, driver and headset.
In your neck of the woods. Where I am, however, it's all done by a single person. Head-set is of the bluetooth variety, so no cords to contend with. If we're using a tow bar, it's a two-man job. But we only use tow bars as a last resort back-up.

During my time in the business, 9 times out of 10 when a push-back has gone wrong, it's the flight-deck who's been ahead of themselves. That's the main reason a chock is placed in front of the nose wheel before disconnecting tow bar; to minimise the risk of getting run over by a crew, who releases the brakes without clear signal from the ground. Have seen that happen too many times to remember. Funny thing is, when it happens the airline always have a phalanx of excuses, and as good as never revises any procedures as a consequence. But if the handling agent gets it wrong just once, perhaps snapping a shear pin, the airlines want blood, procedure revisions, updated risk assessments, read & signs, staff briefings and what not. We once had an incident just like that, and was hammered by the airline from Atlanta. The very next day, skipper released brakes and the operator on the ground was only saved by the nose chock. I naturally turned the tables and requested the same from Atlanta, as Atlanta did from us. It all got very, very silent after that. Probably around a year ago now, still haven't heard from them.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2016, 12:22
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the subject of checklists,procedures,and taxi clearance....
We are so very procedurally oriented that breaking the chain can often have undesirable results..."Flap 5,taxi clearance "... can go out of the window,if the taxi clearance is given,(and received) during pushback..
This caught me,one night,out of Dubai...made me very grumpy with ATC,until i analysed the real cause of taxi without Flap....Me!...
The correct measure of discipline will help to avoid these issues.

" But for the grace of god"
Yaw String is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2016, 13:42
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I imagine a new nose gear is called for.

Tow truck pulling a China Southern Airlines plane at LAX COLLIDES with the aircraft | Daily Mail Online
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2016, 03:39
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From my sources..... ........

APU was inop. Two outboard engines started at the gate. It was gate 159 that requires a nearly 180 degree turn during the pushback onto taxiway C. For some reason, it was decided to return to the gate by tow with the engines still running. While in the tight turn back toward the gate was when this happened. "Brake, Brake, Brake" was yelled to the pilot when control was lost but obviously, by the time brakes were applied the damage was done.

No doubt there is a lot of inertia if you are towing a heavy A380 in a tight turn and want to slow down. Some airlines do have a max number of engines to be running while being towed forward and/or a maximum speed. This could be an example of why.
JammedStab is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.