EZY LGW-AMS pushed back onto grass
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I don't see any proof that they called for taxi and wanted to power out. Nor do I see any recordings of what the groundcrew told the pilots.
Rumour network all you want, but to me it seems people are far too happy to jump on the blame wagon.
Rumour network all you want, but to me it seems people are far too happy to jump on the blame wagon.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have very little understanding of design loads versus experimental. Hopping up out of a muddy rut onto a reinforced concrete ramp is not analyzed or tested in any way.
Amazing what arguments you guys are coming up with. While the fact is that nobody powered out of anything, and the aircraft is back flying as we speak.
EZY is pay to fly, not pay to think.
I like the way you use words noflynomore, enjoyable to read. I disagree with your angle on this though. Trying to tie it to the children of the magenta line is a real stretch. There are plenty of us who used to fly around with no automatics and who still do a three degree profile calculation constantly who would have recognised this as a rare situation where ( as 4468 said)
and as such made a decision to have this unusual situation resolved in a slow, measured, low risk fashion with suitable input from and Engineer who could assess the situation from the ground. If the Engineer requested some thrust be applied to gauge how effective that would be then that is fine, but to suggest that taking this measured approach is somehow related to being of a certain generation of pilots is demonstrating a need to lament how things used to be. On that note, 2016 was the second safest year in aviation history based on accidents per flight. Doesn't seem like it with all the news and information flowing into your lounge via the interweb does it? Rest assured, the incidents used to happen but you just didn't know about it.
That's my take anyway.
Cheers
There is one undeniably safe course of action here. There is another course with unquantifiable risks.
That's my take anyway.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: london
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not a Jeep
People are specialised for a reason. Flying crew are not engineers and engineers are not flying crew. Each may know something about the other, but ultimately this is largely an engineering issue. Before doing anything, one needs to make an assessment of structural issues (e.g how deep is it in the mud. 2 inches in ice mud or 12 inches ?) . Can one put equivalent of planks under front of wheels to eases path etc. Does one need to offload ?
Sometimes lateral thinking , without knowing the boundaries can be dangerous.
Clinton also got stuck in the mud.
Sometimes lateral thinking , without knowing the boundaries can be dangerous.
Clinton also got stuck in the mud.
Your utterly unwarranted assumption re heading straight for t/o is exactly the irrational reaction I was trying to illustrate - I explained this quite clearly and despite that you have just jumped straight into accusatory remarks utterly contrary to any suggestion of mine and exactly as I was trying to illustrate!
No, it's no more unwarranted than your own assumption that, having got back onto the taxiway under power, the captain was going to head for the gate or the hangar instead of the runway.
The ground was well frozen. That makes it pretty much as hard as tarmac i'd suggest.
A chat with the ground could quickly confirm if the wheels were sinking in or not….
Now, what that Antonov did in the previous video is something else!
A chat with the ground could quickly confirm if the wheels were sinking in or not….
Now, what that Antonov did in the previous video is something else!
Gender Faculty Specialist
Dave R. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If you can drive out of it with judicious use of power, having ascertained the extent of the bog-down why on earth not?
Your utterly unwarranted assumption re heading straight for t/o is exactly the irrational reaction I was trying to illustrate - I explained this quite clearly and despite that you have just jumped straight into accusatory remarks utterly contrary to any suggestion of mine and exactly as I was trying to illustrate!
That just isn't rational, if I may say so.
Your utterly unwarranted assumption re heading straight for t/o is exactly the irrational reaction I was trying to illustrate - I explained this quite clearly and despite that you have just jumped straight into accusatory remarks utterly contrary to any suggestion of mine and exactly as I was trying to illustrate!
That just isn't rational, if I may say so.
Have you also ascertained the extent of any damage to the tyres, wheels, brakes, hydraulic lines etc? So you power out of the mess and then possibly can't stop...excellent idea.
Better off to lighten the load as much as possible before anyone attempts to do anything.
After being told on the headset (possibly with one engine already running) that the tug has pushed the aircraft onto the grass - and can't pull it forward - the responsibility of the Captain is to secure the aircraft, deal with the passengers and hand over to FOPS. It's certainly not his prerogative to ascertain whether the aircraft could/should be moved under its own power. Way above his pay scale and fraught with danger.
Having done all of the above, gather the crew and get a coffee, asking Crew Control what they plan to do with you all after such a traumatic incident (couple of de-stressing days off would be nice).
Having done all of the above, gather the crew and get a coffee, asking Crew Control what they plan to do with you all after such a traumatic incident (couple of de-stressing days off would be nice).
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a poster said a few back, what is this thread even about?
Does anyone have the R/T recording? - No one here does.
Does anyone know the actual sequence of events? - No one here has evidence
Does anyone know if the ground crew even told the F/D, yes sir we've pushed you too far, please don't move? - Sounds like answer is NO, if another company was the one to report to ATC that they were stuck!
Maybe we should wait for a few more facts, rather than beating each other up on what we would/would not have done. Its all academic
Have you considered that the captain actually hadn't got a clue he'd been pushed into the grass? In the absence of such knowledge, he would simply assume he is on the pavement still and hence the call for taxi
why are we all so quick to judge, save it for the facts that come out. Right now there aren't many
Does anyone have the R/T recording? - No one here does.
Does anyone know the actual sequence of events? - No one here has evidence
Does anyone know if the ground crew even told the F/D, yes sir we've pushed you too far, please don't move? - Sounds like answer is NO, if another company was the one to report to ATC that they were stuck!
Maybe we should wait for a few more facts, rather than beating each other up on what we would/would not have done. Its all academic
That makes no sense at all.
The only possible reason for a captain to even contemplate powering the aircraft back off the grass onto the taxiway would be that he/she intended to go flying.
If I had been a passenger on board during that manoeuvre, I'd have been heading for the exit PDQ.
The only possible reason for a captain to even contemplate powering the aircraft back off the grass onto the taxiway would be that he/she intended to go flying.
If I had been a passenger on board during that manoeuvre, I'd have been heading for the exit PDQ.
why are we all so quick to judge, save it for the facts that come out. Right now there aren't many
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A natural reaction
This was an understandable course of action, but it doesn't make it right. The thought of a tug heaving away on the nose gear is not good. Using engine thrust sounds a lot better. In this case it appears this crew wanted to go flying after being in the grass. But the problem with this is you have now been somewhere that has not been inspected and may have damaged your tyres, so you will need at least a quick once-over. But what do you write in the book? Assign you write down what has happened you will not be going flying. I can imagine a few phone calls between the engineers and the manufacturer and the "special" one-off inspections (to cover people's bums). The problem of our modern world and one I'll not miss when I retire.
The current regime under which most of us fly means that that we will not be rewarded for using common sense. The "system" would probably prefers us to fly legally into a mountain than illegally save our lives. But I'm guessing in this case engineers were close by, this was not a war zone and it was not a life-or-death situation so the best thing would have been to have thrown in the towel earlier.
In reality, aircraft are pretty tough and I doubt if any damage was done.
ps. I liked the pathetic request of the cabin crew for people to stop taking pictures. What is the point?
The current regime under which most of us fly means that that we will not be rewarded for using common sense. The "system" would probably prefers us to fly legally into a mountain than illegally save our lives. But I'm guessing in this case engineers were close by, this was not a war zone and it was not a life-or-death situation so the best thing would have been to have thrown in the towel earlier.
In reality, aircraft are pretty tough and I doubt if any damage was done.
ps. I liked the pathetic request of the cabin crew for people to stop taking pictures. What is the point?
Last edited by Piltdown Man; 4th Jan 2017 at 07:45. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T250 is correct; we have been assuming that this crew knew they were on the grass! If not, it changes the entire thread into something else.
Last edited by Piltdown Man; 4th Jan 2017 at 07:44. Reason: Deleted post before this one.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this case it appears this crew wanted to go flying after being in the grass.
Where is your evidence for this? Where have you all arrived at this assumption from?
To get to this assumption you are assuming:
1. Captain knew they were in grass, didn't care and intended to power out. There is no such evidence of this.
2. The ground crew/headset man actually admitted to the Captain he'd pushed him into the grass and therefore do not request taxi, don't move.
There is no such evidence of this.
3. In the absence of the above happening, how is Captain to know he's in the grass without an admission from ground crew or other external reference (ATC, other aircraft, passengers in cabin). Seems the ground crew did the push, then did nothing when it went wrong and just pi$$ed off as if nothing had happened!
4. It seems that there is ATC evidence/recording of another EZY company reporting over the R/T to the Captain in question something along the lines of 'are you aware you're in the grass'.
In light of this evidence, the Captain has obviously NOT been told by anyone else with external reference that the aircraft was in fact in the grass.
So on the basis of the above, the Captain actually knew very very little other than he had been pushed back. A standard pushback for 319/320 from stands 554-561. Until someone else (company EZY) actually told him they were in the grass, how can he be blamed for thinking and doing anything other than usual, 'Request taxi'.
But of course, don't let the facts above get in the way of EZY bashing, beating each other up and a good story for the press!