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

UA 777 too heavy for two tugs

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

UA 777 too heavy for two tugs

Old 4th Jul 2021, 00:50
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ft. Collins, Colorado USA
Age: 89
Posts: 211
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is the tires that are smoking as they slip. Remember from many moons ago difficulty in pushbacks. Problem was that B707 and DC-8 didn't have APU's. The generators on the back of the Hough tugs were finicky and the long length of the ground power cable a pain so, to avoid a pushback with no lights in the cabin they would often start one engine on the gate prior to pushback. The Hough's at LASI NY were fitted with carbide studded tires for winter. Had one of these dig some interesting cavities into the cement of the tarmac as the wheels spun. Port Authority was not amused. Easter Air Lines did powerbacks with engines in later years. Machinist Union was not happy as it eliminated need for tug and driver which of course was reason for doing it.
Was up in YYZ once in a major storm. The B747 on the gate next to us had been deiced and they tried to pushback but no hope of traction even with chains. They requested a little reverse thrust, flight crew a little too enthusiastic and the blast blew windows, bag carts, etc.
Even back in the days of Connies and DC-6 pulling a plane into the hangar with a CT-120 tug could be difficult. The hangar floors are smooth, not like the tarmac or ramp outside. Even a wet floor with a little dripped oil could defeat it. Have had whole crew of mechanics get on the tug for weight and Zorball sawdust liberally spread.
tonytales is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2021, 15:51
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, UK ;
Age: 70
Posts: 1,150
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
The vehicles on the back of stand road are doing nothing wrong as there is a guy positioned out there to protect the pushback by stopping the traffic (there is probably another out of shot to the cameras right) when it gets far enough back. There is nobody on the headset to the flightdeck so I suspect this is a tow to reposition the aircraft and its brakes haven’t fully released. The tug should be plenty man enough.

Last edited by Dave Gittins; 4th Jul 2021 at 16:10.
Dave Gittins is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2021, 00:33
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
NutLoose

'Track', singular. A sign of not having the tug differential locks (if so equipped) properly engaged. As anyone who has driven a proper 4x4 knows, open differentials end up giving you 'one wheel drive'. With the other three wheels producing little if any force.
EEngr is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2021, 23:34
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought that the larger, more sophisticated tugs had both cross and inter-axle locks.
Gipsy Queen is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2021, 01:54
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Automatically or manually engaged?
EEngr is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2021, 22:28
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have no idea but it shouldn't make any difference.
Gipsy Queen is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2021, 10:11
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
The update comment blames glycol contamination...

From Youtube:




Stephan Segraves
259 subscribersThis United 777 was set to leave Chicago O'Hare for Honolulu when it hit a small snag.... Being too heavy for the tug. And then being too heavy for the second tug. If you want to see how this ends: https://youtu.be/QqqAZKCStF8

[UPDATE] Apparently a lot of this has to do with glycol being on the ground and not with the weight of the plane. It still strikes me as odd that the ground crew tried to use a second tug to push the plane back.
FlexibleResponse is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.