Pushback incidents with parking brake set?
You’ll save more by leaving them on all the
time, it’s the cycling on and off that wears them out
time, it’s the cycling on and off that wears them out
Last edited by eckhard; 4th Feb 2018 at 10:56.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Brussels
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimbo2Papa
Not if the bulb indicates "Brakes NOT set", in that case a bulb failure would indicate as if the brakes were set and the ground will contact you to release brakes... even if they are already.
Not if the bulb indicates "Brakes NOT set", in that case a bulb failure would indicate as if the brakes were set and the ground will contact you to release brakes... even if they are already.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bae146 NLG Broken off.
Aeons ago, I was F/O on a Dan-Air Bae146 at AMS, closed up and ready to go, tug attached with driver in situ, but no comms via the headset.
We became aware of movement of the 'frame and a heavy vibration as the (solo) driver/crew revved his engine to try to push us back with the Park Brake still ON.
This was followed by a very loud BANG and a lurch as the nose of the aircraft sank towards the concrete, accompanied by the continuous sound of the "U/C not locked down below 160 kts" horn which added to the general air of "WTF!"
Following the sudden miraculous appearance of many spectators staring at the obvious damage and the eventual insertion of railway sleepers with padding under the buckled forward fuselage skin, we disembarked the pax in preselected cabin sections, in order to minimise the total weight shift of disembarkation and possible further sudden settlement.
We found out later the damge totalled £250k (late 1980s money) and the tug driver was found not to have made verbal contact nor had he retracted the towbar wheels IAW SOPs, thereby defeating the purpose of the towbar shearpin.
We were immediately suspended, post accident, so off to Duty-Free and buy some grog for our (now) passenger flight home with another carrier.
The only caution I can take from this accident is the advice not to allow one's hand(s) to appear on/above the coaming at this critical time, just in case the groundcrew, who may be operating with a duff headset or external I/C socket U/S, see fingers tapping impatiently on the coaming and interpret it as the open fist of a "brakes-off" hand signal. Not that that was considered a factor in this case.
We became aware of movement of the 'frame and a heavy vibration as the (solo) driver/crew revved his engine to try to push us back with the Park Brake still ON.
This was followed by a very loud BANG and a lurch as the nose of the aircraft sank towards the concrete, accompanied by the continuous sound of the "U/C not locked down below 160 kts" horn which added to the general air of "WTF!"
Following the sudden miraculous appearance of many spectators staring at the obvious damage and the eventual insertion of railway sleepers with padding under the buckled forward fuselage skin, we disembarked the pax in preselected cabin sections, in order to minimise the total weight shift of disembarkation and possible further sudden settlement.
We found out later the damge totalled £250k (late 1980s money) and the tug driver was found not to have made verbal contact nor had he retracted the towbar wheels IAW SOPs, thereby defeating the purpose of the towbar shearpin.
We were immediately suspended, post accident, so off to Duty-Free and buy some grog for our (now) passenger flight home with another carrier.
The only caution I can take from this accident is the advice not to allow one's hand(s) to appear on/above the coaming at this critical time, just in case the groundcrew, who may be operating with a duff headset or external I/C socket U/S, see fingers tapping impatiently on the coaming and interpret it as the open fist of a "brakes-off" hand signal. Not that that was considered a factor in this case.
Park Brake Set (orange)
Brakes On (red)
Brakes Off (blue)
I think.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the difference between Park Brake Set & Brakes On? Is one the selector and the other the brake pads? I hope they also have words and not just colours.
But back to some earlier comments. Some manufacturers have decided in their wisdom after committee meetings and historical events, to spend money, voluntarily, to include these lights on modern a/c; similar to DRL's & hi-level brake lights before they became mandatory. It would seem this is deemed sound investment to avoid expensive screw ups. I suggested it might become mandatory, but on reflection, it could be considered by EASA & FAA not to contribute to flight safety. Any screw up is only a financial penalty to the airline and/or ground handler. When I suggested why it doesn't become more widespread that was shot down on the basis of cost; and yet we are told modern Boeings & Airbuses have them installed, voluntarily. A few bucks above the lowest U$60m price tag seems trivial. On a U$180m hull it is negligible. Seems common sense has a low price threshold.
Have the modern B737 family got them fitted? Remember the cargo fire extinguisher debate. It was not deemed necessary as the original design Class D? was still the same, and it was going to be too expensive to retro-fit the world's fleet of mediums. The debate was caused by an unlawful act by one carrier. However, the design was incorporated, at significant cost, to all new manufactured. And the last cargo fire on the class worldwide was.....? The last attempted brakes on push back worldwide was......?
But back to some earlier comments. Some manufacturers have decided in their wisdom after committee meetings and historical events, to spend money, voluntarily, to include these lights on modern a/c; similar to DRL's & hi-level brake lights before they became mandatory. It would seem this is deemed sound investment to avoid expensive screw ups. I suggested it might become mandatory, but on reflection, it could be considered by EASA & FAA not to contribute to flight safety. Any screw up is only a financial penalty to the airline and/or ground handler. When I suggested why it doesn't become more widespread that was shot down on the basis of cost; and yet we are told modern Boeings & Airbuses have them installed, voluntarily. A few bucks above the lowest U$60m price tag seems trivial. On a U$180m hull it is negligible. Seems common sense has a low price threshold.
Have the modern B737 family got them fitted? Remember the cargo fire extinguisher debate. It was not deemed necessary as the original design Class D? was still the same, and it was going to be too expensive to retro-fit the world's fleet of mediums. The debate was caused by an unlawful act by one carrier. However, the design was incorporated, at significant cost, to all new manufactured. And the last cargo fire on the class worldwide was.....? The last attempted brakes on push back worldwide was......?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can surely tell you from personal experience it was at least last week.
I reckon the combination of park brake light + standard (ICAO) RT would cut down a lot of those incidents.
For the poster who thought it would be a "potential disaster" if the light became standard and then it would be inop for some reason, the A320 MEL states that for this light to be inop, efficient communication with the ground crew should be used. Just the standard RT would go great lengths in adding to safety in those scenarios.
For the moment, I'd reckon that if the crew is always to check the status of the brakes, it would be quite helpful, particularly at the "before pushback" stage since it seems the main difference in SOPs, based on what others have said here, is the initial brake release before push. I.e.: "cockpit to ground, cleared to push, may I release the brakes?" This way it's always the pilot who is getting confirmation of what to do, sort of "leading" the manoeuvre, and avoiding confusion to the ground crew who may otherwise forget or mix up different SOPs (in the case of a handling agent)
I reckon the combination of park brake light + standard (ICAO) RT would cut down a lot of those incidents.
For the poster who thought it would be a "potential disaster" if the light became standard and then it would be inop for some reason, the A320 MEL states that for this light to be inop, efficient communication with the ground crew should be used. Just the standard RT would go great lengths in adding to safety in those scenarios.
For the moment, I'd reckon that if the crew is always to check the status of the brakes, it would be quite helpful, particularly at the "before pushback" stage since it seems the main difference in SOPs, based on what others have said here, is the initial brake release before push. I.e.: "cockpit to ground, cleared to push, may I release the brakes?" This way it's always the pilot who is getting confirmation of what to do, sort of "leading" the manoeuvre, and avoiding confusion to the ground crew who may otherwise forget or mix up different SOPs (in the case of a handling agent)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airstairs, Apu and Self-Maneuver stand!
Love it!
Anyone wants to quality proof the SOP, try it in Spain for a while.
SOP works great if ground crew understands English,
Had a MAD crew do destructive testing on my nosegear last month.
Turned out it is very strong. Pushing!
Love it!
Anyone wants to quality proof the SOP, try it in Spain for a while.
SOP works great if ground crew understands English,
Had a MAD crew do destructive testing on my nosegear last month.
Turned out it is very strong. Pushing!
In Airbus world the park brakes are set by a rotary switch.
Re: 737, I'm guessing that due to the design, with the nose leg being so short any lights would be so low down as to be next to useless.
The lights are there on other types as an added indication to the tug driver I assume as the headset man is usually stood off to one side out of sight of the lights.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On modern aircraft there should be shear pins at the tow hook attach points which are weaker than the aircraft and will fail when you try to move an aircraft with the brakes set.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: planet earth
Age: 59
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Escape Path
"cockpit to ground, cleared to push, may I release the brakes?" This way it's always the pilot who is getting confirmation of what to do, sort of "leading" the manoeuvre, and avoiding confusion to the ground crew
In my original post I suggested that the best communication method would be NOT to talk about the pushback clearance UNTIL the parking brake IS released.
cockpit: "May I release the brakes?"
ground: "Affirm, release brakes"
cockpit: "Parking brake is released. We're ready for pushback."
ground: "Affirm, release brakes"
cockpit: "Parking brake is released. We're ready for pushback."
Comments welcome!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagree - you have been cleared by ATC to push, ATC have NOT cleared you to release the parking brake, YOU do not release the park brake until ground have told you it is safe to do so, as they are the only ones who can see if it is safe to do so.
Standard call is
Cockpit crew to Ground crew “Confirm all doors checked closed and locked”.
Ground crew to Cockpit crew “All doors checked closed and locked”
Cockpit crew to Ground crew “cleared to pushback” (+ instructions on where/which way to face etc)
Ground crew to Cockpit crew “Pushback to face… (+ repeat the instruction of
where/which way to face). Release parking brake.”
Note: The request to the crew to release the park brake should only be made once “all doors closed and locked” statement has been made. See above.
Cockpit crew to Ground crew “All doors checked closed. Parking brake off. Blocks off
at …..”
Standard call is
Cockpit crew to Ground crew “Confirm all doors checked closed and locked”.
Ground crew to Cockpit crew “All doors checked closed and locked”
Cockpit crew to Ground crew “cleared to pushback” (+ instructions on where/which way to face etc)
Ground crew to Cockpit crew “Pushback to face… (+ repeat the instruction of
where/which way to face). Release parking brake.”
Note: The request to the crew to release the park brake should only be made once “all doors closed and locked” statement has been made. See above.
Cockpit crew to Ground crew “All doors checked closed. Parking brake off. Blocks off
at …..”
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: planet earth
Age: 59
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@spannersatcx
Hi, you're completely missing the point here.
Obviously I'm not talking about all the other stuff that needs to be done before starting like checklists, ground checks, closing doors, getting start/pushback clearance from atc (or the groundcrew getting it), etc...
The only thing I'm trying to make clear is that it would be wiser not to use the word "pushback/push" or telling the ground crew that you're ready or cleared to do so until the parking brake is released. (After the groundcrew's permission to release them of course, as stated in my previous post.
)
I would hope this gets implemented in SOP's in those companies that don't do this yet. Usually SOPs only get changed after damage is done and lives are lost. THAT is a pity!
Hi, you're completely missing the point here.
Obviously I'm not talking about all the other stuff that needs to be done before starting like checklists, ground checks, closing doors, getting start/pushback clearance from atc (or the groundcrew getting it), etc...
The only thing I'm trying to make clear is that it would be wiser not to use the word "pushback/push" or telling the ground crew that you're ready or cleared to do so until the parking brake is released. (After the groundcrew's permission to release them of course, as stated in my previous post.
)I would hope this gets implemented in SOP's in those companies that don't do this yet. Usually SOPs only get changed after damage is done and lives are lost. THAT is a pity!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: EU
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you so concerned about this? You started the thread asking if anyone knew of accidents during pushback with parking brake set.
I assume you don't know of any, nor the pprune community by the look of it. Certainly Google doesn't.
So it would appear the risk is relatively low, as long as people stick to standard calls and sop.
Perhaps the towbar is designed to give before the gear assembly.
Perhaps you worrying too much about it.
I assume you don't know of any, nor the pprune community by the look of it. Certainly Google doesn't.
So it would appear the risk is relatively low, as long as people stick to standard calls and sop.
Perhaps the towbar is designed to give before the gear assembly.
Perhaps you worrying too much about it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: planet earth
Age: 59
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume you don't know of any, nor the PPRuNe community by the look of it. Certainly Google doesn't.
A brief Google search found this:
http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...2002_015-0.PDF
So it would appear the risk is relatively low, as long as people stick to standard calls and sop.
Perhaps the towbar is designed to give before the gear assembly.
Perhaps you worrying too much about it.
