Sign in to follow this  
GDR

Tarmac accident at YYZ

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, J.O. said:

Maybe, maybe not. The extinguisher isn’t designed to put out a fuel fire that is outside the APU shroud, and it’s highly likely that this was a ruptured fuel line that caught fire. 

A ruptured fuel line is exactly what the apu fire extinguisher would put out.  The bottle discharges outside the apu and inside the shroud.  The inside of the engine is always on fire :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be a guy in the flight deck, properly trained in APU operation and its related emergency procedures as well as operation of the required systems for brakes.

There should be a Tug driver and observer as well as AT LEAST one person on each wing tip that are paying attention. 

How many times have you witnessed (me...Yesterday) the wing walker just wandering alongside the aircraft, just going through the motions.  This inattentiveness is what causes accidents.  Everything is moving on the ramp and especially at night in a sea of lights it can be hard to pluck out the dangers if you are not paying attention.  This is why those procedures are in place.

I know some on here will remember the AC 747 being pushed on the gate (maintenance tow) that was struck by a catering truck.  Massive damage due to inattentiveness.  This was even before Cell Phones.  500K pounds of aluminum with red flashing lights wasn't enough to catch this guys attention.

As long as people are complacent this will continue

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen a couple of these tow operations and there are often lots of shortcuts.... often communication between the cockpit and tractor is by pressing the ground call button, not by voice. What could go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there is no direct communication with the cockpit then the HORN on the tug is the preferred method in an emergency.  However the Tug driver never even acknowledged the call from apron control to stop, at least that I heard on the ATC recording provided.

These guys got caught not paying attention and paid the price.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m telling you guys, they often do not have anyone onboard. Someone will go up and release the brakes prior to the tow, and then go down to ride in the tug. When they arrive at the destination gate, they will throw some chocks under the wheels and drive away. I’ve seen it done many times.

Edited by conehead
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, boestar said:

It does not have to be an AME but the person must be trained in the procedures.

My current and previous airlines only had AME’s. Was/is a very strict rule. But you’re right and it’s up to each company. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, boestar said:

A ruptured fuel line is exactly what the apu fire extinguisher would put out.  The bottle discharges outside the apu and inside the shroud.  The inside of the engine is always on fire :ph34r:

The fuel supply line is also outside the shroud and from what I'm being told, that's the most likely area for the damage to have occurred.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, J.O. said:

The fuel supply line is also outside the shroud and from what I'm being told, that's the most likely area for the damage to have occurred.

The "shroud" in a 737NG is the compartment itself. There is no separate shroud around the APU like there was on the 737-100 to -500. Once the wing punctured the containment area it allowed the fire to break out. All-in-all I think that both airplanes dodged a bullet. Good job by the fire department!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yet another..wing / winglet clip .  3 in a few days, are the clearance distances not taking into account the extra span of the winglets or???? 

  • Atlas 747 wing clips Miami Air 737 at Baltimore

Atlas 747 wing clips Miami Air 737 at Baltimore

  • 08 January, 2018
  • SOURCE: Flight Dashboard
  • BY: Jon Hemmerdinger
  • Boston

The right wingtip of an Atlas Air passenger Boeing 747-400 hit the horizontal stabiliser of a Miami Air International 737-800 at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall airport on 7 January.

The Federal Aviation Administration confirms the collision, which it says occurred at about 22:15 local time as the Atlas aircraft was taxiing for departure.

The FAA, which is still investigating, says the Miami Air 737 was parked at the time it was hit.

"It appears the winglet of the 747 made contact with another aircraft. All passengers and crew on both aircraft are safe and without injury," Atlas says in a statement to FlightGlobal. "We are continuing our investigation and cooperating with the FAA."

Atlas does not identify the exact aircraft, but Flightradar24.com shows that 747-400 registration N465MC was in Baltimore on 7 January.

 

Charter carrier Miami Air International did not respond to an inquiry from FlightGlobal. The carrier operates seven 737-800s, and two of those aircraft – registration N732MA and N750MA – were in Baltimore around 7 January.

Atlas Air is a subsidiary of charter and cargo carrier Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, based in Purchase, New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word on the street (completely unsubstantiated) is that the Sunwing aircraft is a write-off.  Apparently Boeing sent a team to assess the damage, which is expected, and they found too much heat stress to major assemblies in the tail to sign it off as serviceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awhile ago I spent some time working with two aircraft insurance investigators. Over a two day period I had the most interesting conversations with them about how and when damaged aircraft are recovered or repaired. I’ve also met an entire Boeing repair team. Most of them were Boeing assembly line workers who had years of experience building their planes. They told me there wasn’t too much they couldn’t repair. Although, I suppose the costs of repair today may prevent some work from ever being attempted.

From the photo of the SW 737 it’s hard to believe this Boeing cannot be repaired and returned to service. 

 

0757E3C1-6997-48E7-9942-72719AF7078B.jpeg

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, conehead said:

Anything can be repaired, it all depends on how much the insurance company is willing to spend.

I think that’s probably the situation. If seekers info is accurate we may be seeing some orange paint on the bottom of our beer cans this summer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no inside info but I can't see it being a write-off. If it was 10 plus years old maybe but it's not even 2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Boeing Response teams are hand picked from the guys on the floor at the assembly plane.  Must be single and eligible to travel anywhere in the world.  They will spend as little as 3 weeks at home during a 2 year deployment.  of course this is dependent on what comes up.

They are dispatched with all of the necessary build documents and drawings for the specific tail.

The heat stress undoubtedly is confined to the tail cone and empenage area.  It could be repaired but this would require removal and replacement of the entire tail section of the aircraft.

$$$$$$$$ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day the insurers will make the call based on their analysis of the cost of both options. The cost of the down time is a significant factor, particularly if the operator has commitments that require availability that the repair timeline can't meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Passengers with bags slowed WestJet 737 evacuation: TSB

11 July, 2018

  | SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com

  | BY: Jon Hemmerdinger

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has again called attention to the problem of passengers carrying luggage during emergency aircraft evacuations. 

Passengers on a WestJet Boeing 737-800 slowed an evacuation earlier this year by bringing bags, says the TSB, marking the latest in a string of similar incidents that caught safety investigators' attention. 

"Numerous passengers brought carry-on baggage with them, which slowed down the evacuation process," says the TSB's report into the 5 January fire and emergency evacuation of WestJet flight 2425 at Toronto Pearson International airport.

"Investigations into several other occurrences that involved emergency evacuations found that, as in this occurrence, passengers often attempt to retrieve their carry-on baggage during an emergency evacuation," says the report, released 11 July. 

After landing at Toronto, the WestJet pilots temporarily stopped the 737 (registration C-FDMB) behind and perpendicular to a Sunwing Airlines 737-800 (registration C-FPRP). 

At that time, tow operators employed by Swissport International began pushing back the Sunwing aircraft, which was empty other than a maintenance technician in the cockpit. The Sunwing 737's auxiliary power unit (APU) was running, the TSB says. 

The Sunwing 737's tail struck the WestJet 737's right wing, and "a large ball of fire erupted", says the TSB. 

The WestJet pilots ordered an evacuation. 

Meanwhile, the tow operator pulled the Sunwing 737 away. The fire on WestJet 737 extinguished by itself and firefighters extinguished the fire on the Sunwing aircraft. 

The TSB found that Swissport failed to follow its procedures by not using "wing walkers" to guide the Sunwing aircraft. 

But the board also says the incident highlights the problem of passengers bringing carry-on luggage during evacuations. 

Although WestJet's flight attendants told passengers during the evacuation not to take bags, some passengers took them anyway, the TSB says. 

It notes that WestJet's pre-flight safety briefings do not address the luggage-during-evacuation issue, the TSB adds. 

But neither do other airlines' briefings, says the TSB, which conducted a survey of safety briefings. 

"None of the briefings on the observed flights provided this type of instruction to the passengers at any point before or during the flight," the TSB's report says. 

The TSB addressed the same issue in 2007, when it recommended that Transport Canada require that safety briefings include instructions not to carry luggage during evacuations. 

That recommendation responded to the August 2005 overrun of an Air France Airbus A340 at Toronto – an incident in which passengers also evacuated with carry-on bags. 

Transport Canada subsequently addressed the issue in voluntary guidance, but has not taken regulatory action, TSB says. 

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has also addressed the same concern. 

In response to a 2016 evacuation of an American Airlines 767-200 in Chicago, the NTSB in February recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration study the issue of luggage being carried during evacuations. 

The FAA said it would respond to the recommendation by April 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the TSB is missing the point: if people aren't complying with evacuation instructions being shouted at them during an actual emergency, they aren't going to pay any more attention to an amended pre-flight safety briefing than they do now. It's just going to take a bit more militancy from the folks trapped at the back of the aircraft directed at the oafs up front who are blocking the aisle while they recover their baggage. Should I ever find myself in that predicament, rest assured that any veneer of courtesy is going to go out the window pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way you will prevent people from taking their carryon's with them in an evacuation is to ban all carry on items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just throwing it out there but dont you turn off the fasten seatbelt sign for an evacuation 😎

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, boestar said:

just throwing it out there but dont you turn off the fasten seatbelt sign for an evacuation 😎

You’d think so but that switch is not on my current aircraft’s evac checklist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rich Pulman said:

Why not just have a mechanism that locks the overhead bins while the seatbelt sign is on? Or something along those lines.

That would be possible but I would bet the resulting cost / weight penalty would negate such an idea based of course on the overall risk factor (number of flights / number of evacuations / loss of life due to delayed in evacuation caused by carryon baggage removal).  In other words the bean count would rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, boestar said:

just throwing it out there but dont you turn off the fasten seatbelt sign for an evacuation 😎

Jazz policy is to turn off the seatbelt sign for an evacuation.  It’s the second item after the FO advises ATC the aircraft is evacuating.

Don’t know why it wouldn’t be on every checklist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this