Jump to content

Tarmac accident at YYZ


GDR

Recommended Posts

I understand that and agree. It just hit me that, for what's there, I thought that some things should have been stated much more clearly both before and after the impact. While the clarity of the transmission might have been due to the quality of the receiver, in a quasi emergency (and all the time, really) pilots should make every transmission count and be as clear as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Notwithstanding any possible communications misunderstanding between the ramp control and the two aircraft, the only way SW could have been pushed into another aircraft that was behind is either no wing walkers, or failure of wing walkers to effectively communicate to the tug driver that the area behind the aircraft was NOT clear, or that the tug driver was not monitoring the wing walkers.

It will be interesting to get the full facts of the event. And yes, it was an expensive error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, rudder said:

Notwithstanding any possible communications misunderstanding between the ramp control and the two aircraft, the only way SW could have been pushed into another aircraft that was behind is either no wing walkers, or failure of wing walkers to effectively communicate to the tug driver that the area behind the aircraft was NOT clear, or that the tug driver was not monitoring the wing walkers.

It will be interesting to get the full facts of the event. And yes, it was an expensive error.

Also of course perhaps one or both of the aircraft were out of "normal" position on the ramp.  Re wingwalkers, we may never know but ...... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at this picture, it does appear that the fire did effect the WestJet wing tip. Evac call was therefore the right one, as if there should have been any doubt raised by those of us who were not there. Good call by the WestJet flight crew..

30293307-3E79-4EFC-AED4-BB497581584E.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overheard earlier today at Parts ‘R Us.

”Let’s see, I need one APU, one...no two elevators, perhaps an entire horizontal stabilizer, two bags of rivets, some sheet metal preferably not from China and some orange paint.” 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, conehead said:

They will be fired, but that’s no big deal for them. They can get a job anywhere that pays the same.

Ontario $14/hr minimum wage soon to be $15/hr. One can work indoors serving coffee and make the same pay as working outdoors in the harsh winter conditions pushing around multi million dollar assets.

So long as any employer continues to practice a ‘lowest pay’ philosophy in jobs where mistakes have serious and expensive consequences there will be the possibility of unfortunate mishaps.

This could have ended with an outcome much worse than just significant damage to two aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2018 at 3:46 PM, Malcolm said:

Looking at this picture, it does appear that the fire did effect the WestJet wing tip. Evac call was therefore the right one, as if there should have been any doubt raised by those of us who were not there. Good call by the WestJet flight crew..

 

How far outboard do the 737 fuel tanks extend? I think it was a good call to evacuate the WJ aircraft. Did everyone go out the same side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Moon The Loon said:

How far outboard do the 737 fuel tanks extend? I think it was a good call to evacuate the WJ aircraft. Did everyone go out the same side?

Looks like they didn’t use the 2R door. I think the appearance of flames help the make the call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok the brakeman on the aircraft must be trained in APU operation INCLUDING a fire shutdown.  Do we know if the bottles were discharged and the APU caged?  That should have minimized the propagation of the fire.

The handling of communication by the tow crew was pathetic at best.  There should also have been wing walkers that actually pay attention instead of their usual leisurely stroll next to the plane.

There are some serious training holes in this whole incident.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, boestar said:

ok the brakeman on the aircraft must be trained in APU operation INCLUDING a fire shutdown.  Do we know if the bottles were discharged and the APU caged?  That should have minimized the propagation of the fire.

The handling of communication by the tow crew was pathetic at best.  There should also have been wing walkers that actually pay attention instead of their usual leisurely stroll next to the plane.

There are some serious training holes in this whole incident.

 

I think you’ve nailed the problem. I doubt their training is anywhere near what it should be for this type of work. Such a dangerous environment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Headline from the article posted by Conehead.

"Transportation Safety Board weighs possible investigation after planes collide at Pearson"

According to the article, the TSB has sent a couple of investigators in to investigate the event so they could determine whether an investigation is needed? Really; where's the threshold when it comes to investigating preventable , injurious & potentially life threatening events anymore? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blues deville said:

I think you’ve nailed the problem. I doubt their training is anywhere near what it should be for this type of work. Such a dangerous environment. 

Was there anyone on the flight deck of the SW aircraft during the tow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, boestar said:

ok the brakeman on the aircraft must be trained in APU operation INCLUDING a fire shutdown.  Do we know if the bottles were discharged and the APU caged?  That should have minimized the propagation of the fire.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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. 

I agree. I think contact with the winglet cut or ruptured the fuel line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, conehead said:

If they use one of those tugs that picks up the nose wheel, I will bet money that there is no brakeman onboard. And often times, no wing walker.  Seen it done, many times.

Even with that type of tug someone has to be inside to set/release brakes requiring knowledge of related systems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

Was there anyone on the flight deck of the SW aircraft during the tow?

Its mandatory to have a brake man in the cockpit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, blues deville said:

Not sure of their policy Moon but I still think you need a AME in the aircraft to power up hydraulics, release/set brakes, external lights, etc. I believe ATC comm can be done from either tug or aircraft. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...