APRIL 2013 GROUND HANDLING INTERNATIONAL Economy drive for a B737
Here, the B737 was on tow along the taxi-way when the towbar shear pins happened to snap. The aircraft then rolled to a stop, thankfully without coming into contact with any obstruction or injuring a member of the ground crew. Immediately after the incident the aircraft was chocked by the ground crew. The aircraft sustained damage to the power lead socket pins and the fl ap when the power lead from the tug became disconnected during the event.
It was discovered later that in this
procedure there was a pre-existing agreement between the operator and the handling agent that saw the APU switched off during a ground tow. This is certainly not standard practice: any aircraft being towed requires someone riding in the cockpit to man the brakes, especially where longer journeys that might involve pauses before crossing other taxi-ways are envisaged. Getting those brakes fully functional requires an APU so it is unclear why this was not the recommended procedure in this incident. The carrier and handler were fortunate indeed that the aircraft
did not leave the taxi-way and become embedded in softer terrain.
Wind blast moves parked aircraft into tanker
Here, yet another B737 came unstuck when strong winds turned the nose of the aircraft into a fuel truck that was parked adjacent to it on the tarmac. According to reports received, the airport in question experienced sustained wind speeds of some 25-30 mph, with gusting attaining a speed of 61 mph. This was enough to forcibly shift the nose, resulting in an impact with the refueller. It is not known whether the aircraft was suffi ciently chocked at the time of the incident nor why the refueller was so close. On the plus side, there were no reported injuries and there were no passengers or staff on board at the time of incident. According to past experience, if you chock both the nosegear and main
RAMP SAFETY BRIEFING 61
wheels it is not a good practice, since in the event of consistently windy weather, inertia builds up and has no means of escape: in consequence, the aircraft will move. Correct procedures involve chocking only the main gear, leaving some “play” available at the front end. It’s advisable, too, to leave plenty of fuel in the forward tanks to help stability. Finally, when the weather turns and wind is expected, it’s also sensible to ensure that any adjacent GSE is well outside the circle of safety.
Want to do more?
Don’t forget that Ground Handling International will be organising the second “Working together to reduce ground damage” stakeholders’ meeting. This year’s event will be held in Barcelona. For more details, see page 61 of this issue or log on to
http://www.groundhandling.com/ reducinggrounddamage/
Have you some safety news or a safety episode that you’d like to share with readers? Write in the fi rst instance to the Editor:
alwyn@groundhandling.com
Ground Damage 2013.2. ai-2.pdf 1 26/03/2013 13:32
Take advantage of the 15% early bird discount offer!
2nd Working together to reduce Aircraft Ground Damage Stakeholder’s Meeting Venue: Tryp Apolo Hotel, Barcelona September 16th-17th 2013
What are the aims of the 2013 meeting? M Y Y Y The main areas for this second meeting will focus on the following:
GSE design and operation - we can design, build and operate safer GSE on the ramp Human factors - a fresh approach to training If the industry manages to collect meaningful ground damage data, how do we benefit from it? IGOM and GOMs - just how many ground operational manuals do we need? Do we need a regulator on the ramp?
Download the booking form from:
www.groundhandling.com/reducinggrounddamage Sponsors
Special presentations from: Airbus NLR Air Transport Safety Institute TLD JBT Aerotech Lufthansa Leos Leading international airlines
The clear message arising from the 2012 meeting was that each stakeholder perceives the problem in a different manner. The challenge we face, then, is that of trying to merge these groups’ individual goals. What is required is a joint industry approach in order to reduce the frequency of aircraft ground damage whilst improving ramp safety levels.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68