Ground accident at Melbourne airport - Australia

[MiTasol]

Not the first of this sort of accident at Melbourne. When Qantas's first A330 first arrived in Aus it was being towed from the terminal to the hangars when the same thing happened.

The Qantas accident was actually worse because the people towing the aircraft were too lazy to get the towbar out of the cargo locker and used a Boeing 767 towbar (near enuf is good enuf, eh mate) and when the aircraft overran the tug the impact was all on the #1 engine and cowling. Neither the cockpit crew who were riding the brakes or the tug driver were paying attention. This is what happens when you work for a company that tells the world it has never had an accident but in reality has had many including many fatals.

Neither accidents are on any official record as only accidents to aircraft that are in service are tracked here. (Makes Aussie look good and safe, eh mate).

Likewise the Ansett accident where the tug driver towed away an A320 while the catering truck was still servicing the aircraft, knocking over the catering truck and damaging the tailplane is not an accident under the Aus definition. Or the DC-10/MD-11 that skippy was unloading in the wrong order so that the aircraft reared up and sat on a loading unit. And many others .

Virgin plane collides with tug vehicle at Melbourne Airport

A Virgin Australia plane becomes disconnected from a tug vehicle and collides into it at Tullamarine airport.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not the first of this sort of accident at Melbourne. When Qantas's first A330 first arrived in Aus it was being towed from the terminal to the hangars when the same thing happened.

The Qantas accident was actually worse because the people towing the aircraft were too lazy to get the towbar out of the cargo locker and used a Boeing 767 towbar (near enuf is good enuf, eh mate) and when the aircraft overran the tug the impact was all on the #1 engine and cowling. Neither the cockpit crew who were riding the brakes or the tug driver were paying attention. This is what happens when you work for a company that tell the world it has never had an accident but in reality has had many including many fatals.

Neither accidents are on any official record as only accidents to aircraft that are in service are tracked here. (Makes Aussie look good and safe, eh mate).

Likewise the Ansett accident where the tug driver towed away an A320 while the catering truck was still servicing the aircraft, knocking over the catering truck and damaging the tailplane is not an accident under the Aus definition. Of the DC-10/MD-11 that skippy was unloading in the wrong order so that the aircraft reared up and sat on a loading unit. And many others .

Virgin plane collides with tug vehicle at Melbourne Airport

A Virgin Australia plane becomes disconnected from a tug vehicle and collides into it at Tullamarine airport.

www.abc.net.au

I can understand air foul-ups, plane isn't working right, weather is right heavy, you know, the perfect storm that sees too many die. But towing away while a catering truck is servicing?

 

[MiTasol]

Among others there was also the DC-9 that was attached to a tug at the Domestic terminal in Melbourne. That terminal, like many, is mainly open space at ground level so that tugs, maintenance equipment and supplies, and baggage trolleys are free to move where required.

A tug driver jumped in the tug and took off straight forward for about 10 metres before the DC-9's nose was buried so deep in the terminal that it dragged him to a stop.

Again - not an accident under the Australian definition of an accident.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Not great - but could be worse

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a340-written-off-before-delivery/

 

[MiTasol]

Somewhere I have the official French investigation report and it reads VERY differently. Likewise I have the official Airbus press release on the accident.

From memory there were no maintenance technicians in the cockpit and as well as the people seated there were several standing. Yes they were doing high power engine runs with no chocks and well below the minimum fuel required to keep the wheels from skidding at those power settings. The PIC was a very senior Airbus employee.

F Frog may be able to find it quicker that I can but I will keep looking.

 

[MiTasol]

I just remembered that Snopes did a "mythbuster" on the crap email that was circulated by bullshit artists at the time.

The Tale of the Arab Flight Crew

Photographs show an Airbus 340 that crashed into a wall during engine testing after technicians overrode a safety feature?

www.snopes.com

The link to the English translation of the BEA report is dead unfortunately but F Frog should be able to provide a link to the original report and a short summary

 

[Jabberwocky]

Full report (in French) on that A340

https://asn.flightsafety.org/reports/2007/20071115_A346_F-WWCJ.pdf

 

[MiTasol]

thank you

And here is the Airbus press report from the day of the accident.

 

[MiTasol]

And here is another not an accident in Australia. I cannot find the news report on my computer but here is one on the net. Sliced Seminole

 

[Frog]

I just remembered that Snopes did a "mythbuster" on the crap email that was circulated by bullshit artists at the time.

The Tale of the Arab Flight Crew

Photographs show an Airbus 340 that crashed into a wall during engine testing after technicians overrode a safety feature?

www.snopes.com

The link to the English translation of the BEA report is dead unfortunately but F Frog should be able to provide a link to the original report and a short summary

Link to the official report of the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA).

https://bea.aero/fileadmin/documents/docspa/2007/f-cj071115/pdf/f-cj071115_05.pdf

As an introduction, the BEA emphasized this was not a air accident as the plane was not flying but an accident involving an aircraft.
The final conclusions were basically that there were a consecutive list of mess-ups.

The investigation highlighted repetitive drifts in relation to operational procedures
written within the test management for the realization
ground tests.
Given the risk that these drifts entail, it is necessary to
ensure that the procedures are effective and applied, including for the
other steps of the delivery. The delivery is part of the production process
supervised by the EASA and aircraft ground and flight tests are placed, in
France, under the supervision of the CEV.

The EASA is the UE agency for air security.
The CEV (Centre d'essais en Vol), now DGA - EV (Direction Générale de l'Armement Essais en Vol) is the the test center for military and civilian aeronautic systems ; it depends now of the General Directorate for Armament.

 

[SaparotRob]

Not great - but could be worse

One of the linked articles is saying that A-380s are being parked globally. I flew into JFK from Incheon on a packed Korean Air A-380 just about 3 hours ago. Not a stastistically valid observation but just sayin'.

 

[Jabberwocky]

One of the linked articles is saying that A-380s are being parked globally. I flew into JFK from Incheon on a packed Korean Air A-380 just about 3 hours ago. Not a stastistically valid observation but just sayin'.

Older article maybe? Lots of A380s were parked in 2017-2018 and then again in 2020-2023. Some have been reactivated because Airbus and Boeing aren't able to deliver enough aircraft to keep up with demand.

Checking my database, I have the following status for commercial service A380s:

In service: 178
Inactive (greater than 72 days with no operations): 24
Retired: 52 (greater than 12 months with no operations/acquired by MRO firm/moved to storage site)

Some odds and ends

Youngest inactive jet is an Emirates A380 with just 8.6 years on the clock
Youngest retired jet is a 6.1 years old aircraft, which was acquired by German investment firm Dr Peters Group.
Oldest active A380 is MSN 0001, which is the original prototype which Airbus reactivated this year as a test bed.
Oldest in commercial service is MSN 0007, which is operated by Emirates and is 19.5 year old
A380 with the most flight hours is MSN 0015, which is owned and operated by Qantas and has 62,901 flight hours logged (including 4822 in the last 12 months).

 

[MiTasol]

As an introduction, the BEA emphasized this was not a air accident as the plane was not flying but an accident involving an aircraft.
The final conclusions were basically that there were a consecutive list of mess-ups.

The latest ICAO definition of an accident is below. I worked under the previous, generally more restrictive, version that did not include unmanned aircraft or notes 1 & 3 and was very differently worded. It did not include direct exposure to jet blast.

An accident is defined as:

An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which, in the case of a manned aircraft, takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, or in the case of an unmanned aircraft, takes place between the time the aircraft is ready to move with the purpose of flight until such time as it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the primary propulsion system is shut down, in which:

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:

• being in the aircraft, or
• direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or
• direct exposure to jet blast,

except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; or

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

• adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
• would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,

except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or

c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

Note 1.— For statistical uniformity only, an injury resulting in death within thirty days of the date of the accident is classified as a fatal injury by ICAO.
Note 2.— An aircraft is considered to be missing when the official search has been terminated and the wreckage has not been located.
Note 3.— In the case of investigation of an unmanned aircraft system, only aircraft with a design and/or operational approved are to be considered.
Note 4.— Guidance for the determination o f aircraft damage can be found in Attachment E to ICAO Annex 13.

Different countries have different definitions with the US definition long being the widest as it also includes not only accidents to aircraft on the ground but long included people who died as a direct result of taking a flight - like from DVT (in accordance with Note 1 above).

Some countries, like France, investigate serious ground accidents but do not statistically include them in their accident data. A fair middle ground in my opinion as incidents on the ground are a good indication of the safety consciousness of the ground staff.

Smart airlines track all occurrences, analyse them like below and make that available to all staff.​

Dumb airlines tell their staff "We are the worlds safest airline and have never had a fatal accident" which they know is utter rubbish.​

Some countries, like Australia, make the definition as narrow as possible to keep costs down and make the countries aviation sector look safer than it is.

Then you get companies like Qantas who claim any accident that does not include fatalities or hull loss is only an incident. That is why they spent more to fix the Bangkok 747 that it would cost to replace it. That way, under their definition, it was only an incident.

 

[ccwilber]

The latest ICAO definition of an accident is below. I worked under the previous, generally more restrictive, version that did not include unmanned aircraft or notes 1 & 3 and was very differently worded. It did not include direct exposure to jet blast.

An accident is defined as:

An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which, in the case of a manned aircraft, takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, or in the case of an unmanned aircraft, takes place between the time the aircraft is ready to move with the purpose of flight until such time as it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the primary propulsion system is shut down, in which:

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:

• being in the aircraft, or
• direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or
• direct exposure to jet blast,

except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; or

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

• adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
• would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,

except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or

c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

Note 1.— For statistical uniformity only, an injury resulting in death within thirty days of the date of the accident is classified as a fatal injury by ICAO.
Note 2.— An aircraft is considered to be missing when the official search has been terminated and the wreckage has not been located.
Note 3.— In the case of investigation of an unmanned aircraft system, only aircraft with a design and/or operational approved are to be considered.
Note 4.— Guidance for the determination o f aircraft damage can be found in Attachment E to ICAO Annex 13.

Different countries have different definitions with the US definition long being the widest as it also includes not only accidents to aircraft on the ground but long included people who died as a direct result of taking a flight - like from DVT (in accordance with Note 1 above).

Some countries, like France, investigate serious ground accidents but do not statistically include them in their accident data. A fair middle ground in my opinion as incidents on the ground are a good indication of the safety consciousness of the ground staff.

Smart airlines track all occurrences, analyse them like below and make that available to all staff.
View attachment 840394
View attachment 840395
Dumb airlines tell their staff "We are the worlds safest airline and have never had a fatal accident" which they know is utter rubbish.​

Some countries, like Australia, make the definition as narrow as possible to keep costs down and make the countries aviation sector look safer than it is.

Then you get companies like Qantas who claim any accident that does not include fatalities or hull loss is only an incident. That is why they spent more to fix the Bangkok 747 that it would cost to replace it. That way, under their definition, it was only an incident.

And as much as I like the movie "Rain Man", that line about "Qantas never crashes" completely ignores the airline's history prior to the jet age.

 

[MiTasol]

Here are two photos of one of their many accidents since the beginning of the jet age. Their first jet accident was a new 707 that landed long at Singapore so the driver stomped on the brakes while the nose was still high in the air. A load bang later they had an extra in the cockpit - the nose gear.

Note below that #3 engine pylon has broken free of the wing. On other airlines the cabin crew must start an evacuation, using the loud hailers carried for that purpose, as soon as the engines spool down in case there is a fire.

From the ATSB report:

Among the other items they failed to consider is that the aircraft might be on fire and therefore immediate evacuation was essential to prevent fatalities.

Obviously their training did not include a review of the British Air Tours 737 accident at Manchester where everyone who did not evacuate in the first 70 seconds died.

On Qantas only the Captain can authorise an evacuation (remember who is first at the scene of the accident and usually the first to be killed in a fatal crash). Qantas did not carry loud hailers because they convinced the regulator that they had never had an accident so did not need them and if they did have an accident the PA system would be adequate.

And another accident QF call an incident

 

[SaparotRob]

View: https://youtu.be/kOWM40o_Dic?t=50