EI-FAV out of action for a while after ground collision

Jack1985

EI-FAV an Aer Lingus Regional (Stobart Air) ATR72-600 which arrived into NCL as EI3354 was hit by a baggage loader during de-boarding, apparently the rear baggage door has been buckled - Return flight EI3355 cancelled and it looks like there's going to need to be repairs.

Aircraft is just seven months old, what a run of luck! :mad:

kona

Jack1985 wrote: »

EI-FAV an Aer Lingus Regional (Stobart Air) ATR72-600 which arrived into NCL as EI3354 was hit by a baggage loader during de-boarding, apparently the rear baggage door has been buckled - Return flight EI3355 cancelled and it looks like there's going to need to be repairs.

Aircraft is just seven months old, what a run of luck! :mad:

I'd say it will be fixed fairly rapidly!

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

EI-FAV an Aer Lingus Regional (Stobart Air) ATR72-600 which arrived into NCL as EI3354 was hit by a baggage loader during de-boarding, apparently the rear baggage door has been buckled - Return flight EI3355 cancelled and it looks like there's going to need to be repairs.

Aircraft is just seven months old, what a run of luck! :mad:

Id hate to be the poor ground handler in NCL, thats gonna be a nasty fine

Strumms

Dinging an aircraft is a no no. Unless whoever was driving can prove the equipment had a mechanical failure after they pre tripped it that's probably someone looking for another job. I guess any repair cost would be covered by insurance either the ground handling company or EI.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

billie1b

Strumms wrote: »

Dinging an aircraft is a no no. Unless whoever was driving can prove the equipment had a mechanical failure after they pre tripped it that's probably someone looking for another job. I guess any repair cost would be covered by insurance either the ground handling company or EI.

Ive dinged an a/c and badly, half a mill worth of damage, crazy night that was

Jack1985

Ive dinged an a/c and badly, half a mill worth of damage, crazy night that was

Used to remind myself I was not going to hit an aircraft every shift, came close once never forgot it - Heart in my mouth that night. :pac:

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

Used to remind myself I was not going to hit an aircraft every shift, came close once never forgot it - Heart in my mouth that night. :pac:

Ah it was fun to be honest, we have a good laugh about it now

Suasdaguna1

The worst is the fcuker that dings an aircraft and says nothing......happens all the time


. The worst i have ever seen was a 330 in new york years ago. A catering truck came up to the side the plane and accelerator and brake pedal became one......wallop.....worse still the driver got such a shock the truck hit the aircraft twice........such was the damage airbus had to be flown in to repair stringers and a major reskin job.

arubex

Strumms wrote: »

Dinging an aircraft is a no no. Unless whoever was driving can prove the equipment had a mechanical failure after they pre tripped it that's probably someone looking for another job.

I know it's a different industry, but in the IT sector the company for which I work has had several multi-million-dollar mistakes.

But unless the employee demontrated extreme negligence or malice then the policy is to retain them, since they're generally the ones that will _never_ make that mistake again! And they'll go out of their way to prevent others from doing so, too.

Much cheaper to keep someone with business and technical knowledge than to hire someone new and have to train them from scratch and, possibly, have them make the same mistakes.

kona

arubex wrote: »

I know it's a different industry, but in the IT sector the company for which I work has had several multi-million-dollar mistakes.

But unless the employee demontrated extreme negligence or malice then the policy is to retain them, since they're generally the ones that will _never_ make that mistake again! And they'll go out of their way to prevent others from doing so, too.

Much cheaper to keep someone with business and technical knowledge than to hire someone new and have to train them from scratch and, possibly, have them make the same mistakes.

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

The worst is the fcuker that dings an aircraft and says nothing......happens all the time


. The worst i have ever seen was a 330 in new york years ago. A catering truck came up to the side the plane and accelerator and brake pedal became one......wallop.....worse still the driver got such a shock the truck hit the aircraft twice........such was the damage airbus had to be flown in to repair stringers and a major reskin job.

These. Nobody will lose their job because if there's incentive to hide damage to a aircraft and it flies it could crash, they are very thin skinned.

A320

Strumms wrote: »

Unless whoever was driving can prove the equipment had a mechanical failure after they pre tripped it that's probably someone looking for another job.

Not true,sh!t happens,human factors etc etc somebody will be sent for retraining etc etc

Growler!!!

kona wrote: »

I'd say it will be fixed fairly rapidly!

Back in DUB now. Supposed to be returned to service this morning.

Strumms

A320 wrote: »

Not true,sh!t happens,human factors etc etc somebody will be sent for retraining etc etc

True in some cases I have seen then again it may differ from operator to operator. All At DUB also. Human factors do play a part and it would be up to the individual to prove that. If there were factors like undermanning, weather, unfair pressure applied by management etc. personal stress... Having said that one individual I would be referring to had several safety warnings to their name. Best thing is to pre trip the equipment, use break check before interfacing with an aircraft and always a guides person ... Just basically follow SOP and you should not hit an aircraft.

I was on a course recently where we were told that most aircraft damaged is discovered rather then reported. You can't all put this down to people deliberately not reporting it as it wouldn't all be caused by human interaction but food for thought none the less.

Strumms

arubex wrote: »

I know it's a different industry, but in the IT sector the company for which I work has had several multi-million-dollar mistakes.

But unless the employee demontrated extreme negligence or malice then the policy is to retain them, since they're generally the ones that will _never_ make that mistake again! And they'll go out of their way to prevent others from doing so, too.

Much cheaper to keep someone with business and technical knowledge than to hire someone new and have to train them from scratch and, possibly, have them make the same mistakes.

Not the same... It's unlikely anyone will loose their life because of an IT mistake in the general sense.

How do you guarantee the negligent person will go out of their way to prevent others or themselves doing the same ? Maybe they don't really give a **** and that's why it happened in the first place.

Also as regards cost... Driving into an aircraft is usually going to leave someone with a 6 figure repair bill. It's not cheaper then hiring and training a competent ramp handler.

Again I'm not saying someone should be sacked. Just saying from what I have observed over the years I cannot remember anyone who hit an aircraft who hung around afterwards... I'm all for remedial training however and human factors should always be taken into account as part of any investigation.

arubex

EI-FAV back in service today I see.

Strumms I see your point about danger to life ( though there have been several fatal IT incidents ), but at the end of the day an aircraft is just a piece of equipment that can usually be repaired. Airlines don't usually sack pilots who damage or destroy aircraft, unless negligence or malice is provable.

My concern is that the sack-and-rehire mindset just leads to more semi-trained people on the ramp, causing more mistakes and accelerating the process.

Growler!!!

arubex wrote: »

EI-FAV back in service today I see.

In service Friday morning, within 24 hours of the incident. Fair play to the engineering staff.

Irish Steve

Long time ago now, so hopefully, things have changed. At that time, maintenance on ramp equipment was patchy at best, and non existent on some things, such as baggage dollies, and freight dollies, working brakes were a rarity, and other equipment had issues that meant extreme caution had to be used when operating said equipment.

In theory, unserviceable equipment was supposed to be removed from the ramp until repaired. We tried that one day, seven sets of wide body steps were taken off the ramp due to defects with brakes, or steady jacks, or hydraulic lifting faults, or multiples of the above, which left 2 sets on the ramp. There was warfare shortly afterwards, as there were 5 wide body flights due in, and effectively no steps to handle them with. All 7 defective sets were returned to the ramp.

On another occasion, a battery tug went up in flames. The extinguisher was unserviceable, and when checked, of the over 20 tugs on the ramp, ALL of them had "issues" with the fire extinguisher, either absent, empty or otherwise not acceptable. It took over a month before any of the fire extinguishers were replaced.

I don't know if things have improved, they needed to, but for some reason, the airlines and DAA are unwilling or unable to enforce the same standards on ramp handling as are imposed on every other aspect of aviation, and as a result, the standards on the ramp are very much different to the standards in all other areas of the industry. Some of that is down to the strangelhold the unions have on things, the management are all too often unable to deal with issues in the way they should be because of the very real threat of union action, and the unions are equally entrenched in their nothing changes attitude.