‘Significant damage’ to Ryanair jet only discovered mid-flight

Five Lamps

Interesting story reported in the Irish Times. Fair play to the crew for handling it as it could have disasterous consequences. Does raise the issue why the movement of the aircraft due to wind was never logged.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/significant-damage-to-ryanair-jet-only-discovered-mid-flight-1.1897018

billie1b

I remember in DUB one winter, rain and wind came out of nowhere, New Years day it was if I remember correctly, I was on the ramp driving and facing the arse of EI-CJC, then out of nowhere this mini storm came, it was so bad I was stopped in the middle of the apron beside a taxi line as I couldn't see a thing, the storm lasted about 5 minutes in full force as I sat in the cab of the float, when finished EI-CJC's nose was now facing me, she literally did a 180 degree turn, I called it in and the engineers were onto her like bees on honey. Same day and same time 2 Shamrock A330's collided with each other due to the same winds, they were both chocked up with pax on them on stand getting ready to go to BOS and JFK, one of them was blown out of her chocks into the other one, mad experience it was that day. I had seen the aftermath of storms and such on tv but that was the day I realised how strong the wind could be and the damage it could do as I was literally in the middle of it with nothing but an old Ryanair baggage float that was falling apart to protect me.

EI-CJC's new registration is OB-1839P, nearly 33 years old and still in service with Peruvian Airlines I think.

Sorry for the long story, just thought i'd reminisce my experience on ye

EICVD

I remember that day well too billie1b, it was indeed New Years Day.

billie1b

EICVD wrote: »

I remember that day well too billie1b, it was indeed New Years Day.

Were you working in the airport that day?

EICVD

No just remember where I was that day which wasn't exactly a million miles from DUB.

billie1b

EICVD wrote: »

No just remember where I was that day which wasn't exactly a million miles from DUB.

Cool, have to say its one thing I love about the airport, no 2 days are the same

billy few mates

Except tuesdays....

Deep Thought

any reason why no-one noticed it had jumped Chocks and move 5 Meters to the left, thought that would be easily seen...Chocks over here...Aircraft not in the same place of chocks ?

Growler!!!

Deep Thought wrote: »

any reason why no-one noticed it had jumped Chocks and move 5 Meters to the left, thought that would be easily seen...Chocks over here...Aircraft not in the same place of chocks ?

Depends, ground crew have a look in the morning. Wonder why the chocks aren't near the wheels. Thinks to himself " I'll be proactive with this cos the guys on the other shift will get into trouble." Puts chocks back in place.

Flight deck crew arrive for walk around see airplane is off the taxi line. Thinks to himself "The last crew must have left it like this to be more into wind, sure the chocks are on the wheels. I'll do a thorough inspection of the exterior cos of the wind last night."

The headline is a bit misleading though, the issue was recognised at take off and actions were carried out to return to land. Not half way to their destination when the crew suddenly find out.

billy few mates

Deep Thought wrote: »

any reason why no-one noticed it had jumped Chocks and move 5 Meters to the left, thought that would be easily seen...Chocks over here...Aircraft not in the same place of chocks ?

Of course it would be noticed as the A/C nose would no longer be on the stand centreline.
It happens quite often and some A/C are more susceptible to it than others depending on the size and shape of the A/C particularly the fin which basically acts like a sail in a crosswind. several ATRs have been flipped over when storm winds caught the fin side on lifting it slightly and allowing the gust winds to catch under the high T tail flipping them over on their side.
I also remember an incident many years ago where the nose of a B727 was picked up and thrown onto the GPU beside it causing quite a bit of damage.

Irish Steve

Depending on the handling company, it may have been noticed, but to "protect the innocent", it may not have been put in writing, and with shift changes, anything can happen.

I once prevented a departure from Dublin until a safety issue was resolved, and it was made very clear to me subsequently that if I put anything in writing, "it would not be good", as the management had to protect their backsides. The fact that the aircraft could have crashed as a result of the issue found seemed to be irrelevant to the managers concerned.

folbotcar

Irish Steve wrote: »

Depending on the handling company, it may have been noticed, but to "protect the innocent", it may not have been put in writing, and with shift changes, anything can happen.

I once prevented a departure from Dublin until a safety issue was resolved, and it was made very clear to me subsequently that if I put anything in writing, "it would not be good", as the management had to protect their backsides. The fact that the aircraft could have crashed as a result of the issue found seemed to be irrelevant to the managers concerned.

You're not the only one that's happened to. Not everything makes it into the paperwork.

I heard of another incident where a towed aircraft of one airline clipped a parked aircraft of another airline. Money changed hands apparently. But it's all anecdotal as of course there is nothing in writing.;)

Stovepipe

My 2c worth: if an aircraft under my eyeball got shunted a few yards by the wind, it wouldn't fly unless I had gone over it with a magnifying glass, especially the flight controls. I've encountered aircraft that had the rudder actuators broken by very high winds or had the gust locks broken or had spent the night with control surfaces banging against the stops for hours. Also, if an aircraft jumps the chocks, it could damage the undercarriage or even the hull. Also, ground equipment could have been shunted against an aircraft, such as the cargo bins. You should see them skating across the ramp in even moderate winds!

regards
Stovepipe

ProfessorPlum

Stovepipe wrote: »

My 2c worth: if an aircraft under my eyeball got shunted a few yards by the wind, it wouldn't fly unless I had gone over it with a magnifying glass, especially the flight controls. I've encountered aircraft that had the rudder actuators broken by very high winds or had the gust locks broken or had spent the night with control surfaces banging against the stops for hours. Also, if an aircraft jumps the chocks, it could damage the undercarriage or even the hull. Also, ground equipment could have been shunted against an aircraft, such as the cargo bins. You should see them skating across the ramp in even moderate winds!

regards
Stovepipe

Thanks Stovepipe, I appreciate you keeping us safe.:cool:

fr336

Stovepipe wrote: »

My 2c worth: if an aircraft under my eyeball got shunted a few yards by the wind, it wouldn't fly unless I had gone over it with a magnifying glass, especially the flight controls. I've encountered aircraft that had the rudder actuators broken by very high winds or had the gust locks broken or had spent the night with control surfaces banging against the stops for hours. Also, if an aircraft jumps the chocks, it could damage the undercarriage or even the hull. Also, ground equipment could have been shunted against an aircraft, such as the cargo bins. You should see them skating across the ramp in even moderate winds!

regards
Stovepipe

If only everyone was like you. Things that could go wrong can be absolutely fine 9 times out of 10, but that 10th time can lead to a disaster for hundreds of passengers, their families and loved ones, the country involved, the airline etc etc. Not really worth it is it.

folbotcar

Fortunately there are still enough Engineers like Stovepipe and pilots who take their job seriously and are stroppy enough to resist pressure from management, who should know better, to release aircraft that may or may not be serviceable.

In aviation the easiest way to get into trouble with your boss is to do your job properly.

Irish Steve

folbotcar wrote: »

Fortunately there are still enough Engineers like Stovepipe and pilots who take their job seriously and are stroppy enough to resist pressure from management, who should know better, to release aircraft that may or may not be serviceable.

In aviation the easiest way to get into trouble with your boss is to do your job properly.

Indeed. So true, the problem I had that I mentioned above was that the pilots had missed the issue at least twice, and the line maintenance engineer had also missed it on the overnight checks, but there was no way that I was going to let an aircraft depart with the alternate static ports covered with aluminium speed tape without a VERY good explanation.

I had to be somewhat persistent to get it resolved, and fortunately, I could refuse to push it until there was an acceptable answer to the issue.

Turned out after several international phone calls back to the home base maintenance control that the aircraft had been power washed 2 days earlier, and the crew that washed it has forgotten to remove the tape from that area, so it had flown like that for 2 days. Ummmmm

A long time later, I discovered that it should have been a MOR to the IAA, but by then it was too late to do anything about it.

APM

Stovepipe wrote: »

My 2c worth: if an aircraft under my eyeball got shunted a few yards by the wind, it wouldn't fly unless I had gone over it with a magnifying glass, especially the flight controls. I've encountered aircraft that had the rudder actuators broken by very high winds or had the gust locks broken or had spent the night with control surfaces banging against the stops for hours. Also, if an aircraft jumps the chocks, it could damage the undercarriage or even the hull. Also, ground equipment could have been shunted against an aircraft, such as the cargo bins. You should see them skating across the ramp in even moderate winds!

regards
Stovepipe

I believe 4 or 5 aircraft that night turned by the wind, the roof was blown off the terminal and the glass was all smashed on the terminal windows leaving glass all around the parked aircraft so I'm pretty sure they noticed that the aircraft had veered off the chocks. Whether or not the required checks at the time were sufficient is obvious but afaik the required checks were carried out, as there was no requirement to remove panels to inspect damage (at the time)


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15438381



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/portugal-storms-tear-roof_n_1030075.html

cml387

Irish Steve wrote: »

Indeed. So true, the problem I had that I mentioned above was that the pilots had missed the issue at least twice, and the line maintenance engineer had also missed it on the overnight checks, but there was no way that I was going to let an aircraft depart with the alternate static ports covered with aluminium speed tape without a VERY good explanation.

I had to be somewhat persistent to get it resolved, and fortunately, I could refuse to push it until there was an acceptable answer to the issue.

Turned out after several international phone calls back to the home base maintenance control that the aircraft had been power washed 2 days earlier, and the crew that washed it has forgotten to remove the tape from that area, so it had flown like that for 2 days. Ummmmm

A long time later, I discovered that it should have been a MOR to the IAA, but by then it was too late to do anything about it.

I was just thinking of this incident.

ProfessorPlum

cml387 wrote: »

I was just thinking of this incident.

Not the first nor last aircraft to crash due static ports being covered/home to insects etc.

As an aside to Steve's incident - what kind of instruction to engineers get re incident reporting - it would seem fairly obvious that an aircraft flying around for two days with ports covered would warrant an MOR.
I'd like to hope we as an industry have improved wrt reporting - it's for all of our safety sakes.

Irish Steve

cml387 wrote: »

I was just thinking of this incident.

When I found the tape, during a walk round, it was the first thing I thought of, followed immediately by a thought that went along the lines of "This bird is going nowhere with that tape on, and why is it there?"

I found it about 45 minutes before scheduled departure, and it eventually departed with a 45 minute delay, so it took a while to work out the what and why.

The most sobering aspect of the thing from my point of view was that the management went into asscover mode, rather than face up to an issue that wasn't the direct responsibility of the local people, and the other thing that was considerably less than comfortable was that the vast majority of the ramp staff saw it as a huge joke, and had not even the beginnings of a notion of just how serious this could have been for the continuing safe operation of the aircraft.

In hindsight, I think that was the day I realised that regardless of how much I enjoyed the work, and was good at it, I wasn't going to be able to have a long term future on the ramp, and so it was, I think the management were seriously relieved when I was well and truly stitched up by SIPTU a while later.

Stovepipe

SIPTU, about as useful as a chocolate teapot.........management are ass-coverers and the worst thing is that many are originally engineers, who should know better.

Irish Steve

If the manager in this case had been an engineer, I would have expected him to have had some understanding of the situation. Unfortunately, the ramp manager's previous "aviation" experience was with Green Caps!

Initially, I thought he was dyslexic. Based on subsequent closer experience, I had to revise that opinion. Thick as 3 VERY short planks. He was where he was to be the fall guy for the Station manager if anything went wrong on the handling side, and was a total liability on the ramp, as the only time he went near it was during industrial disputes. The only time I saw him in action, he came close to putting another operative in hospital, he pulled the bypass pin on the nosewheel of an A300 before removing the bar, which promptly scythed through 70 degrees, taking the operative with it. Fortunately for him, the tug had been disconnected, if it hadn't been, the bar and possibly the aircraft would have been damaged.

adam88

Irish Steve wrote: »

When I found the tape, during a walk round, it was the first thing I thought of, followed immediately by a thought that went along the lines of "This bird is going nowhere with that tape on, and why is it there?"

I found it about 45 minutes before scheduled departure, and it eventually departed with a 45 minute delay, so it took a while to work out the what and why.

The most sobering aspect of the thing from my point of view was that the management went into asscover mode, rather than face up to an issue that wasn't the direct responsibility of the local people, and the other thing that was considerably less than comfortable was that the vast majority of the ramp staff saw it as a huge joke, and had not even the beginnings of a notion of just how serious this could have been for the continuing safe operation of the aircraft.

In hindsight, I think that was the day I realised that regardless of how much I enjoyed the work, and was good at it, I wasn't going to be able to have a long term future on the ramp, and so it was, I think the management were seriously relieved when I was well and truly stitched up by SIPTU a while later.

Siptu. Go on tell us more

Irish Steve

adam88 wrote: »

Siptu. Go on tell us more

Did a job for which I was fully qualified, trained for and with the agreement of the maintenance department and captain of the aircraft, but "not trained by the handling company", so the H & S (SIPTU) rep put in a formal complaint, even though there were no witnesses at the aircraft to verify what exactly had been done, I was the only one there.

The job was provide turnround services which in this case included providing external power to assist start for an organ transplant ferry aircraft, a Seneca (light piston twin) which had a flat battery. Due to the voltage and no external power socket, the power had to come from a 12 V vehicle using jump leads on to the battery in the nose baggage compartment. Procedure was to start the starboard engine using external power, disconnect the booster leads, close and lock the nose compartment, and then pass the key to the captain, and leave him to it with the No 2 running to charge the battery and then eventually start the No 1, which he did, and got away.

I had been asked by the duty manager to "get yer man out of trouble", which was exactly what I did, but SIPTU used it to get me into trouble.

Related but another story, I lent him an expensive headset (personal property) which was meant to be sent back to me via Ryanair from Bristol, but it never got to me, and once I wasn't working on the ramp, I couldn't follow up on recovering it. His headset had failed, and there wasn't a spare headset or microphone on the aircraft.

In terms of training, I had a ME CPL/IR, and had done the flight training and type rating on the Seneca, so I had to satisfy the FAA examiner that I could deal with any issues on the type, which included knowing how to deal with situations like a flat battery when away from base, so I knew EXACTLY what I was doing, and how to do it, the Captain had been fully briefed by his (JAA) Ops department and maintenance manager, so it was a total non event, and in terms of the procedure, not a lot different than something like pushing back an F27 or a Saab 340, and then passing the nose steering bypass lock to the captain through the window, and in that respect, it was safer, in that the port engine on the Seneca was not running, but would be on the larger aircraft.

I put in a full written report when asked to, and then got suspended, then fired, and when it went to the labour court, the SIPTU rep didn't exactly exert himself on my behalf, as it was one of his lackies that had put the complaint in.

I subsequently discovered that the management had asked the chief training officer what he would have done in that situation, and his reply apparently was "exactly what Steve did", but (obviously) they chose not to reveal that little nugget of information.

The real issue is that the ground handling organisations provide training on how to use their equipment, but they provide NO type specific training, so if a lead agent is faced with a type that they've not seen before, it's up to the agent at the time to get the information needed on how to handle the aircraft, as the handling company has no documentation or manuals on even where to find access points for water, toilets, ground power or air start etc,

My mistake was that I believed that SIPTU would be working for my interest, they were not, they were more interested in getting rid of someone that they saw as undermining their case for extra payments in other areas, (long story related to using the VHF radios in the tugs) so they were only too keen to see me out of there.

What made it the bias even clearer was that a few weeks earlier, another lead agent had been reported for an action on a Westair 748 that was prohibited, but nothing (not even a verbal caution) happened, and the reason for the action being prohibited was because another agent had been killed a couple of years earlier when he was hit by the prop, which was still running.

There were other issues, petty but unnecessary, and they only happened because the management were spineless when it came to dealing with SIPTU, so would never confront them, even when their supposed issue prevented a more efficient ( and sometimes safer) operation. One example was that I made up a headset adapter for use on Saab 340 and similar aircraft, as they had a different connection from the Boeing/Airbus etc aircraft, which meant we could push using a headset instead of hand signals. As a result of SIPTU intervention, I was the only one allowed to use the adapter, as "I hadn't been trained to produce the device, so couldn't prove it was safe to use", and the management didn't have the balls to stand up to the bullsh1t. How difficult is it to make 6 solder connections using a circuit diagram provided by the aircraft manufacturer!

Hopefully, things have changed, but somehow, I doubt it, and the only victim is the working man who wants to do a better job more efficiently.

billie1b

Irish Steve wrote: »

Did a job for which I was fully qualified, trained for and with the agreement of the maintenance department and captain of the aircraft, but "not trained by the handling company", so the H & S (SIPTU) rep put in a formal complaint, even though there were no witnesses at the aircraft to verify what exactly had been done, I was the only one there.

The job was provide turnround services which in this case included providing external power to assist start for an organ transplant ferry aircraft, a Seneca (light piston twin) which had a flat battery. Due to the voltage and no external power socket, the power had to come from a 12 V vehicle using jump leads on to the battery in the nose baggage compartment. Procedure was to start the starboard engine using external power, disconnect the booster leads, close and lock the nose compartment, and then pass the key to the captain, and leave him to it with the No 2 running to charge the battery and then eventually start the No 1, which he did, and got away.

I had been asked by the duty manager to "get yer man out of trouble", which was exactly what I did, but SIPTU used it to get me into trouble.

Related but another story, I lent him an expensive headset (personal property) which was meant to be sent back to me via Ryanair from Bristol, but it never got to me, and once I wasn't working on the ramp, I couldn't follow up on recovering it. His headset had failed, and there wasn't a spare headset or microphone on the aircraft.

In terms of training, I had a ME CPL/IR, and had done the flight training and type rating on the Seneca, so I had to satisfy the FAA examiner that I could deal with any issues on the type, which included knowing how to deal with situations like a flat battery when away from base, so I knew EXACTLY what I was doing, and how to do it, the Captain had been fully briefed by his (JAA) Ops department and maintenance manager, so it was a total non event, and in terms of the procedure, not a lot different than something like pushing back an F27 or a Saab 340, and then passing the nose steering bypass lock to the captain through the window, and in that respect, it was safer, in that the port engine on the Seneca was not running, but would be on the larger aircraft.

I put in a full written report when asked to, and then got suspended, then fired, and when it went to the labour court, the SIPTU rep didn't exactly exert himself on my behalf, as it was one of his lackies that had put the complaint in.

I subsequently discovered that the management had asked the chief training officer what he would have done in that situation, and his reply apparently was "exactly what Steve did", but (obviously) they chose not to reveal that little nugget of information.

The real issue is that the ground handling organisations provide training on how to use their equipment, but they provide NO type specific training, so if a lead agent is faced with a type that they've not seen before, it's up to the agent at the time to get the information needed on how to handle the aircraft, as the handling company has no documentation or manuals on even where to find access points for water, toilets, ground power or air start etc,

My mistake was that I believed that SIPTU would be working for my interest, they were not, they were more interested in getting rid of someone that they saw as undermining their case for extra payments in other areas, (long story related to using the VHF radios in the tugs) so they were only too keen to see me out of there.

What made it the bias even clearer was that a few weeks earlier, another lead agent had been reported for an action on a Westair 748 that was prohibited, but nothing (not even a verbal caution) happened, and the reason for the action being prohibited was because another agent had been killed a couple of years earlier when he was hit by the prop, which was still running.

There were other issues, petty but unnecessary, and they only happened because the management were spineless when it came to dealing with SIPTU, so would never confront them, even when their supposed issue prevented a more efficient ( and sometimes safer) operation. One example was that I made up a headset adapter for use on Saab 340 and similar aircraft, as they had a different connection from the Boeing/Airbus etc aircraft, which meant we could push using a headset instead of hand signals. As a result of SIPTU intervention, I was the only one allowed to use the adapter, as "I hadn't been trained to produce the device, so couldn't prove it was safe to use", and the management didn't have the balls to stand up to the bullsh1t. How difficult is it to make 6 solder connections using a circuit diagram provided by the aircraft manufacturer!

Hopefully, things have changed, but somehow, I doubt it, and the only victim is the working man who wants to do a better job more efficiently.

I think I remember you mentioning this before a good while ago, what a load of bollox the way they turn on people like that, its amazing the way people think SIPTU work for you against the management but at the end of the day they are best friends and look after each other before the staff