Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5667302/

Topic: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: n797mx
Posted 2013-01-20 09:22:29 and read 25939 times.

UA 737-924/ER, tail number N34460, hit a fuel truck this morning after being blown by a strong gust. Nose cone appears heavily damaged. Wind gusts were 35-45kts at the time.

http://www.weather.com/news/plane-hits-fuel-tank-wind-20130120

This is the second wind related accident in BUF this month, the first being a WN plane that turned 90° on Jan 4th.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: mhkansan
Posted 2013-01-20 09:26:31 and read 25931 times.

I love that they didn't have any stairs around so they just put the belt loaded up to L1! On the 80, they just pull down the rear airstairs  

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: cornutt
Posted 2013-01-20 09:45:36 and read 25704 times.

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 1):
On the 80, they just pull down the rear airstairs

Back in the days of People's Express, on the FLL-EWR run, that was how pax boarded the aircraft!  Wow!

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: panam330
Posted 2013-01-20 10:28:23 and read 25286 times.

I'm surprised to see a 739 being used to BUF. At least it's 'just' the nose cone and the aircraft didn't contact the terminal building or something like that. As an aside, I love how UA can operate mainline to BUF/ROC/ALB, but still only manage CR7s to SYR. Kind of a bummer.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-01-20 10:35:06 and read 25227 times.

Quote:
More photos of the plane's unlikely accident, sent to The Weather Channel by a pilot who witnessed it, are shown below.

Hopefully not a UA pilot or thinking UA would not like that very much.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2013-01-20 10:55:36 and read 25038 times.

What about the 6 chocks......and parking brake set.
luckily it struck the radome, but considering it was a fuel truck could have been worse......

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: cle757
Posted 2013-01-20 11:02:09 and read 24951 times.

The tow bar should have been hooked up to the push tractor and the aircraft should have been triple chocked..this is what we do in CLE when high winds happen.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-20 11:51:22 and read 24659 times.

Quoting cle757 (Reply 6):

The tow bar should have been hooked up to the push tractor and the aircraft should have been triple chocked..this is what we do in CLE when high winds happen.

I was wondering about what the safety situation is in such conditions. Could you elaborate? 40kt winds are strong, but not extreme. I wonder if this was a freak gust or if they just got casual about procedure.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: flight152
Posted 2013-01-20 12:00:52 and read 24431 times.

Quoting panam330 (Reply 3):
I'm surprised to see a 739 being used to BUF.

They've been running it to ORD for some time now.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-01-20 12:05:10 and read 24310 times.

Why can't there just be a place to tie down the nosewheel at the gate?

Here's Pinnacle getting hit a few years back,

http://youtu.be/wDLyssxqabc?t=51s

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-01-20 13:10:13 and read 22817 times.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 9):

About. Face!

 

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: platinumfoota
Posted 2013-01-20 13:25:38 and read 22481 times.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):
What about the 6 chocks......and parking brake set.

From the picture doesn't seem that the chocks helped. On UA's 737-7,8,and 9 it is Standard Operating Procedure to release brakes after the aircraft is choked on arrival. Towbar and pushback tractor would have helped.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: IBOAviator
Posted 2013-01-20 13:49:41 and read 21904 times.

Quoting n797mx (Thread starter):
UA 737-924/ER, tail number N34460, hit a fuel truck this morning after being blown by a strong gust. Nose cone appears heavily damaged. Wind gusts were 35-45kts at the time.
Quoting platinumfoota (Reply 11):
On UA's 737-7,8,and 9 it is Standard Operating Procedure to release brakes after the aircraft is choked on arrival.

 Wow! The aircraft was chocked and the parking break was engaged, I'm assuming. Would a 40kt wind actually have the force to move an aircraft of that size around like that? Since no towbar was used, it is safe to assume the parking brake was set. Seems to me that a wind would have to be significantly greater than 40kts to move an aircraft of that size around on the ramp?!

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 1):
I love that they didn't have any stairs around so they just put the belt loaded up to L1!

:D  haha, I can see them having some fun with that.. The belt loader was probably the most accessible piece of equipment avail at the time to get crew into the airplane fast.

Quoting cle757 (Reply 6):
the aircraft should have been triple chocked..

At my local facility, it is company policy to triple chock all aircraft when the wind exceeds 25kts. Now, those are largely in part business jets weighing a fraction of that of a B739 but still, aircraft being triple chocked in those conditions seems like a no brainer... common sense and in aviation, common sense is something that is surprisingly not universally shared.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
I was wondering about what the safety situation is in such conditions. Could you elaborate? 40kt winds are strong, but not extreme. I wonder if this was a freak gust or if they just got casual about procedure.

When we get a B737 on our ramp and in those kinds of winds, triple chocking the aircraft is a must and with the parking brake on, that is all that is required. No infractions to date. I am thinking maybe a freak gust... My thoughts

Regards,
IBO

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: cle757
Posted 2013-01-20 13:50:18 and read 21847 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
I was wondering about what the safety situation is in such conditions. Could you elaborate? 40kt winds are strong, but not extreme. I wonder if this was a freak gust or if they just got casual about procedure.

We go into a program called SWAP (Severe Weather Action Program) aircraft are triple chocked (all wheels) and the tow bar and push back tractor are hooked up.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: IBOAviator
Posted 2013-01-20 13:58:51 and read 21640 times.

Quoting cle757 (Reply 13):
We go into a program called SWAP (Severe Weather Action Program) aircraft are triple chocked (all wheels) and the tow bar and push back tractor are hooked up.

Interesting. We only require a tow bar and tug to be hooked up to the aircraft if it's available. Granted, that's the procedures of my local Avitat. Are SWAP programs common to all airports? What constitutes "extreme weather?" Does BUF have a SWAP?

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: yeelep
Posted 2013-01-20 14:25:13 and read 21068 times.

If the winds were actually gusting to 35kts-45kts, Boeing recommends that all main and nose gear tires be chocked and the parking brake set. To prevent the aircraft from pitching, set the horz. stab. to zero units, fuel the plane, extend the speedbrakes and ballast the plane to the forward C.G. limit.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: platinumfoota
Posted 2013-01-20 14:51:50 and read 20583 times.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 14):
Are SWAP programs common to all airports?

Not here at LAX     

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2013-01-20 15:21:14 and read 20082 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 15):
If the winds were actually gusting to 35kts-45kts, Boeing recommends that all main and nose gear tires be chocked and the parking brake set. To prevent the aircraft from pitching, set the horz. stab. to zero units, fuel the plane, extend the speedbrakes and ballast the plane to the forward C.G. limit.

Definitely a lot of CYA by Boeing. I seriously doubt any operator would go to that extreme.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: jporterfi
Posted 2013-01-20 15:35:31 and read 19826 times.

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 1):

It would have been hilarious to see passengers (had there been any on board) deplaning via a beltloader.  That said, I'm glad no one was hurt in the incident.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: KBUF
Posted 2013-01-20 15:37:58 and read 19809 times.

Here's WGRZ's article, with some closer up pics of the damage to the nose: http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/197...ed-Jet-into-Fuel-Tanker-at-Airport

The articles also notes that the fuel truck was owned by UA as well.

And a spare 739 was flown in from EWR: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...4/history/20130120/1330Z/KEWR/KBUF

[Edited 2013-01-20 15:40:26]

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: KingAir200
Posted 2013-01-20 15:42:04 and read 19716 times.

Two sets of chocks are common in the RJ world, of course, but are there non-RJ airlines that don't triple chock their airplanes as a norm?

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2013-01-20 16:20:11 and read 19108 times.

It is normal procedure to triple chock any mainline aircraft. Especially on a RON. We usually don't triple chock RJ's, but on wind and adverse weather, all M/L gets triple chocked. No ballast or other special procedures are done, except moving he warning comes (which they will be blown away).

The wind can be a nightmare during ops. Try hooking up air during a windy turn. Not a easy task.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: trent1000
Posted 2013-01-20 16:33:30 and read 18912 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 10):
About. Face!

No - a loss of face!  

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: Antoniemey
Posted 2013-01-20 17:42:59 and read 17628 times.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 18):
It would have been hilarious to see passengers (had there been any on board) deplaning via a beltloader.

You will never see that. Safety concerns.

Quoting KingAir200 (Reply 20):
Two sets of chocks are common in the RJ world, of course, but are there non-RJ airlines that don't triple chock their airplanes as a norm?

I believe in normal wind conditions, most airlines only require two sets of chocks... but in most cases three is S.O.P. anyway.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 21):
It is normal procedure to triple chock any mainline aircraft. Especially on a RON. We usually don't triple chock RJ's, but on wind and adverse weather, all M/L gets triple chocked.

We chock all gears on RJs...

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: tb727
Posted 2013-01-20 17:46:27 and read 17541 times.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 4):
Hopefully not a UA pilot or thinking UA would not like that very much.

No the Weather Channel said it was a Southwest pilot when I saw it this morning.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: HermansCVR580
Posted 2013-01-20 18:11:58 and read 17483 times.

I did not know that United did any of their own fueling anymore, I thought it was all contracted out?

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: DeltaB717
Posted 2013-01-20 19:22:38 and read 16356 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 15):
ballast the plane to the forward C.G. limit

What would an airline use as ballast? Especially if they had a ramp full of aircraft needing to be ballasted.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: tb727
Posted 2013-01-20 19:38:42 and read 16252 times.

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 26):
What would an airline use as ballast? Especially if they had a ramp full of aircraft needing to be ballasted.

Fuel in my airplanes case.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: captaink
Posted 2013-01-20 20:02:08 and read 15844 times.

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 1):

On some 80s there were some airstairs under L1.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: traindoc
Posted 2013-01-20 20:18:56 and read 15568 times.

Is it just me, but the pictures from the Buffalo TV station look like the nose is up against a jetway and not a fuel truck?

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2013-01-20 20:57:05 and read 14955 times.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 29):

It's just you.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: KBUF
Posted 2013-01-20 21:04:12 and read 14841 times.

It WAS sitting at a gate when the incident occurred, though.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: Yakflyer
Posted 2013-01-20 21:35:16 and read 14486 times.

Quoting n797mx (Thread starter):
UA 737-924/ER, tail number N34460, hit a fuel truck this morning after being blown by a strong gust. Nose cone appears heavily damaged.

I don't know what your definition of heavily damaged means, but I don't think this measures up to that description for me. The only thing damaged was the radome and possibly the radar antenna which we can't see. All that would be required to put this 737 back into service would be changing the radome which is a matter of 8 or 10 fasteners.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: cotparampguy
Posted 2013-01-20 22:59:38 and read 13540 times.

Tail 0460, that plane can't be that old right? Nice way to baptize the poor girl!

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2013-01-21 02:31:01 and read 11482 times.

How much distance did the Aircraft swing/move......approx.Any diagram.....

[Edited 2013-01-21 02:31:42]

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: Antoniemey
Posted 2013-01-21 03:44:20 and read 10743 times.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 34):
How much distance did the Aircraft swing/move

Looks like it turned about 45 degrees from the parking line, so, about 50 feet, give or take?

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-01-21 03:56:44 and read 10612 times.

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 1):
I love that they didn't have any stairs around so they just put the belt loaded up to L1! On the 80, they just pull down the rear airstairs  

Sure. I use those a lot to board AC that are out by Remote, or when stairs are not available. It's pretty common for MX on the 80s.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 2):
Back in the days of People's Express, on the FLL-EWR run, that was how pax boarded the aircraft!  

Now that's awesome. And as for using the aft stairs to come off an 80... I can't be the only who loves the whole Millennium Falcon feeling you get coming out that way...

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: STT757
Posted 2013-01-21 05:57:02 and read 9195 times.

Quoting KBUF (Reply 19):
Here's WGRZ's article, with some closer up pics of the damage to the nose: http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/197...ed-Jet-into-Fuel-Tanker-at-Airport

January in Buffalo and there's no snow on the ground, what's going on?

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-01-21 06:18:01 and read 8894 times.

Quoting cotparampguy (Reply 33):
Tail 0460, that plane can't be that old right? Nice way to baptize the poor girl!

Delivered March 11, 2012.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: United_fan
Posted 2013-01-21 06:49:01 and read 8410 times.

Quoting panam330 (Reply 3):
I'm surprised to see a 739 being used to BUF.

According to the Star Alliance timetable,we're supposed to start getting UA 737's in ROC from ORD starting in March or April. Also,BUF has,in the past gotten UA 757-200's to ORD.

[Edited 2013-01-21 06:49:36]

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2013-01-21 07:11:22 and read 8089 times.

The aircraft is sked to ferry back to EWR today. Obviously with a new radome - question is if radar is damaged. Expect it back in service soon.

It could have been a lot worse. Without being stopped by the fuel truck, it could have hit the jetway with a wing, causing more extensive damage.

Back in the 1970's I saw a NW 747 do a 90 degree right turn at ORD during a thunderstorm, ending up with wing damage and almost hitting another NW 747. Pretty scary as the plane rocked for maybe 15 seconds before breaking loose.

[Edited 2013-01-21 07:13:37]

[Edited 2013-01-21 07:14:09]

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-01-21 07:27:59 and read 7880 times.

UA 737s to BUF is new. By March it seems ROC gets 737s in addition to BUF.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-01-21 08:02:45 and read 7381 times.

United has been flying a 737 on the ORD-BUF route for some time now and although it is SOP to chock the mains and the nose gear on all aircraft the tractor and tow bar would have never been hooked up because the sustained wind speed was only 20-30 mph.

On a side note a few years back United had 3 A320's place out of service 2 with sever damage to the nose gear in ORD during a freak summer storm all the mains and the nose were chocked the breaks were set and the tow bar and push tractor were hook up. A mirco-burst blew threw the airport and the wind was so strong that it turned the aircraft and push tractor so much that it snapped the tow bar at the locking point and the aircraft nose gear ended up hitting the push tractor.

Hooking up a tow bar and a push tractor my seem like a great idea but the problem is SOP states before you hook up a tow bar you must first insert the bypass pin (which disengages the nose gear steering hydraulics). When that hydraulic system is disengaged the aircraft turns very easily, In fact if you don't insert the bypass pin you can turn the nose gear at all the pressure is too great.

Im sure we all have been on an airplane and hear a loud bang during push back followed by along waiting period that loud bang was the shear pins breaking on the tow bar because the bypass pin was not installed and its designed to be loud so that it gets the attention of the push operator and the the pilots in the flight deck.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: yeelep
Posted 2013-01-21 08:19:17 and read 7096 times.

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 17):
Quoting yeelep (Reply 15):
If the winds were actually gusting to 35kts-45kts, Boeing recommends that all main and nose gear tires be chocked and the parking brake set. To prevent the aircraft from pitching, set the horz. stab. to zero units, fuel the plane, extend the speedbrakes and ballast the plane to the forward C.G. limit.

Definitely a lot of CYA by Boeing. I seriously doubt any operator would go to that extreme.

None that I know of. The furthest I've gone is everything but fully fueling and ballasting to fwd C.G.

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 26):
What would an airline use as ballast? Especially if they had a ramp full of aircraft needing to be ballasted.

That would be up to the airline, if they chose to do so.

Quoting tb727 (Reply 27):
Fuel in my airplanes case.

That will add weight on wheels, it won't move the C.G. to the forward limit.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 29):
Is it just me, but the pictures from the Buffalo TV station look like the nose is up against a jetway and not a fuel truck?

That picture is of the plane after it was returned to the gate.

Quoting Yakflyer (Reply 32):
Quoting n797mx (Thread starter):
UA 737-924/ER, tail number N34460, hit a fuel truck this morning after being blown by a strong gust. Nose cone appears heavily damaged.

I don't know what your definition of heavily damaged means, but I don't think this measures up to that description for me. The only thing damaged was the radome and possibly the radar antenna which we can't see. All that would be required to put this 737 back into service would be changing the radome which is a matter of 8 or 10 fasteners.

He said the nose cone (radome) appeared heavily damaged. It meets my definition of completely destroyed.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: tb727
Posted 2013-01-21 08:26:29 and read 6991 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 43):
That will add weight on wheels, it won't move the C.G. to the forward limit.

Yeah on the 737 it probably won't help much. We try and put at least 30k on the 727 and triple chalk it, if we are there watching it, we leave the parking brake set.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: khpn
Posted 2013-01-21 08:30:00 and read 6959 times.

at least it wasnt like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhZwvdRR5c

a side not on SWAP, its also used in ATC as severe weather avoidance program.. very common in the nyc airports.

also, i was actually spotting at BUF 2 days ago, and let me tell you, it has been VERY windy.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: cornutt
Posted 2013-01-21 08:37:38 and read 6839 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 36):

Now that's awesome. And as for using the aft stairs to come off an 80... I can't be the only who loves the whole Millennium Falcon feeling you get coming out that way...

Oh yeah, it was a bit like being in a '60s-era spacecraft before you entered the cabin. It actually surprised me the first time I did it, since up until then I didn't know those aircraft had that stairway. People's Express had one gate at FLL that had no jetway... the door and the stand were there. You walk out the door, onto the stand, and down the aux stairway to the tarmac. The first time I did it, I expected to see an airstair next to the L1 door, but no... we're walking towards the rear of the aircraft... where are we going? I wondered if we were going to have to climb a ladder or something. (Actually, that does sound like something that People's Express might have done.  Wow! )

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-01-21 08:59:41 and read 6514 times.

Quoting tb727 (Reply 44):
We try and put at least 30k on the 727 and triple chalk it, if we are there watching it, we leave the parking brake set.

In SLC, before we merged with WA, on the overnight 727s, instead of fueling the a/c, we would drop the rear airstairs, lock the inside access door and hook up the jet tug and towbar and of course, chock the mains and nose gear.


AA, on the other hand, used to leave their stairs up and fuel it up for ballast. One night during stormy weather, they apparently didn't fuel it up and a wind gust came up, picked up the nose and swung it into the jetway. This was with a 727, also. Next morning, the plane was still there, nose in the air, up against the jetway.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2013-01-21 10:52:26 and read 5922 times.

Quoting cle757 (Reply 6):

The tow bar should have been hooked up to the push tractor and the aircraft should have been triple chocked..this is what we do in CLE when high winds happen.

We do the exact same thing in DEN, regardless of weather. It's a safety thing.

Fir rampers: To prevent tail tipping on the 738's and 739's, we unload the aft pit first and then the fwd pit. When loading the outbound, fwd pit loaded first then the overflow in the aft pit.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2013-01-21 11:36:35 and read 5796 times.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 35):

Looks like it turned about 45 degrees from the parking line, so, about 50 feet, give or take?

With 6 chocks on the wheels.....still it moved 45 deg........

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-01-21 15:14:35 and read 5501 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 48):

Fir rampers: To prevent tail tipping on the 738's and 739's, we unload the aft pit first and then the fwd pit. When loading the outbound, fwd pit loaded first then the overflow in the aft pit.

Are there 737 operators that don't do that???

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-01-21 16:07:59 and read 5410 times.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 42):
Im sure we all have been on an airplane and hear a loud bang during push back followed by along waiting period that loud bang was the shear pins breaking on the tow bar because the bypass pin was not installed and its designed to be loud so that it gets the attention of the push operator and the the pilots in the flight deck.

Back in the mid 80s, at SLC, DL had just moved operations from C concourse to D and we were going to start doing our own pushbacks, instead of Western's maintenance. A DL mechanic came over from DEN to do the instruction and at one point, he had me up in the cockpit of the 727, to use the brakes if necessary. They started to push back from D-2 and I heard and FELT that large bang and both shear pins had broken and I was on my own, but I got it stopped. The shear pins did what they were supposed to do.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: tb727
Posted 2013-01-21 16:59:05 and read 5264 times.

Quoting mayor (Reply 51):
The shear pins did what they were supposed to do.

Heck yeah, nowadays when it breaks your heart sinks a little because 727 towbars aren't exactly popular on airports anymore!

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 49):
With 6 chocks on the wheels.....still it moved 45 deg........

Guess they weren't close enough!

Luckily it looks like they pulled the jet bridge the night before pretty far, that would have been bad if it spun enough to catch the wing.

We had a Lear stop in BIKF once and it was blowing to 70 knots and they piled sandbags around the landing gear to keep it from moving!

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-01-21 17:04:08 and read 5238 times.

Quoting tb727 (Reply 52):
Heck yeah, nowadays when it breaks your heart sinks a little because 727 towbars aren't exactly popular on airports anymore!

Well, DL did modify the towbard heads systemwide in the 80s so that they would work on both 757s and 727s.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: ordramper98
Posted 2013-01-21 17:46:26 and read 5149 times.

Delivery date was Nov 5, 2012, not March.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2013-01-21 18:19:36 and read 5093 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 50):
Are there 737 operators that don't do that???

I don't know, but one interesting thing is that you don't have to load it that way on a 736 nor a 73G or any A320 family aircraft.

I have never seen a tail tip on an A320 family airplane.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-01-21 18:35:25 and read 5094 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 55):
I don't know, but one interesting thing is that you don't have to load it that way on a 736 nor a 73G or any A320 family aircraft.

I have never seen a tail tip on an A320 family airplane.

Back during the DL/WA merger I was working weight & balance in ops and really wasn't familiar with the former Western a/c. DL's computerized weight and balance system gave you a final value from 1 to 100, one hundred being completely tail heavy. The 737-300 was tail heavy, apparently, just sitting empty. I sent one out to JAC and the final weight and balance showed an aft index of 100 and I figured I had it made. Bins 1, 2 and 3 were full of bags and 4 was empty, plus a full load of pax. After he had left, the ramp agent came in to tell me how many bags were in each bin and he said that "by the way, about 40 of those bags that I told you were in bin 3 are actually in bin 4" and I told him "no, they weren't" and it took several exchanges like this until he understood what I was getting at. I said that perhaps those 40 bags had slid from bin 3 to bin 4, but as far as the weight and balance was concerned, they were still in bin 3.
 

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2013-01-22 00:36:45 and read 4859 times.

Quoting tb727 (Reply 52):
Guess they weren't close enough!

If true...with high winds prevailing.....sounds unprofessional.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-01-22 00:53:12 and read 4847 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 55):

I don't know, but one interesting thing is that you don't have to load it that way on a 736 nor a 73G or any A320 family aircraft.

Never even seen a 736 during gate ops, so I won't comment on that. They may not have to on the G model, but they did it that way anyway at UA's sCO DFW station.

It does make sense that a G would get a pass on this, but I suspect that most companies with them (I've heard from folks that work there that WN does it the same way for their machines at most stations) load like that anyway.

For the 32x, I know that US certainly does load/unload their 321s & 20s like that, but they go for "quick" on the 319s. Never seen or heard about one of those tail tipping either. Which is strange when you think about it; they seem to have an awful lot of airplane behind the wing on the 320/21s. I think those engines must barely balance that...

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2013-01-22 16:45:26 and read 4471 times.

739's have the tail tip warning. So we do reverse loading. The CLP will let us know what to put on in the front bin(s). Plus our 900's are Telair equipped. The 800's you can pretty much load and unload standard. No fear of a severe tail tip like the 900.

BTW: Everyone who pushes has broke towbars. There designed to break.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: Antoniemey
Posted 2013-01-23 01:07:36 and read 4221 times.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 57):
If true...with high winds prevailing.....sounds unprofessional.

Lazy rampers is a possibility... I see it often enough. It could also be that the gust was strong enough that the chocks couldn't hold the plane.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
For the 32x, I know that US certainly does load/unload their 321s & 20s like that, but they go for "quick" on the 319s. Never seen or heard about one of those tail tipping either. Which is strange when you think about it; they seem to have an awful lot of airplane behind the wing on the 320/21s. I think those engines must barely balance that...

A couple of times on heavily-loaded F9 flights I've have a sup get nervous and specify that the back bins should be unloaded before we touch the front compartment... and that's on 319s. I kinda roll my eyes and say "OK, you're the boss."

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 59):
BTW: Everyone who pushes has broke towbars. There designed to break.

It's a pain when it happens. Of course, there was a lawsuit recently about an injury from a broken towbar, alleging that the ramp was "improperly trained." So, someone needs to explain to the lawyers that they're designed to break.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-01-23 05:59:27 and read 4072 times.

Quoting ordramper98 (Reply 54):
Delivery date was Nov 5, 2012, not March.

Ah, the backwards date on rzjets got me. Was it really the 5th? RZ says the 3rd.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2013-01-23 08:51:29 and read 3956 times.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 60):
It's a pain when it happens. Of course, there was a lawsuit recently about an injury from a broken towbar, alleging that the ramp was "improperly trained." So, someone needs to explain to the lawyers that they're designed to break.

That's the purpose of the shearing pin. All towbars have them and the towbar is designed to break if you redline the nosegear. Or steer too hard. I've known no one that hasn't broken a towbar during their career on the ramp. It's gonna happen if you push. But what do lawyers know - they'll find an excuse and fault somewhere.
Now if someone disconnects the bypass pin while the towbar and pushback is still connected......well you get my drift on the meaning of someone who is "improperly trained". That's "Ramp 101": Disconnect towbar - remove bypass pin / Insert bypass pin - attach towbar.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-01-23 11:29:37 and read 3834 times.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 62):
That's the purpose of the shearing pin. All towbars have them and the towbar is designed to break if you redline the nosegear. Or steer too hard. I've known no one that hasn't broken a towbar during their career on the ramp. It's gonna happen if you push. But what do lawyers know - they'll find an excuse and fault somewhere.
Now if someone disconnects the bypass pin while the towbar and pushback is still connected......well you get my drift on the meaning of someone who is "improperly trained". That's "Ramp 101": Disconnect towbar - remove bypass pin / Insert bypass pin - attach towbar.

Alot less expensive to replace a towbar or the head of it than to fix a busted nosegear.  

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: cotparampguy
Posted 2013-01-23 12:01:32 and read 3754 times.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 62):

We had a shear pin break yesterday while pushing out an E-190. The turn was very shallow and there was little stress on the bar, it just broke leaving the head still attached to the plane and the towbar off. That was the second time that has happened with that model of towbar that we just bought. I think there might be some sort of design flaw.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: ordramper98
Posted 2013-01-23 12:16:47 and read 3702 times.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 61):

I used Planespotters.net, pretty sure they are correct.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: 135mech
Posted 2013-01-23 12:17:29 and read 3715 times.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 12):
The aircraft was chocked and the parking break was engaged, I'm assuming.

From our KC-135's with the Hydraulic brakes, you can't leave them set for extended periods of time (i.e. overnight etc) because they can blow the seals and start leaking fluid all over the tires. We would set the brakes for high winds, but then release them after the warnings were gone. Also, if the planes are not fueled, the can and do move quite quickly (being aerodymanic and all) with high winds, especially when the gusts hit the side of that tall tail.

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 17):

Definitely a lot of CYA by Boeing. I seriously doubt any operator would go to that extreme.

We did/do for our birds. Did Okinawa for 4+ years and when the typhoons came through we'd 180K them and do all of that w the stab, chocks etc if we couldn't get them out of town in time.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 57):
Quoting tb727 (Reply 52):
Guess they weren't close enough!

If true...with high winds prevailing.....sounds unprofessional.

Most likely not the case! If you have been around planes in high winds, they rock back and forth (and twist around) and chocks like you see in the photos can get displaced/shuffled from their original positioning. Once that happens the plane can rotate and the cocks (esp if wooden) will move with it due to the twisting of the gear. The rubber chocks seem to hold better.

Regards,

135 Mech

[Edited 2013-01-23 13:28:17]

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-01-23 16:11:48 and read 3561 times.

Quoting cotparampguy (Reply 64):
We had a shear pin break yesterday while pushing out an E-190. The turn was very shallow and there was little stress on the bar, it just broke leaving the head still attached to the plane and the towbar off. That was the second time that has happened with that model of towbar that we just bought. I think there might be some sort of design flaw.

We used to make it a point that if one shear pin broke, we would replace the remaining one, also, because of possible strain put on it once the other one broke.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: Antoniemey
Posted 2013-01-24 01:07:51 and read 3408 times.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 62):
Now if someone disconnects the bypass pin while the towbar and pushback is still connected......well you get my drift on the meaning of someone who is "improperly trained". That's "Ramp 101": Disconnect towbar - remove bypass pin / Insert bypass pin - attach towbar.

In the case of this lawsuit, it was with an RJ... no bypass pin. Of course, the lawsuit also alleges that the head of the towbar "rolled under" the nosegear, as I recall. This happened nearly 2 years ago, with the lawsuit being filed a year later. I'm just having a hard time picturing how it would even be possible for the towbar head to end up under the gear, because, you know, it's not attached to the wheels directly, but to a non-pivoting point on the gear.

Quoting cotparampguy (Reply 64):
That was the second time that has happened with that model of towbar that we just bought. I think there might be some sort of design flaw

Or bad pins... or pins that simply wore out sooner than expected.

Quoting mayor (Reply 67):
We used to make it a point that if one shear pin broke, we would replace the remaining one, also, because of possible strain put on it once the other one broke.

  

I remember once when we lost a pin on an MD-88 pushback. First thing we did was get another towbar to complete the push, then as soon as that was done, notified the GSE mechanics that it needed new pins. Plural.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: flydeltajets
Posted 2013-01-24 02:40:42 and read 3348 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
Quoting cle757 (Reply 6):
The tow bar should have been hooked up to the push tractor and the aircraft should have been triple chocked..this is what we do in CLE when high winds happen.



United policy is to chock all wheels on arrival and to remove chocks just before departure.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 9):
Why can't there just be a place to tie down the nosewheel at the gate?


A 739 has the ramp footprint slightly smaller than a 757. Im not seeing how this would have been effective.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 68):
I'm just having a hard time picturing how it would even be possible for the towbar head to end up under the gear, because, you know, it's not attached to the wheels directly, but to a non-pivoting point on the gear.



If it was a yoke style towbar it could easily be rolled over. Even not yoke style it is possible. My personal experience is towing in SA A340. The towbar dropped off of the tow lug and the nose gear rolled up on the towbar before the pilot was able to apply the brakes.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: yeelep
Posted 2013-01-24 11:28:31 and read 3153 times.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 68):
I remember once when we lost a pin on an MD-88 pushback. First thing we did was get another towbar to complete the push, then as soon as that was done, notified the GSE mechanics that it needed new pins. Plural.

That brings up an interesting point. My airline requires a logbook entry and Maintenance conditional inspection of the nose gear for any shear pin breakage, which all but guaranties a delay. To minimize delays, GSE Maintenance replaces the shear pins on a monthly basis.

Quoting mayor (Reply 63):
Alot less expensive to replace a towbar or the head of it than to fix a busted nosegear.  

MD-80 that was being Maintenance towed to the hangar ended up having a little extra work needed. The shear pin broke without the tug driver noticing and when he braked the nose wheels turned beyond limits. Very lucky the tug didn't hit the fuselage.


It was easier/quicker to replace the entire gear, rather than rebuild the damaged one.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2013-01-24 11:37:52 and read 3130 times.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 68):
In the case of this lawsuit, it was with an RJ... no bypass pin. Of course, the lawsuit also alleges that the head of the towbar "rolled under" the nosegear, as I recall. This happened nearly 2 years ago, with the lawsuit being filed a year later. I'm just having a hard time picturing how it would even be possible for the towbar head to end up under the gear, because, you know, it's not attached to the wheels directly, but to a non-pivoting point on the gear.

I've seen that happen where an RJ (145) rolled up a towbar and got stuck between the nosegear. The person who disconnected the towbar didn't reattach the towbar to the pushback after disconnecting it from the nosegear. Then they went to the headset connector to remove it and closed the hatch. The towbar wasn't clear and the pushback driver backed up. The captain (which was in a rush) moved forward, and before the other ramp crew member went to get the towbar, the pilot ran up the towbar. They had to get airstairs to deplane the passengers and MX jacked up the nosegear.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 68):
Or bad pins... or pins that simply wore out sooner than expected.

Quoting mayor (Reply 67):
We used to make it a point that if one shear pin broke, we would replace the remaining one, also, because of possible strain put on it once the other one broke.

Shearing pins can be put on so tight, you can hit a bump while pushing and pow!

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2013-01-26 03:25:23 and read 2803 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 70):
That brings up an interesting point. My airline requires a logbook entry and Maintenance conditional inspection of the nose gear for any shear pin breakage, which all but guaranties a delay. To minimize delays, GSE Maintenance replaces the shear pins on a monthly basis.

Also depends on the cause of the pin shearing.....cause a new one could shear if subjected to excess loads too.Then scheduled replacement would not help.

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-01-26 07:29:14 and read 2710 times.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 72):
cause a new one could shear if subjected to excess loads too.

Well, isn't that what it's designed to do?  

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: TS-IOR
Posted 2013-01-26 08:50:27 and read 2639 times.

What about the fuel truck ? Was it parked as procedures require ?

Topic: RE: UA 737 Blown Into Fuel Truck In BUF
Username: tb727
Posted 2013-01-26 09:56:45 and read 2583 times.

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 74):

What about the fuel truck ? Was it parked as procedures require ?

Yes, if you look at the picture it is parked about as perfectly as you can park inside it's little square painted on the ramp.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/