Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Truck Meets UPS 757  
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 19513 times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NNkwgfMlwg

What is really alarming is the action after the collision. Supervisor pulls the driver out of the truck in what seems like an attempt to remove any evidence of a collision, and in the process almost backs over another employee.


FLYi
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 2525 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 19486 times:

I don't believe what I just saw (regarding the stupidity)... Anyway, the 757 showed who is boss! Both people who drove that truck need to be subject to drug and alcohol testing at the very least...


DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineSLCGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 19396 times:

Wow! Where did this happen? What are these idiot ground handlers (assuming contracted) thinking? Do they think UPS won't notice a big dent and hole in their airplane.

[Edited 2014-04-27 05:56:12]

User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 19308 times:

Quoting SLCGuy (Reply 2):
Wow! Where did this happen? What are these idiot ground handlers (assuming contracted) thinking? Do they think UPS won't notice a big dent and hole in their airplane. I see nothing, I know nothing, what damage? We know nothing!

This was in Miami recently. I wouldn't assume they were contractors either. UPS is a trucking company with a horizontal managerial hierarchy (many different internal fiefdoms). CYA rules the day as we see here.



FLYi
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19266 times:

Wonder how anyone can CHA on this one. Plain idiocy trying to drive a truck underneath a 757. OK, this happens at bridges around the world dozens of times daily but drivin on the tarmac should be allowed only to those who obtain a Special license for that before they are let lose.

Random drug and alcohol tests should be mandatory as well, at access Points. And finally, I never udnerstand how the USA gets away with imposing strict regulations of airside access all over the world except on their home turf.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineS75752 From United States of America, joined Apr 2014, 684 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19221 times:

I hope the 757 is okay.

Hard to tell from the video, but I can't see any damage to the 757, looks like the trailer took all the damage.


User currently offlineSLCGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19150 times:

Quoting S75752 (Reply 5):
Hard to tell from the video, but I can't see any damage to the 757, looks like the trailer took all the damage.

Did you see how the plane rocked? Minor bumps by ground equipment can cause expensive damage. Being broad sided by a truck is sure to damage internal structure, this is a big deal!

[Edited 2014-04-27 06:13:03]

User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6341 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18834 times:

I see nothing in this video to suggest anything resembling an attempt to "cover " anyone's ass and I do not see anyone almost getting run over. Those comments remind me of the Beatles song "Nowhere Man" , just see what he wants to see.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlinesejtam From Singapore, joined Sep 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18569 times:

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 7):
and I do not see anyone almost getting run over.

So you don't think the ramper who went behind the truck was almost run over by the co-driver (who took over in a hurry) reversing w/o any apparent checks for anyone in that position? It sure looks like that to me.


User currently offlinehufftheweevil From United States of America, joined Oct 2013, 546 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18458 times:

Wow....simply unbelievable video.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):
And finally, I never udnerstand how the USA gets away with imposing strict regulations of airside access all over the world except on their home turf.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what happened in the video. If you're implying that these individuals should have been stopped at some access point...how would the security guard have known that they were about to do is? It doesn't even appear to be intentional. And if you're implying that these men should have never receive badges in the first place, then you clearly don't understand the process we have to go through to obtain an airport badge. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 7):
I see nothing in this video to suggest anything resembling an attempt to "cover " anyone's ass and I do not see anyone almost getting run over.

Are you kidding me? Are you watching the same video as us? After the accident, the person initially sitting in the right seat clearly rushes over to the driver's side and takes control. The proper response would be to evaluate if anyone was injured. And the truck should not have been moved unless it was creating bodily harm. Only after the police arrived should the vehicles be moved. Clearly he was trying to "undo" what had just happened. And the near run-over is at 17 seconds. The guy initially on the ground was about to walk behind the truck when he realized the other guy was backing it up, so he was able to move backwards just in time.

This video is a perfect example of what NOT to do when involved in an accident. Both individuals should never be allowed to work at an airport again.



Huff
User currently offlineTW870 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hufftheweevil (Reply 9):
Clearly he was trying to "undo" what had just happened.

I am sure the SOP would be to leave the vehicle exactly where it was and then launch an investigation.

My only thought, though, is perhaps they were rushing the vehicle out from below the aircraft because they may have thought that the aircraft was going to collapse onto the truck after the impact. The truck did not hit either the nose wheel or the main landing gear, but in the middle of an accident like that people make split second decisions. The crash shook the daylights out of the 757, and as it whipsawed back there was a guy under the fuselage, which would have scared anyone watching. My only thought is that this was a knee-jerk response to the impact, and an effort to get the truck/driver out from underneath the weight of the aircraft.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 7):
I see nothing in this video to suggest anything resembling an attempt to "cover " anyone's ass and I do not see anyone almost getting run over.
Quoting sejtam (Reply 8):
So you don't think the ramper who went behind the truck was almost run over by the co-driver (who took over in a hurry) reversing w/o any apparent checks for anyone in that position? It sure looks like that to me.

It appears the man behind the truck is motioning with his arms that it's clear for the truck to back up and he seems to be moving back rather causally for someone who should be in fear for their life if they thought they were about to be run over.  


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18107 times:

Quoting hufftheweevil (Reply 9):
I'm not sure what this has to do with what happened in the video

May be it enlightens you, when you quote the complete paragraph

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):
Random drug and alcohol tests should be mandatory as well, at access Points

Overall, the security at US Airports is less than what is mandatory in Europe and many asian countries. The stowaway on the HA airliner at SJO was another Occasion which could not have happened here.

BTW, as said, a regular driving license should not be enough to allow airside Access. Whoever drives airside must undergo special drivers training and tests. This may not be idiot proof but any one with half a brain would know that his truck is higher than the space underneath a 757.
More to that, driving with that Speed underneath any aircraft even with a flat Ferrari would be a no go and lead to an immediate ban of driving air side.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently onlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17861 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):

That reminded me of this video I saw on youtube once.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IAqKdX3rXi4

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):

Stowaways have happened in Europe.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9746 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17806 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 13):
Stowaways have happened in Europe.

When and where since the 9/11 based rules became effective about 2006 or so?



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineMrBuzzcut From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15998 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
BTW, as said, a regular driving license should not be enough to allow airside Access. Whoever drives airside must undergo special drivers training and tests. This may not be idiot proof but any one with half a brain would know that his truck is higher than the space underneath a 757.
More to that, driving with that Speed underneath any aircraft even with a flat Ferrari would be a no go and lead to an immediate ban of driving air side.

I'll admit to have limited experience, but when I was trained in airside driving as a contractor on a military airfield, we were specifically trained to NEVER, EVER drive any vehicle underneath an aircraft. Period. I can't imagine that driving underneath a parked aircraft is acceptable practice anywhere.


User currently offlinecopter808 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15756 times:

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 15):
I'll admit to have limited experience, but when I was trained in airside driving as a contractor on a military airfield, we were specifically trained to NEVER, EVER drive any vehicle underneath an aircraft. Period. I can't imagine that driving underneath a parked aircraft is acceptable practice anywhere.

It's still that way at the US airport I worked at. Couldn't drive under ANY part of the aircraft!


User currently offlineLV From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 2007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15509 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
Overall, the security at US Airports is less than what is mandatory in Europe and many asian countries. The stowaway on the HA airliner at SJO was another Occasion which could not have happened here.

Before you get a holier than thou attitude there buddy may I remind you of this little incident:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...amond-heist-was-cash-not-gems.html

Grant it, it's not a stow away but it is one heck of a security breach that I would think would have caused a lot more commotion for security to notice than a stow away jumping the fence.

[Edited 2014-04-27 12:52:52]

User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14224 times:

Watching this video several times, while some errors were made (outside of the collision itself), it appears to be above board. The operator of the truck appears to hit the accelerator rather than the brake. Once the collision occurs another individual enters the truck and backs it away from the aircraft presumably to inspect for damage. While this shouldn't have happened people tend to do some stupid things in the heat of battle. I would guess that shortly after the collision the operator was sent to have a screening and likely removed from his job either through termination or reassignment depending on what the CBA stipulates. The others involved would also likely be disciplined as they moved the truck after the collision.


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlinen53614 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13959 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):
Random drug and alcohol tests should be mandatory as well, at access Points

I can't think of any sort of breathalyzer or urinalysis screening that can detect idiocy.



B722 B732 B733 B734 B735 B73G B738 B739 B742 B752 B772 A320 A319 CRJ2 DHC8 E135 E140 E145
User currently offlinecipango From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13907 times:

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 15):
I'll admit to have limited experience, but when I was trained in airside driving as a contractor on a military airfield, we were specifically trained to NEVER, EVER drive any vehicle underneath an aircraft. Period. I can't imagine that driving underneath a parked aircraft is acceptable practice anywhere.
Quoting copter808 (Reply 16):
t's still that way at the US airport I worked at. Couldn't drive under ANY part of the aircraft!

Makes perfect sense. If this was a tug car, maybe i'd have a little mercy, but it's common sense (I think anyway) to NEVER drive under an aircraft.

This may have scraped the belly of a 747 even?


User currently offlinevijayj From India, joined Apr 2014, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13870 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n53614 (Reply 19):
I can't think of any sort of breathalyzer or urinalysis screening that can detect idiocy.

I'm not sure there's a specific D/A panel to detect "cranial flatulence". However, if there were, there'd be many more job openings out there.


User currently offlinefanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2005 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12608 times:

UPS has very strict regulations for all its operations. Employees have been fired for much less. It would be safe to say that both men on the truck have seen their last day with the company; they will also be facing reckless driving charges or worse, if drugs or alcohol were involved. Not to mention reckless endangerment and obstruction of justice. Some lawyers will not have to worry about their next boat payment.


The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4781 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10638 times:

Quoting hufftheweevil (Reply 9):
. And the truck should not have been moved unless it was creating bodily harm.

Exactly, that's why I think they may have been attempting to cover this up by driving the truck away before anyone notices the damage to the Aircraft. Believe me this aircraft will have suffered significant damage.


Don't think he was trying to drive under it, just braked too late or hit the gas by accident !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineAF185 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2012, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9344 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Believe me this aircraft will have suffered significant damage.

If nothing apparent, would they perform some kind of ultrasound tests on the fuselage to detect any stress or micro cracks on the structure?


25 Post contains links LTC8K6 : None of those vehicles are hitting the bridge. They are hitting a giant steel guard beam a few feet in front of the bridge. http://cdn.theatlanticcit
26 ak907 : When I worked the ramp at a fairly large US airport, two airlines I worked for let us drive under the aircraft and under the wing, but it was only wi
27 Aesma : The video has been removed apparently, is it available elsewhere ? Still funny to watch, though !
28 Post contains links DarkSnowyNight : Count on it. It's pretty standard practice after an incident. generally, anyone involved has to. A few years back, some jerk broke my arm with a fuel
29 francoflier : A quick Google search gave me a few links. I like how the driver walks away, like the coolest of cats, barely looking back and likely thinking: "Oh w
30 nbgskygod : Even that is not really a good reason, especially where they attempted to drive.
31 Aesma : I didn't think we were talking about that kind of truck, that is obviously too tall to fit under any plane ! I understand better the comments about dr
32 jeffh747 : The video seems to have been removed, here's another link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8YiPwa_fM0 I agree with everyone else- this is indeed very
33 fxra : She... from another message board "She did not have a license to drive on the airport property. Her supervisor was in the passenger seat and switched
34 Post contains images cipango : Women drivers... I joke!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fed EX 727s, DHL DC9s And UPS 757 From ORF? posted Wed Nov 5 2008 14:37:15 by 747400sp
UPS 757 At LGB Having Problems? posted Wed Jan 25 2006 03:42:55 by Greg3322
UPS 757 Caught On Fire In SLC posted Thu Jul 29 2004 17:04:09 by N685FE
Ups 757 With Pw Engines posted Tue Mar 30 2004 20:25:52 by Sfelix1978
UPS 757 Makes An Emergency Landing At PHX posted Wed Sep 17 2003 07:40:00 by WesternDC1010
UPS 757-300?!? posted Thu Jul 24 2003 18:33:26 by MSYtristar
1st UPS 757 In New C/s posted Sun Apr 27 2003 15:40:56 by Alpha
UPS 757 Engines posted Wed Aug 7 2002 04:27:10 by Dash 80
Where Does The UPS 757 Into BUR Come From? posted Fri Mar 30 2001 18:01:39 by FedExHeavy
UPS 757 Engines posted Wed Nov 15 2000 21:18:11 by Raggi