juliuswong
Moderator
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:24 am

FatCat wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
FatCat wrote:
IMHO the most quick action that LH can make is taking one A346 out of storage, they're already in LH interiors and livery.


It's a different model than the airline is using. It uses totally different engines and is larger than the A343.

And it's also way longer! :white:
Currently ( correct me if I'm wrong ) LH's A436s on storage are:

D-AIHE
D-AIHM
D-AIHN
D-AIHO
D-AIHP
D-AIHQ
D-AIHR
D-AIHS

Hotel Echo was in service some 10 days ago. Also Hotel Oscar, Mike and November were in service not long ago.
Hotel Sierra is in some sort of longer storage, if you look in FR24 her photo is mothballed, in the desert.

Some of these are slated for parting out if I am not mistaken. It would be good if one of them can be spared the axeman for some time.
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
FatCat
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:37 am

juliuswong wrote:
Some of these are slated for parting out if I am not mistaken. It would be good if one of them can be spared the axeman for some time.


I've seen a nice rotation on FR24 for some of those frames.
SZW is a short term storage parking... hopefully we'll see some takeoff
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:15 am

HHScot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
People at AirportTugs.Net must be pretty upset.

No, they're too busy debating why it's a disaster that the latest tug is painted just in white and doesn't have any yellow on it anymore!

Yeah, but if the sunlight hits the tug at the right angle, it just glows in a way that says 'premium'!
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:41 am

Revelation wrote:
HHScot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
People at AirportTugs.Net must be pretty upset.

No, they're too busy debating why it's a disaster that the latest tug is painted just in white and doesn't have any yellow on it anymore!

Yeah, but if the sunlight hits the tug at the right angle, it just glows in a way that says 'premium'!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

There is also a hot discussion about the comment CEO Spohr made when he arrived at the accident site: “I'm not sure if we've really ordered enough airport tugs and possibly too many 777Xs,”
 
AIRT0M
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:54 am

Re: LH A340 on fire in FRA now

Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:08 am

hongkongflyer wrote:
AIRT0M wrote:
hongkongflyer wrote:

May I ask how can it return to services within days?

Image


Ask Lufthansa. It's what Lufthansa officially said shortly after the fire. Obviously somebody did not have the full picture...


Everybody are responsible for what they post in the forum. You are the one who post the comment, not LH.


Wth? I didn't post my opinion (you seem to be an expert and seem to know more than LH). I posted what LH officially announced, including the registration of the plane, the destination of plane (both unknown facts until then) and that according to LH it is supposed to return to service 'within days' ... what's wrong with that? That's what you call quoting. I never said anything about the implications of that incident. Unlike you, I would never make a prediction based on pictures.
 
FW200
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: LH A340 on fire in FRA now

Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:23 pm

AIRT0M wrote:
...according to LH it is supposed to return to service 'within days'.


I bet this assessment had been made by the same guy at LHT who predicted in 2008 that the L-1649 will be ready for its first flight in October 2010... :airplane: 8-)
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Posts: 1821
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

Re: LH A340 on fire in FRA now

Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:34 pm

AIRT0M wrote:
hongkongflyer wrote:
AIRT0M wrote:

Ask Lufthansa. It's what Lufthansa officially said shortly after the fire. Obviously somebody did not have the full picture...


Everybody are responsible for what they post in the forum. You are the one who post the comment, not LH.


Wth? I didn't post my opinion (you seem to be an expert and seem to know more than LH). I posted what LH officially announced, including the registration of the plane, the destination of plane (both unknown facts until then) and that according to LH it is supposed to return to service 'within days' ... what's wrong with that? That's what you call quoting. I never said anything about the implications of that incident. Unlike you, I would never make a prediction based on pictures.


Guys, you are missing the point of view of LH, the aircraft will return to service within days. It will be parked at a remote stand at the airport, and starts a new stage of its life as a Fire Trainer.
:duck:
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:04 pm

Doesnt this aircraft share the same cockpit as the A330? Could LH order a complete/assembled and manufactured cockpit section from Airbus and switch it out? From 1L/1R door forwards?
 
User avatar
blackbox67
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:13 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:20 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Doesnt this aircraft share the same cockpit as the A330? Could LH order a complete/assembled and manufactured cockpit section from Airbus and switch it out? From 1L/1R door forwards?

2 throttle levers for a 4-engined aircraft..hmm. Maybe you think again.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:39 pm

69bug wrote:
Not sure what a guy in the cockpit could have done in this case .. the tug-driver is in contact with ground control so they would definitely be aware of the fire and send help.

bug


'Waterbomber' would apparently have the person pop a slide and start tossing down fire extinguisher to the guys at the ground. Disregarding the wild stupidity of that idea, the videos showed it wouldn't have made any difference, as the guys on the ground were not able to get close enough to the flames with hand-helds. The only thing to be 'won' by having someone on the flight-deck in this particular situation, would be jeopardising their health.
Signature. You just read one.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:44 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Doesnt this aircraft share the same cockpit as the A330? Could LH order a complete/assembled and manufactured cockpit section from Airbus and switch it out? From 1L/1R door forwards?


It might be possible, but hardly economically feasible on an 18-year old 4-holer. But yes, structurally and display wise they are the same. Main differences are the overhead, throttle quadrants and some differences in avionics, but structurally it's the same. It's all mute though, as the avionics would all have been fried and the replacement of those alone runs into obscene numbers; one a frame as old as this, the only value left are in the engines, APU and avionics. Unless it's fresh out of a heavy, then there's also value in gear and hydraulics. If you remove the avionics from the equation, there's not enough value left to warrant major structural damage repairs, let alone a section 41 replacement.

blackbox67 wrote:
2 throttle levers for a 4-engined aircraft..hmm. Maybe you think again.


Or maybe changing the throttle quadrant wouldn't be much of a job in an otherwise identical construction?
Signature. You just read one.
 
FatCat
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:51 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Revelation wrote:
HHScot wrote:
No, they're too busy debating why it's a disaster that the latest tug is painted just in white and doesn't have any yellow on it anymore!

Yeah, but if the sunlight hits the tug at the right angle, it just glows in a way that says 'premium'!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

There is also a hot discussion about the comment CEO Spohr made when he arrived at the accident site: “I'm not sure if we've really ordered enough airport tugs and possibly too many 777Xs,”

Hottest topic is how the NG 2-wheeled Tugs will outclass the old 4-wheeled ones.
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:02 pm

factsonly wrote:
69bug wrote:
With regards to repairing this aircraft, LH has rebuilt a write-off before.

In the mid/late 70s D-ABYU (freighter) went off the runway at HKG Kai Tak. The engines were ripped off and the E and E compartment was crushed by the nosewheel folding back. The maindeck floor was also damaged by the nose being pulled back.



This is an optimistic note. That was the third 747 salvage operation I know of. Does anybody know where we could find pictures taken during the repairs? Sorry for the off-topic. By the way has anyone noticed the dent in the fuselage of the A340 between the letters A and R in the word "STAR" or is it my idea?
 
RightRudder
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:04 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:05 pm

ams747757 wrote:
Ouch! Doesn't look so good. Thank goodness there were no pax on board. Do we know if the tug driver was injured at all?


What's the current status of the line crew?

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:
Sad to see that! One less aircraft in the LH fleet (at least for now).


Revelation wrote:
And to be fair, one less airport tug.

People at AirportTugs.Net must be pretty upset.


I checked AirportTugs.net and nothing. I also checked AirportTugs.com and nothing.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana".
 
User avatar
ams747757
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:14 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:32 am

Looks like LH426 is being operated with a 346, D-AIHD today. So perhaps some shuffling of aircraft necessary with this one being OOS.
 
User avatar
Heavierthanair
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:20 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:46 pm

G'day

I checked AirportTugs.net and nothing. I also checked AirportTugs.com and nothing.


They share the site with Firefighters.net, Bagloaders.net and BarkeepersFRA.net :old:

Hope this helps solving the mystery. Always happy to help out :bigthumbsup:

Cheers

Peter
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879 - 1955)
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:23 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Bjm0517 wrote:
I hope Lufthansa will repair this bird, the A340 is such an amazing aircraft and I would hope to see this one go in such a negative way. :ashamed:

But if it does get scrapped, can that even happen at FRA? I mean they can store it but if they scrap it will it have to be repaired enough to fly to a scrapping-Capable airport? I hope it will not come to that.

I follow the "movements" in FRA since the beginning of the 1980ies but I cannot remember of a single jet that was scrapped in FRA.

I remember a LH-B742 that was transferred to HHN (less than 100km, give or take) just to be scrapped there: http://www.aviationpics.de/scrap/abyq/page_01.htm

It turned out that what I wrote was not wrong (no aircraft scrapped in FRA since the 1980ies) but just one year earlier, in 1979, an Air France Caravelle had an accident in FRA ( https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 19790312-0 ) and was broken up in FRA. Source: http://fraaviation.forumsfree.de/t18243 ... 340-d-aifa
 
User avatar
Bjm0517
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:41 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:27 pm

N14AZ wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
Bjm0517 wrote:
I hope Lufthansa will repair this bird, the A340 is such an amazing aircraft and I would hope to see this one go in such a negative way. :ashamed:

But if it does get scrapped, can that even happen at FRA? I mean they can store it but if they scrap it will it have to be repaired enough to fly to a scrapping-Capable airport? I hope it will not come to that.

I follow the "movements" in FRA since the beginning of the 1980ies but I cannot remember of a single jet that was scrapped in FRA.

I remember a LH-B742 that was transferred to HHN (less than 100km, give or take) just to be scrapped there: http://www.aviationpics.de/scrap/abyq/page_01.htm

It turned out that what I wrote was not wrong (no aircraft scrapped in FRA since the 1980ies) but just one year earlier, in 1979, an Air France Caravelle had an accident in FRA ( https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 19790312-0 ) and was broken up in FRA. Source: http://fraaviation.forumsfree.de/t18243 ... 340-d-aifa

Oh, thank you for the update!! But interesting to know that FRA can break up an aircraft, or was that outsorsed?
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:35 pm

Oh, I have no clue. This almost 40 years ago.

I don’t know much, but I am pretty sure there are now much stricter restrictions for scrapping an aircraft...
 
FatCat
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:17 pm

And scrapping a Caravelle was easier anyway, being somehow already partly scrapped even on first flight
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
Blotto
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:00 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:27 am

slcguy wrote:
Not sure this video has been posted earlier in the thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvjHCrop6G0
Obviously judging by the hole and the way framework is hanging down there is no way this aircraft will fly again. This is the head of the aircraft, avionics bay, cockpit, nose wheel well and most of the lower structure ahead of the L/R1 doors. At least the rest of the aircraft is undamaged so lots of parts to be salvaged, easy call for the insurance company.


Correct. Structural damage is beyond repair, cabin is destroyed by smoke, E&E gone, cockpit gone. That's it for this bird
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:51 am

B777LRF wrote:
69bug wrote:
Not sure what a guy in the cockpit could have done in this case .. the tug-driver is in contact with ground control so they would definitely be aware of the fire and send help.

bug


'Waterbomber' would apparently have the person pop a slide and start tossing down fire extinguisher to the guys at the ground. Disregarding the wild stupidity of that idea, the videos showed it wouldn't have made any difference, as the guys on the ground were not able to get close enough to the flames with hand-helds. The only thing to be 'won' by having someone on the flight-deck in this particular situation, would be jeopardising their health.


Sliding a few fire extinguishers down the slide is really not rocket science if you know what you're doing.
The stupidity is when you lose a million dollar aircraft because you want to save a few man hours here and there by not having a brake-man.
The second stupidity is having to pull a heavy fire extinguisher on foam from afar when your aircraft is loaded with halon ones in sufficient quantity to keep the fire tamed until the fire services arrive.
While a small handheld device may seem ineffective if talking about powder or foam, halon even in such small devices is very effective.

Here is a demo in very similar conditions as this fire:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw025Ho8KyM

Those halon extinguishers are not located around cabin crew stations for decorating purposes.
Making ground handling crews aware by training them and by establishing risk assessment procedures, such accidents should be avoided at respectable aviation companies.
Yesterday it was an A340, tomorrow it could be a brand new A359.

I hope that I didn't bruise your ego too much. But yeah, if you work in the industry, you could use additional training, as do most. I don't know of many ground handling crews who follow proper training, except at JAL where I see that even ground handling equipment needs to have wheel chocks installed when not operating, even for 10 seconds.

See at 30 seconds:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2XNVU811VmU
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:18 pm

I would imagine that any shop that performs D-checks can scrap/recycle an aircraft. Maybe not as cheap as a proper scrapping operation but better than letting the plane rot on the tarmac.
LHT at FRA should be able to do the job.

Or give them another two old A343 and expect one almost new A340 rolling out of the hangar in 10 years.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:20 pm

What difference would a brake man have made? That tug was the type that picks up and lufts the nose gear. All functions are controlled by the Driver. Rest assured that the ground Crew receives proper Training at FRA. Here you cannot even drive a car without having a Fraport driving license additionally to the Standard driving license.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
kalvado
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:34 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
69bug wrote:
Not sure what a guy in the cockpit could have done in this case .. the tug-driver is in contact with ground control so they would definitely be aware of the fire and send help.

bug


'Waterbomber' would apparently have the person pop a slide and start tossing down fire extinguisher to the guys at the ground. Disregarding the wild stupidity of that idea, the videos showed it wouldn't have made any difference, as the guys on the ground were not able to get close enough to the flames with hand-helds. The only thing to be 'won' by having someone on the flight-deck in this particular situation, would be jeopardising their health.


Sliding a few fire extinguishers down the slide is really not rocket science if you know what you're doing.
The stupidity is when you lose a million dollar aircraft because you want to save a few man hours here and there by not having a brake-man.
The second stupidity is having to pull a heavy fire extinguisher on foam from afar when your aircraft is loaded with halon ones in sufficient quantity to keep the fire tamed until the fire services arrive.
While a small handheld device may seem ineffective if talking about powder or foam, halon even in such small devices is very effective.

Here is a demo in very similar conditions as this fire:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw025Ho8KyM

Those halon extinguishers are not located around cabin crew stations for decorating purposes.
Making ground handling crews aware by training them and by establishing risk assessment procedures, such accidents should be avoided at respectable aviation companies.
Yesterday it was an A340, tomorrow it could be a brand new A359.

I hope that I didn't bruise your ego too much. But yeah, if you work in the industry, you could use additional training, as do most. I don't know of many ground handling crews who follow proper training, except at JAL where I see that even ground handling equipment needs to have wheel chocks installed when not operating, even for 10 seconds.

See at 30 seconds:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2XNVU811VmU

What are the requirements for aircraft occupants in such situation? Try to locate extinguishers - with the quite real risk for their life and health, or evacuate as soon as possible? My bet is on evacuation.
Getting extinguishers out through the front door would mean a real risk for getting burned, and still loosing extinguishers to slide collapse after burned through.
Running with them further back - and still loosing aircraft - is not much better.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:35 pm

PanHAM wrote:
What difference would a brake man have made? That tug was the type that picks up and lufts the nose gear. All functions are controlled by the Driver. Rest assured that the ground Crew receives proper Training at FRA. Here you cannot even drive a car without having a Fraport driving license additionally to the Standard driving license.


1. A brake man could have radioed ATC to have the fire services come down. We don't know if the tug driver was able to do that and precious time was lost, leading to the extensive damage.
2. A brake man could have communicated with the tug driver and coordinated transfer of onboard fire extinguishing devices within a manageable timeframe.
3. A brake man could have coordinated with dispatch or OCC to have personnel converge to the site to assist with fire fighting efforts pending the arrival of FFS.

A brake man is needed even whith the nose-lifting type, as the tug driver can lose communications or brakes or can become unconscious.

An airport driver's license is mandatory at virtually any commercial airport worldwide.

It's not enough to say that staff at FRA or LH get top notch training when even the most basic safety procedures are not followed or don't exist.
Look at the video below, you can see how ground crews wait for everybody to be clear before showing the pin to the flight deck and then retreating to a specific clearance line, while other personnel take seemingly ridiculous measures of chocking wheels of a tractor.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2XNVU811VmU

That is training, those are procedures.
Lufthansa is no-where near that level of training. I can tell because I've worked for a LH Group airline. It was incidents and accidents galore.
Last edited by Waterbomber on Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:48 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
PanHAM wrote:
What difference would a brake man have made? That tug was the type that picks up and lufts the nose gear. All functions are controlled by the Driver. Rest assured that the ground Crew receives proper Training at FRA. Here you cannot even drive a car without having a Fraport driving license additionally to the Standard driving license.


1. A brake man could have radioed ATC to have the fire services come down. We don't know if the tug driver was able to do that and precious time was lost, leading to the extensive damage.
2. A brake man could have communicated with the tug driver and coordinated transfer of onboard fire extinguishing devices within a manageable timeframe.
3. A brake man could have coordinated with dispatch or OCC to have personnel converge to the site to assist with fire fighting efforts pending the arrival of FFS.

A brake man is needed even whith the nose-lifting type, as the tug driver can lose communications or brakes or can become unconscious.

An airport driver's license is mandatory at virtually any commercial airport worldwide.

It's not enough to say that staff at FRA or LH get top notch training when even the most basic safety procedures are not followed or don't exist.

No safety department would endorse a person without special equipment (heat protection, breathing supply) and firefighter training to stay at the site of active fire for any duration of time. So,
0. A brake man SHOULD run away and evacuate before communicating to anyone - hopefully through the back slide after assessing the situation at front slide - just to avoid injury. Period.
I assume LH would willingly burn the aircraft to save the life a person. It is plainly cheaper, especially with a plane that old.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:01 pm

kalvado wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:
PanHAM wrote:
What difference would a brake man have made? That tug was the type that picks up and lufts the nose gear. All functions are controlled by the Driver. Rest assured that the ground Crew receives proper Training at FRA. Here you cannot even drive a car without having a Fraport driving license additionally to the Standard driving license.


1. A brake man could have radioed ATC to have the fire services come down. We don't know if the tug driver was able to do that and precious time was lost, leading to the extensive damage.
2. A brake man could have communicated with the tug driver and coordinated transfer of onboard fire extinguishing devices within a manageable timeframe.
3. A brake man could have coordinated with dispatch or OCC to have personnel converge to the site to assist with fire fighting efforts pending the arrival of FFS.

A brake man is needed even whith the nose-lifting type, as the tug driver can lose communications or brakes or can become unconscious.

An airport driver's license is mandatory at virtually any commercial airport worldwide.

It's not enough to say that staff at FRA or LH get top notch training when even the most basic safety procedures are not followed or don't exist.

No safety department would endorse a person without special equipment (heat protection, breathing supply) and firefighter training to stay at the site of active fire for any duration of time. So,
0. A brake man SHOULD run away and evacuate before communicating to anyone - hopefully through the back slide after assessing the situation at front slide - just to avoid injury. Period.
I assume LH would willingly burn the aircraft to save the life a person. It is plainly cheaper, especially with a plane that old.


That is incorrect.
Fire training focusses on evacuation when a fire poses a risk. Trained staff are allowed to take firefighting measures at own discretion and within reasonable levels of risk. Failure to attack a manageable fire could be seen as negligence too, especially if talking about trained personnel.

A tug doesn't start burning straight away, attacking the fire straight away is important.

By the way, the ground crew here were reckless and untrained. The fire was too big already and they attacked the fire in the wrong angle. There is a golden rule: avoid standing to the side of an aircraft wheel.
Attacking the fire from the side of the burning nosewheels... That's plain stupid.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8518
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:06 pm

How do you believe the nose wheel of the aircraft were the core of the fire? Is the tug engine not much more likely.
 
FatCat
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:13 pm

seahawk wrote:
How do you believe the nose wheel of the aircraft were the core of the fire? Is the tug engine not much more likely.

Agree, and if was an engine / hydraulic oil fire, it will start straight away
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
kalvado
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:14 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:

1. A brake man could have radioed ATC to have the fire services come down. We don't know if the tug driver was able to do that and precious time was lost, leading to the extensive damage.
2. A brake man could have communicated with the tug driver and coordinated transfer of onboard fire extinguishing devices within a manageable timeframe.
3. A brake man could have coordinated with dispatch or OCC to have personnel converge to the site to assist with fire fighting efforts pending the arrival of FFS.

A brake man is needed even whith the nose-lifting type, as the tug driver can lose communications or brakes or can become unconscious.

An airport driver's license is mandatory at virtually any commercial airport worldwide.

It's not enough to say that staff at FRA or LH get top notch training when even the most basic safety procedures are not followed or don't exist.

No safety department would endorse a person without special equipment (heat protection, breathing supply) and firefighter training to stay at the site of active fire for any duration of time. So,
0. A brake man SHOULD run away and evacuate before communicating to anyone - hopefully through the back slide after assessing the situation at front slide - just to avoid injury. Period.
I assume LH would willingly burn the aircraft to save the life a person. It is plainly cheaper, especially with a plane that old.


That is incorrect.
Fire training focusses on evacuation when a fire poses a risk. Trained staff are allowed to take firefighting measures at own discretion and within reasonable levels of risk. Failure to attack a manageable fire could be seen as negligence too, especially if talking about trained personnel.

A tug doesn't start burning straight away, attacking the fire straight away is important.

By the way, the ground crew here were reckless and untrained. The fire was too big already and they attacked the fire in the wrong angle. There is a golden rule: avoid standing to the side of an aircraft wheel.
Attacking the fire from the side of the burning nosewheels... That's plain stupid.


Can you maintain some focus on the topic of the discussion? I am specifically talking about a brake rider in the cockpit. Which might have saved the day - not for sure; but very well could upgrade the accident from property-only to personal injury or even fatal category. Assuming everything else would be equal, I am not sure brakes rider would have time to evacuate if (s)he took any of the heroic steps you describe. We know smoke did enter cockpit, but we don't know what else happened in there - like fluids boil-off.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8518
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:14 pm

kalvado wrote:
seahawk wrote:
How do you believe the nose wheel of the aircraft were the core of the fire? Is the tug engine not much more likely.

I assume this is about tire exploding due to overheat and pressure buildup.


But then approaching from side is wise, as the side is protected by the tug , while if you approach from the back, there is nothing between you and the wheel.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:14 pm

seahawk wrote:
How do you believe the nose wheel of the aircraft were the core of the fire? Is the tug engine not much more likely.

I assume this is about tire exploding due to overheat and pressure buildup.
 
Noshow
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:22 pm

Below the line all tugs should get some foam fire supression system that is strong enough to fight any tug-fire. Just imagine some fully fueled and fully booked plane being ignited with the nose doors blocked next time.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:36 pm

Francoflier wrote:
The problem is that the fire was burning right underneath the electronics compartment.

Even if there weren't serious structural repairs required, it is likely that the extensive electronic systems and wiring damage would make the repair quite expensive.

It all depends on how long the fire burned before it was put out and how hot it got in there...

And given the batteries are in there too, it's a good thing they aren't Lithium. :duck:


My thoughts precisely.
Plane mad!
 
kalvado
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:10 pm

Noshow wrote:
Below the line all tugs should get some foam fire supression system that is strong enough to fight any tug-fire. Just imagine some fully fueled and fully booked plane being ignited with the nose doors blocked next time.

How many such accidents happened over past year? 10 years?
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:35 pm

As to the scrapping, there is enough area available for such a temporary Job,. I doubt that LH Technik has enough spare personell to handle the Job but there is a Company located in Pau that is specialized, alternately at Teruel Spain. They can, if needed. send a Crew to FRA to do the Job.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
IWMBH
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:48 pm

The actual sorting out of parts doesn't need to happen at FRA right? They can cut the plane to pieces and take it elsewhere, that wouldn't take long and doesn't take much expertise. She isn't worth much anyway in this state.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:00 pm

It has to be done by licensed mechancíchs and not ba a wrecking ball. Engines and Main Landing Gear are the most valuable parts and LH is likely to buy that from the isurers. What ever else still can be used will be parted out at FRA and go by truck, including the Aluminium.

BTW, there was a Tz154 that had a Meeting with a Catering truck and that was stuck at FRA for a while, I am not sure if that aircraft was repaired or scrapped.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:46 pm

PanHAM wrote:
BTW, there was a Tz154 that had a Meeting with a Catering truck and that was stuck at FRA for a while, I am not sure if that aircraft was repaired or scrapped.

As I posted above, since 1979 no aircraft has been scrapped in FRA. So if you are referring to the time after 1979 they must have repaired it.

IWMBH wrote:
The actual sorting out of parts doesn't need to happen at FRA right? They can cut the plane to pieces and take it elsewhere, that wouldn't take long and doesn't take much expertise.

PanHAM wrote:
It has to be done by licensed mechancíchs and not ba a wrecking ball.

I guess the company has to have some kind of environmental licence or similar.

"One does not simply scrapp an A340"
Image
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:41 pm

Why can't an A333 be reconfigured in the CityLine configuration?
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:15 pm

If an Environment license is eeded they will get a te,porary one for that Job. I mean, this aircraft won't fly, there is no alternative to dismantle where is.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:43 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
Sliding a few fire extinguishers down the slide is really not rocket science if you know what you're doing.
The stupidity is when you lose a million dollar aircraft because you want to save a few man hours here and there by not having a brake-man.
The second stupidity is having to pull a heavy fire extinguisher on foam from afar when your aircraft is loaded with halon ones in sufficient quantity to keep the fire tamed until the fire services arrive.
While a small handheld device may seem ineffective if talking about powder or foam, halon even in such small devices is very effective.

Here is a demo in very similar conditions as this fire:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw025Ho8KyM

Those halon extinguishers are not located around cabin crew stations for decorating purposes.
Making ground handling crews aware by training them and by establishing risk assessment procedures, such accidents should be avoided at respectable aviation companies.
Yesterday it was an A340, tomorrow it could be a brand new A359.

I hope that I didn't bruise your ego too much. But yeah, if you work in the industry, you could use additional training, as do most. I don't know of many ground handling crews who follow proper training, except at JAL where I see that even ground handling equipment needs to have wheel chocks installed when not operating, even for 10 seconds.


I can assure you, my ego is nowhere near being bruised. That aside, you seem to know a fair bit but are applying your knowledge in a rather odd fashion.

First of all, the laws of physics still apply, even if we're not talking about rocket science. That means, a fire bottle being released down a slide - however gently - will quickly accelerate to a high rate of knots, and you're suggesting someone should be at the foot of said slide, heroically grabbing hold of it without breaking an arm or leg in the process?

But first we need to get the bottles. They are usually stored around the aircraft, and having been advised of a fire by ground, you'll now have the brake rider assemble a suitable number of them at an exit, in preparation of subjecting them to a few of Newtons laws? Keep in mind, the guy upstairs can't see what's going on and you've now disconnected him from communication with the ground crew, who can see what's happening. There are so many things wrong with this whole idea, it's difficult deciding where to start and end. And I really couldn't care less if it's a 30 year old 737 or a brand spanking new 747 - no assembly of bolts and bits is worth the life of a human being.

As for not following proper training, you're in serious need of a revision to your assertions. You're quite right JAL are rather anal about the way they do business, but there are many ways to run a railroad and their's but one of them. There is a general consensus of how to turn an aircraft, and in most parts of the world where ground crew are paid and treated decently, standards are generally pretty high. Not JAL perfect, but high enough to ensure a safe environment and, at the end of the day, that's all what matters.

As for my level of training, you may suggest and think whatever suits you best. Seriously, I couldn't give a flying fuck.
Signature. You just read one.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:01 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
1. A brake man could have radioed ATC to have the fire services come down. We don't know if the tug driver was able to do that and precious time was lost, leading to the extensive damage.
2. A brake man could have communicated with the tug driver and coordinated transfer of onboard fire extinguishing devices within a manageable timeframe.
3. A brake man could have coordinated with dispatch or OCC to have personnel converge to the site to assist with fire fighting efforts pending the arrival of FFS.

1: The tug driver is in direct contact with ground ATC, and would have radioed in the emergency if possible. Are you suggesting the brake man should remain in the cockpit with a fire developing below is a safe course of action? Or that the tug driver should remain in his cab shouting mayday whilst his vehicle is engulfed in flames?
2: There you go again with your stillborn idea of sending fire bottles down the slides. It. Will. Not. Happen. Ever.
3: So now the brake man, instead of collecting fire bottles to send down the slides, will have to coordinate with OCC? And what on earth do you think will come of calling OCC? Are you not aware of basic emergency procedures, namely that you call the competent authority directly and immediately? That means ATC if you're in contact with them, or airport emergency phone number if you're not. And you stay in contact with them, and advise THEM of the developing situation - not some hapless dispatcher in an off-site location thousands of miles away. But you don't stop there, do you? No, now you'll have staff with little or no fire fighting training stream out of their offices, running across what is most likely an active taxiway to fight a fire involving an aircraft? And they'll do all that in less than the 2 minutes the airport fire service has as their maximum response time? It would be interesting to learn of your role in commercial aviation.

Waterbomber wrote:
A brake man is needed even whith the nose-lifting type, as the tug driver can lose communications or brakes or can become unconscious.

An airport driver's license is mandatory at virtually any commercial airport worldwide.

It's not enough to say that staff at FRA or LH get top notch training when even the most basic safety procedures are not followed or don't exist.
Look at the video below, you can see how ground crews wait for everybody to be clear before showing the pin to the flight deck and then retreating to a specific clearance line, while other personnel take seemingly ridiculous measures of chocking wheels of a tractor.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2XNVU811VmU

That is training, those are procedures.
Lufthansa is no-where near that level of training. I can tell because I've worked for a LH Group airline. It was incidents and accidents galore.


No, a brake man is not needed if you use the correct procedures - do try getting your head wrapped around that indisputable fact. It may collide with your personal view of the world, but it's still wrong. As for falling unconscious that's a risk so remote, it doesn't trigger any action on a risk matrix. Which, in plain english, means the risk is so remote it's not worth bothering about. But if you did, you'd need to make the entire chain unconscious safe; what if both the brake man and the tug driver keeled over at the same time? How'd you mitigate your way out of that, if you decide to go down that route?

As for the video you're showing, everything is pretty standard apart from the bowing by the respectful JAL ground crew and chocking the tractor. Good on them, but it's hardly a contributor to aviation safety.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12321
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: LH A340 on fire in FRA now

Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:24 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Image
Reminds me a little bit of this jet...

;-)

Whoa! That's weird... but hilarious!
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Curiousflyer
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:19 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Tue Jul 17, 2018 2:35 am

Any new information about this carbonized beauty?
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:31 am

Curiousflyer wrote:
Any new information about this carbonized beauty?

The die is cast. According to this article the decision has been made that D-AIFA will not fly anymore.
They are analysing what to do with this airframe but utilizing it for parts has been mentioned as one option.

https://www.aerotelegraph.com/versengte ... nie-wieder
 
Noshow
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:32 am

It's a write off no surprise. Old bird and heat damage.
 
estorilm
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:37 pm

Noshow wrote:
It's a write off no surprise. Old bird and heat damage.

That's a shame - go back to the first page and everyone was (literally) talking about it buffing right out.

Just goes to show that you never know with these kinds of things.

Wow I know it's not the tug operators fault, but could you imagine clocking into a shift, maybe making $18/hr, and managing to kill a $20m aircraft? :shock:

That person might get some nicknames around the ramp! :scratchchin:

edit: EW this doesn't surprise me at all - if I had seen this on day one I don't think I'd ever imagine seeing this bird fly again. Sad to see their lives cut short like this, especially with a ground incident.

Image
 
traindoc
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:35 am

Re: LH A340 damaged by pushback tug fire at FRA

Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:09 pm

So what is the mechanism of a tug catching on fire while towing an A/C? Once might be a one off, but twice should not be!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos