Y Jet Bridge Collapses At DEN, Damages Plane

JumboBumbo · Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:40 am

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm.../0,2777,DRMN_23912_5453722,00.html

Just read a couple minutes ago... no one hurt apparently, but it did damage an aircraft. Few details.

FriendlySkies · Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:48 am

Hmm...something tells me UA won't be ordering anymore of those automated bridges...

usair330 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:50 am

Wow... Good to see that no one was hurt. This is one of those things that worry me about working the ramp....

I still like it though Big grin

hoya · Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 am

Glad to hear no one was hurt, but what is the extent of the damage to the aircraft? An automated bridge collapsing onto a wing surely isn't good. Possible writeoff? Anyone know what kind of plane was involved?

FriendlySkies · Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:00 am

Quoting Hoya (Reply 3):
Anyone know what kind of plane was involved?

I'm assuming it was a 737 or an Airbus, I think those are the only aircraft the bridge works with right now.

For those who haven't seen it, this is the bridge in question:

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv.../20060908_023843_bz08jetbridge.jpg

[Edited 2007-03-30 22:02:36]

bravogolf · Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:27 am

Does anyone know who made the bridge?

InnocuousFox · Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:28 am

Wow... doesn't look terribly sturdy. Sad

I wouldn't want to be on it with a very large family.

Cubsrule · Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:29 am

Aircraft was a 752... Either they were not using the rear jet bridge and it came crashing down, or the media has the wrong information and they were trying to deboard from 1L and 2L with 'traditional' double jet bridges. I have no idea which.

BA · Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:44 am

Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 5):
Does anyone know who made the bridge?

DewBridge.

Here are some pictures of the jet bridge:

These five jet bridges were added back in August and were completely financed by United.

Airport officials were not too fond of them and thus were not willing to take part in it.

travatl · Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:04 am

WN uses these same bridges somewhere, don't they? ALB maybe?

BA · Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:09 am

Quoting Travatl (Reply 9):
WN uses these same bridges somewhere, don't they? ALB maybe?

Yes, but they aren't automated.

The ones UA has in DEN are automated and according to the article posted above, the sensor malfunctioned which is what caused the rear part of the jet bridge to drop onto the wing.

113312 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:13 am

Last time I watched it going into position, I wondered how long it was before something like this happened.

UnknownUser · Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:18 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
Aircraft was a 752... Either they were not using the rear jet bridge

Yep, the 757 never uses dual jetways. Reason being that it is single aisle. So, people lining up through FC doesn't do anything to speed things along. The bridge does not have the capability to hook up to the rear door of the 757.

D L X · Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:20 am

Quoting BA (Reply 10):
the rear part of the jet bridge to drop onto the wing

Ooohh... that no good. I don't know the engineering involved, but that sounds like the kind of collision that takes an aircraft out of service for a long while.

UpperDeck79 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:38 am

Quote:

McCarthy said she didn't yet know whether the United will temporarily discontinue using the other new bridges while it investigates the incident.

The United? Big grin

DeltaAVL · Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:07 am

Anyone have any pics or know exactly what the extent of the damage is? It might not be worth it to repair a 757 if it's badly damaged - some of those UA 752s are pretty old IIRC.

OB1504 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:10 am

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 15):
Anyone have any pics or know exactly what the extent of the damage is? It might not be worth it to repair a 757 if it's badly damaged - some of those UA 752s are pretty old IIRC.

Still, 757s are hard to come by these days. UA might have a hell of a time trying to find a replacement aircraft.

F9Animal · Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:51 am

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 16):
Still, 757s are hard to come by these days. UA might have a hell of a time trying to find a replacement aircraft.

That is what speed tape is for! LOL!

jmy007 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:57 am

KUSA has a slide show of the accident.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=67223

DeltaAVL · Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:59 am

Quoting Jmy007 (Reply 18):
KUSA has a slide show of the accident.

Oh, that doesn't look bad at all. But those pics are from a distance, so it may be worse than it looks. Definitely not a write-off though.

BR715-A1-30 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:38 am

That just goes to show ya.. You can't beat a good ole pair of eyes and human response.

D L X · Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:48 am

Also sounds like DewBridge is going to have some explaining to do.... with their wallets...

deltajet757 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:59 am

The wing looks fine to me. It probably has some minor scrapes, scratches, etc. here and there. The plane should be back in the air pretty soon. Nevertheless it still needs to be checked just to make sure. Hopefully there aren't any punctures or big dents.

That jet bridge doesn't look very safe to me. looks heavy and clunky.

-DeltaJet757

RDUDDJI · Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:15 am

I think these pictures are after the fact. I heard it did damage the wing pretty bad...

Anyway, I was not a fan of going to those jetways, not because of the automation, but because of the mechanics. The lack of structural support under the heavy extension just doesn't jive with me. I know the extension is anchored by the last pylon, but it just doesn't look right to me. Add a few months of moving those anchored supports around, and well, it ain't gettin' any stronger...

1011 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:51 am

Another reason to hate those new jetbridges. + It sucks for taking pictures or trying to get the ship #

LawnDart · Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:58 am

According to the article in the Rocky Mountain News:

"The plane's scheduled flight this afternoon from Denver to LaGuardia International Airport in New York has been canceled..."

Duh.

pilotfox · Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:19 am

Interesting, I was just there earlier this month and we used those gates for my flights to/from LAS. Does anyone know what gate it was? I know when I came in from LAS we used the very end gate and I watched for about 5mins as they attempted to get the over the wing gate to the rear of the plane. The gate was shaking a little and they kept extending and retracting it, they ended up just giving up.

Type-Rated · Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:24 am

Quoting UpperDeck79 (Reply 14):
McCarthy said she didn't yet know whether the United will temporarily discontinue using the other new bridges while it investigates the incident.

The United? Big grin

A long time ago when people rode passenger trains here in the United States more often when asked who they took for their trips they would say The Santa Fe or "The Union Pacific".
I have heard older people say "The Braniff" or "The Pan Am" when they flew. It does sound very strange, but that's how I think that way of saying it began.

WDBRR · Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:51 am

What was the flight number ?

mattnrsa · Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:42 am

Quoting UnknownUser (Reply 12):
Yep, the 757 never uses dual jetways

Not true. B22 is the only one of the 5 dual bridges that can handle a 757. The others take A320s.

Cactus739 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:53 am

I was actually there this afternoon....i was wandering around the B concourse while waiting for my Frontier flight back to Phoenix. Security had blocked off that side of the concourse from B22 to the end (not sure which gate). I noticed cranes around the plane and fire equipment and they had the area around the plane taped off.

I couldn't get a picture of the side of the plane with the jetbridge on it but i have a couple pics of the other side with all the emergency equipment, once i get my computer to reognize the USB ports again I'll post them.

MattRB · Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:59 am

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, a bridge design like this just seems like a completely bad idea. "I know! Let's put in a big, heavy, metal structure that extends out over a wing that contains fuel!"

That just has 'accident' written all over it to me.

gigneil · Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:00 pm

Quoting UnknownUser (Reply 12):
Yep, the 757 never uses dual jetways. Reason being that it is single aisle.

We're obviously talking about dual jetbridges for single-aisle aircraft here.

NS

scorpy · Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:01 pm

is it a '57 though? I thought they had dark blue undersides. The aircraft in the picture is white underneath, so did the media get it worng and maybe a ted A320?

ikramerica · Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:04 pm

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 20):
That just goes to show ya.. You can't beat a good ole pair of eyes and human response.

Right, because no ground staff EVER rammed a jetway into a plane, rammed a fuel truck into a wing, rammed a catering truck into the fuse, pushed one jet into another, clipped wings with another aircraft...

Right...

BA · Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:09 pm

Quoting Scorpy (Reply 33):
is it a '57 though? I thought they had dark blue undersides. The aircraft in the picture is white underneath, so did the media get it worng and maybe a ted A320?

I'm not sure what you mean, but it is dark blue underneath. It is certainly a United 757 and not a Ted A320.

Here are the news pictures:

GreenArc · Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:30 pm

Quoting UnknownUser (Reply 12):
Yep, the 757 never uses dual jetways. Reason being that it is single aisle. So, people lining up through FC doesn't do anything to speed things along. The bridge does not have the capability to hook up to the rear door of the 757.

Well, that is just plain incorrect. I operated a 757 through that very gate last evening and the aircraft was loaded and unloaded using both jetways at doors 1L and 3L.

GreenArc

phelpsie87 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:56 pm

Quoting Scorpy (Reply 33):
is it a '57 though? I thought they had dark blue undersides. The aircraft in the picture is white underneath, so did the media get it worng and maybe a ted A320?

Not only is it longer, higher, and not painted in Ted colors, take a look at the main gear...tell me when A320's got 4 tires per strut.

You must be thinking of the example of the jetway that were posted above. That is in fact a Ted A320. The aircraft involved in the incident is a B757.

scorpy · Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:00 pm

Quoting Phelpsie87 (Reply 37):
You must be thinking of the example of the jetway that were posted above. That is in fact a Ted A320. The aircraft involved in the incident is a B757.

ah yes thanks. bit of a stupid mistake to make.

graphic · Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:17 pm

This was pretty much only a matter of time, IMO. I'll bet that wing is damaged alot worse than it looks, probably going to need some serious spar inspections.

Quoting Phelpsie87 (Reply 37):

Not only is it longer, higher, and not painted in Ted colors, take a look at the main gear...tell me when A320's got 4 tires per strut.

Well since you asked:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

ChinaClipper40 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:32 pm

Dual jetways that simultaneously serve both front and rear aircraft doors have been in use at European, Middle East, Asian, and Australasian airports for decades. Although it has been slow to catch on in North America, there is nothing either new or intrinsically wrong with the concept. And their use does speed the boarding and de-boarding processes significantly if done properly. Note the caveat "if done properly." Having a single jetway operator operate the forward jetway and then frantically run around and operate the rear jetway (or vice versa) is NOT doing it "properly." Because by the time the second jetway is mated to the plane, most passengers have already used the first jetway (unless one is talking about a very large and very full aircraft). UA estimates that routine "proper" (i.e., simultaneous) use of dual jetways speeds the turnaround time for aircraft by an average of 10 minutes - which is not insignificant at a busy airport. In the present instance, it seems that a new variant of dual jetway (automated, instead of operated by ground staff) malfunctioned. An investigation is obviously in order to determine what went wrong. But before too many people leap on the bandwagon and start bashing the fundamental concept of simultaneous dual boarding, please keep in mind that it is NOT a new concept and HAS proven its usefulness. After all, in the pre-jetway era, simultaneous use of both front and rear aircraft doors by passengers was routine and standard. As was simultaneous dual boarding on the DCA-LGA-BOS shuttle for several decades (by simultaneous use of the front door and the drop-down rear stairs on the dedicated 727s that were used on that service for so long).

ChinaClipper40

Cactus739 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:44 pm

Here's the other side of the aircraft....you can see all the firetrucks around it and the tape blocking off the area....I couldn't get near it on the other side from inside the terminal.... Sad

sking11 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:54 pm

Big version: Width: 960 Height: 1280 File size: 279kb

Big version: Width: 960 Height: 1280 File size: 273kb

Here are a couple more closer views of the actual wing and bridge on it.

ua777222 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:18 pm

Quoting Graphic (Reply 39):
Well since you asked:

And those were the only carriers who ordered the aircraft in that configuration. I think it was for short field take offs or for rough runways, don't quote me on it, Not too sure what it is.

While the visible damage might not be much, pressure on a wing can never be good. I know that there are some sections where the wing meets the fuselage, that if damaged, the aircraft is worth more in parts than taking it to get fixed (alas write off).

I'm sure it'll be taken to mx for the next week or two until all tests are done and to show that the aircraft is airworthy.

What are you going to do? $hit happens.

Thanks!

graphic · Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:32 pm

Quoting Sking11 (Reply 42):

That's a bent wing spar, and that plane is probably done for good Sad

zvocio79 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:41 pm

that hurts...........the article says that it was a structural failure, but then it says that a malfunctioning sensor caused the accident........weird?

Geo772 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:44 pm

The problem with an incident like this is that the wing is not designed to take the load of something sitting on top of it. Although there might be only a small amount of cosmetic damage as Graphic says if it has damaged a spar then there is a good chance that aircraft will never fly again.

SLCUT2777 · Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:45 pm

Quoting Graphic (Reply 44):
That's a bent wing spar, and that plane is probably done for good

Thats one 752 UA won't have to paint in the new livery then, and some obvious spare parts for the remainder of their fleet as well as one that FedEx or UPS can't get their hands on.
It really will be unfortunate if it ends up as a write-off. Next time DIA and UA would be better off to go with Ogden, UT based FMC-Jetway.

flyorski · Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:50 pm

Well, I guess it's safe to say that plane will not be flying again. I think that things like this would not happen, if UA just has the rear door controlled manually. Maybe time to wake up and realize that computers have a much lower rate of success then employees.

globaldreams · Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:55 pm

Quoting WDBRR (Reply 28):
What was the flight number ?

It arrived as flight UA965 from BOS & was planned to be UA1194 to LGA.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 25):
"The plane's scheduled flight this afternoon from Denver to LaGuardia International Airport in New York has been canceled..."

Duh.

The flight was not canceled. UA1194 operated 32 minutes late using a different 757.

Quoting Mattnrsa (Reply 29):
Not true. B22 is the only one of the 5 dual bridges that can handle a 757. The others take A320s.

I thought B15 and B16 could now handle 757 a/c. I only remember seeing a 757 at B15 once tho.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net