RAMP SAFETY BRIEFING
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED
replied that the steps had not moved more than a couple of inches. This
was irrelevant, for the steps should not have moved at all if there were
still passengers on them. The handler was reminded of the procedure.
Shortly after, whilst boarding wheelchairs via the ambulift, as soon as
the last PRM had stepped on to the aircraft, the handler removed the
retractable fl oor on his lift from the aircraft, leaving a gap of about three
feet. This could have been extremely dangerous if any of the passengers,
who had just boarded, had stepped back. Again, the agent was advised
of the malpractice.
Basic training is at fault here, leaving one to conjecture whether
familiarity is breeding a little contempt on the apron.
PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES
In our fi nal example there was a clear lack of adherence to push back
procedures by the ground handling team.
During departure of the B787, the ground crew provided positive
confi rmation that all pre-departure checks were complete. The fl ight
crew then received ATC push and start clearance on stand 19. The
Captain stated (as per the OM-A 8.2.2.7) that the aircraft had been
cleared to push and start and that the park brake was set. The ground
crew did not respond to the request for brakes be released for push.
Instead, they responded with “roger”. The Captain sought clarity to the
FUTURE- PROOF
AIRCRAFT TRACTORS
THE NEW »BISON«
FAMILY
AIRPORT TECHNOLOGY
They are strong, dynamic, adaptable and
persistent. The »BISON« conventional
aircraft tow tractors from Goldhofer give
you the power and maneuverability you
require for reliable, effi cient and safe
aircraft handling.
Choose between diesel and electric.
Always choose high performance.
response to which the ground crew’s replies were again non-standard
or non-responsive: both “roger” and “clear pressurise aircraft” were
used. During this time, one or two attempts to push the aircraft with the
park brake still set were felt and heard in the aircraft; there was a slight
rocking backwards and an increased engine note from the tug. The
Captain immediately contacted the ground crew to reaffi rm that “park
brake was set” and that pushing back could not be attempted until they
had instructed the fl ight crew as per the procedures in the GOM/OMA to
release the park brake.
Fortunately for all the parties involved, the attempts to push the B787
were not deemed forceful enough to have been suffi cient to damage the
aircraft - but they had the potential to, had the ground crew persisted in
their manoeuvres.
The push back was fi nally completed and the tug correctly released.
Do you have a story to tell or an incident to relate that could
benefi t readers of these pages? Please write to the Editor (alwyn@
groundhandling.com), giving details. Names and locations will not
appear in any material subsequently used.
02426_GOL_Anzeige_187x130_Produkt-Bison.indd 1 13.09.18 14:16
58 February 2020 Ground Handling International
/groundhandling.com