From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.
What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(-23) While pushing the aircraft from the gate the flight crew proceeded to start both engines, which the station manager stated was against company policy. To further compound the situation, the person who was pushing the aircraft was using an improper tug that was designed to pull baggage carts. He was also pushing the aircraft using the back hitch as there was no hitch on the front of the tug. As the aircraft was being pushed back with engines starting, the tow bar apparently failed and the tug swung around and impacted the #1 propeller destroying it. The station manager also alleged that a wing walker refused to participate because he felt it was an unsafe procedure. The station manager was not on site at the time of the incident. The station manager informed me that the company had terminated the pushback driver. The aircraft was returned to service by the company and an FAA form 8020-23 was completed and sent to the wichita Kansas FSDO for reference. privacy data omitted
As the FAA filed it
(-23) WHILE PUSHING THE AIRCRAFT FROM THE GATE THE FLIGHT CREW PROCEEDED TO START BOTH ENGINES, WHICH THE STATION MANAGER STATED WAS AGAINST COMPANY POLICY. TO FURTHER COMPOUND THE SITUATION, THE PERSON WHO WAS PUSHING THE AIRCRAFT WAS USING AN IMPROPER TUG THAT WAS DESIGNED TO PULL BAGGAGE CARTS. HE WAS ALSO PUSHING THE AIRCRAFT USING THE BACK HITCH AS THERE WAS NO HITCH ON THE FRONT OF THE TUG. AS THE AIRCRAFT WAS BEING PUSHED BACK WITH ENGINES STARTING, THE TOW BAR APPARENTLY FAILED AND THE TUG SWUNG AROUND AND IMPACTED THE #1 PROPELLER DESTROYING IT. THE STATION MANAGER ALSO ALLEGED THAT A WING WALKER REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE BECAUSE HE FELT IT WAS AN UNSAFE PROCEDURE. THE STATION MANAGER WAS NOT ON SITE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. THE STATION MANAGER INFORMED ME THAT THE COMPANY HAD TERMINATED THE PUSHBACK DRIVER. THE AIRCRAFT WAS RETURNED TO SERVICE BY THE COMPANY AND AN FAA FORM 8020-23 WAS COMPLETED AND SENT TO THE WICHITA KANSAS FSDO FOR REFERENCE. ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^
Other reports on N135YV · 6
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.