Expediting Aircraft Recovery at Airports (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

43 chapter six Case studies The research conducted for this synthesis report included investigating five separate disabled aircraft recovery events. The cases were chosen based on recommendations of mem- bers of the topic panel, in addition to cases that were known to the consultant. Each case was chosen to represent differ- ent aircraft types and situations where legal and other issues had been resolved. For each case, the consultant sought to interview several individuals who were involved during the recovery process in order to understand their role throughout the process and determine lessons learned. The consultant attempted to interview the aircraft owner/operator, recovery team personnel, airport management, and manufacturers for each case, in addition to an insurance adjustor for at least one case. Although the accident/incident highlighted in each case occurred within the past 9 years, all individuals and enti- ties involved with each case could not be contacted owing to circumstances such as personnel changing employment, lost contact information, and lost memories. Despite these set- backs, the consultant was able to interview the vast majority of desired personnel involved in each of the cases. Owing to the sensitive nature of developing a case study of an aircraft accident/incident, the identities of those involved will remain anonymous, in addition to the exact location of the accident/ incident, and type of aircraft involved. Although each indi- vidual who was interviewed was asked specifically about the case in question, many of their responses were made in gen- eral terms to any experiences they had with aircraft recovery. Additionally, the events leading up to the accident/incident are not presented, as this synthesis focuses only on the recov- ery of disabled aircraft (i.e., once the accident/incident has occurred). Case One—Large CargO airCraft The first case involved a large cargo aircraft operating at a large hub airport in the southern United States. With landing gear problems, the pilot locked up the brakes, blowing out all eight tires upon landing. The first individual interviewed was the aircraft owner/operator, whose company was also respon- sible for recovery of the aircraft and providing recovery per- sonnel. The first order of business was to ensure the safety of the crew and the aircraft. Once it was deemed that a fire was not a threat and the aircraft was cleared by the governing bodies (FAA/NTSB) to be moved, the recovery effort com- menced. This particular case was considered a minor inci- dent by the aircraft owner/operator. Had it been more severe (with injuries, fire, etc.) the aircraft might have had to remain in place for initial investigation, possibly for more than one day. In this instance, the company was given permission to remove the aircraft from the runway shortly after the incident happened. The aircraft owner/operator then confirmed what happened and what resources, supplies, and personnel would be needed to recover the aircraft. As this operator pointed out, depending on the severity of the accident/incident, a recov- ery team may not be necessary. Maintenance personnel are well versed in the recovery process, as are other individu- als employed by this aircraft owner/operator. Further, each maintenance facility that the company operates has some recovery tools on hand. This aircraft owner/operator gener- ally does not contract out the recovery process to third par- ties unless there are no personnel on station at that airport. Generally, the aircraft owner/operator relies in the airport to assist in providing contact information for additional recov- ery supplies, including equipment that may be needed to tow or tug the aircraft. The aircraft owner/operator believed that this particular airport did a wonderful job in communicating between all involved parties, as well as providing transpor- tation for the recovery team to the recovery site. This indi- vidual believes that facilitating communication is the most important aspect of the airport’s role, and that most airports succeed in this area. Transportation is an important aspect of the recovery process because disabled aircraft often come to rest in the movement areas of an airport, which require air traffic control (ATC) clearance prior to entering. The air- craft owner/operator was also asked about the training their company conducts for aircraft recovery. Selected individuals, including the individual interviewed, attend accident investi- gation schools, run by the airline, in order to better understand the recovery process. Engineers and maintenance employees also attend training, and may assist during a recovery process. The airport operator was also interviewed for this case. First, the airport operator stated that the airport does not require air carrier tenants to submit their company’s Disabled Aircraft Recovery plan for airport review and/or approval. One impor- tant responsibility of the airport is to transport passengers and/ or crew away from the disabled aircraft, usually by means of buses to the terminal or other waiting areas. The airport is also responsible for providing the aircraft owner/operator with the phone numbers of local towing companies and any other equipment providers/operators that may be needed. Airports will likely be asked to provide lighting equipment to assist the aircraft owner/operator or recovery personnel during night

44 recoveries. This particular airport has buses and air stairs on hand to help remove passengers from aircraft, but does not keep any recovery items (such as railroad ties, steel plates, or cranes) on site. The airport operator explained that it does not recommend any particular third-party recovery companies to the aircraft owner/operator, allowing the aircraft owner/ operator to decide on the best course of action. When asked how airport operators can better prepare for aircraft recovery at airports, the airport operator had several recommendations. First, airlines need to better communicate recovery plans to the airport, regarding the transportation of passengers away from the aircraft. In this case, passengers were transported both to the terminal and to the airline’s private lounge, which caused confusion in locating all passengers and in communicating to those waiting on the arrival of the flight what had happened to their friends and loved ones. The airport operator believed that this confusion was caused, in part, by not having a copy of the airline’s recovery plan (which, according to the airport opera- tor, are often kept at airline headquarters and not held locally). Additionally, the airport operator sees value in educating air- port management staff to handle an aircraft recovery opera- tion. This is important because if the “number 1” (i.e., the chief executive officer or airport director) is unavailable or not at work, it is important that the “number 2” or “number 3” be just as capable of handling the process. In closing, the airport operator reiterated that communication is generally the first thing to fail in any emergency, so it is important for the airport to work diligently to avoid communication errors and the resulting confusion. Specifically in this case, the air- port operator stated that radios were “going off the hook” in the communication center, as people awaiting passengers were overwhelming the phone circuits, resulting in difficulty in communicating with the airline. The manufacturer of the aircraft involved in this incident was also interviewed. This individual stated that the airline, or aircraft owner, is entitled to services such as aircraft recov- ery documents pertaining to each aircraft. The manufacturer also provides logistical recovery services and can provide recovery assistance. A contract may be relied on for on-site recovery assistance. Some airlines are exceptions, though, as they generally are well prepared with equipment and recovery teams to handle these situations on their own. Problems can arise when separate organizations (e.g., environmental, mili- tary, law enforcement, and governmental) interfere with one another. Other issues may include logistical issues involving cargo, hazardous materials, or fuel. This individual stated that no one at their company is involved full time in aircraft recov- ery, and all experts in the field have other responsibilities. The individual also pointed out that there are few recovery experts in the world owing to the lack of difficult situations from which they can gain experience. Regarding third-party assistance; one has to be careful when choosing a third party to assist with recovery operations. It is important for the air- craft owner/operator to verify the third-party’s credibility and capability before hiring. This is where networking becomes important to gain the assistance and advice from colleagues who have used a third party in the past. Third parties usually provide support such as crane companies, heavy equipment operators, fueling companies, and raw material suppliers, or play supporting roles with items such as transportation. Many third-party recovery companies do not have the necessary experience to handle difficult situations and do not have the aircraft’s current documentation on hand, as this information is given only to the aircraft owner. When asked to explain how the concept of aircraft recovery is integrated into the planning/design of an aircraft, the individual offered the fol- lowing: Functionality and safety is always the most important aspect of designing an aircraft, but efforts are made to work with project engineers to integrate items that may assist in the recovery of the aircraft if it becomes disabled while in operation. The company also designs specific tools to assist with recovery operations, such as special recovery tooling to lift or tether the aircraft. The company also has procedures in place to limit any further damage to an aircraft while it is being pulled, pushed, lifted, and generally moved (reflected in the ARM). Lessons learned from case one: 1. It is important for the airport operator to know what the aircraft owner/operator recovery plans are. 2. Everyone on the airport’s staff needs to be familiar with the airport operator’s plan to handle disabled air- craft. 3. Communication is integral during the recovery process. 4. Transportation is an important consideration, not only of passengers and crew from the disabled aircraft, but also of recovery personnel, aircraft owner/operator representative, insurance adjustor, and investigative personnel, to the disabled aircraft site. Case twO—Large Passenger airCraft The second case involves a transport category passenger aircraft at a large U.S. airport. In this case, the pilot of the aircraft had an indication that the right main gear had not deployed. After a low pass, it was confirmed that the right main gear appeared to be retracted. The aircraft landed and came to a stop on the runway centerline, resulting in the clo- sure of one of two air carrier runways at this airport. The temperatures at the time were below freezing and remained at that level until the recovery operation was complete. The first person to be interviewed for this case was the airline representative, who also serves as one of two engineers on this airline’s dedicated recovery team. Although the aircraft landed at 9:15 a.m., and the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) representative released the aircraft for recovery at 12:11 p.m., the aircraft was not removed from the runway until 4:49 a.m. the following morning, resulting in about 20 total hours of runway closure. The delay was caused by the need to arrange for a jack lift point adapter for this specific aircraft; although it arrived at 4:45 p.m., it did not include the jack point ball, which

45 was not secured until 11:30 p.m. Once proper equipment was on site and an independent recovery contractor was secured, the aircraft was removed in about 5 hours. According to the airline representative, there was initially a great deal of confusion on the scene regarding who controlled the aircraft. Numerous individuals wanted to take control. Because of the many personnel involved, including the air- port operator, aircraft owner/operator, ARFF personnel, law enforcement, and FSDO, this confusion caused delays that could have been avoided with a proper understanding of roles. Additionally, there was a misunderstanding on the part of the airline as to the contents of the IATA kit that was secured for the event. Although larger airlines typically have operator-specific recovery items such as slings and jack point adapters, these are not located at every airport an airline serves. In this case, the airline needed additional equipment, which led to the need to secure the IATA kit. However, once the kit arrived, it became clear that the kit did not contain the jack point ball that was needed to recover the aircraft. An additional 7 hours of delays were experienced as this item was flown in from another airport. In the interview, it was clear that the airport operator was not pleased with the length of time required to remove this aircraft from the runway. At several points during the lengthy process, growing quite frustrated by the extended runway downtime, the airport operator told the airline that the airport would take control of the situation by removing the aircraft. According to the airline representative, “If you move it, you buy it.” The airline was not willing to let the airport operator move the aircraft owing to concerns about secondary dam- age to the aircraft. At the same time, the airport operator was cognizant of this possibility and the liability associated with moving an aircraft not owned by the airport; thus, it could be said that these “threats” were an effort on the part of the airport operator to motivate the airline to remove the aircraft. However, the airport operator did assume a crucial support role to the airline. The airport immediately provided contact information for local recovery teams, providers of recovery equipment, and so on, to the airline. Additionally, the airport provided assistance in the form of ARFF response, site secu- rity, transport buses for passengers and crew, escorts of recov- ery team and other authorized personnel to the site, and light towers to illuminate the site. Portable toilets, heated buses, and food and beverages also provided relief to the personnel work- ing in sub-freezing temperatures for extended hours. Lessons learned from case two: 1. Airport operators could benefit by visiting airports in other countries, such as in Europe, to learn how they conduct aircraft recovery. 2. Airports would benefit by clearly defining roles during a disabled aircraft event, including the airport operator, ARFF, NTSB/FSDO, and aircraft owner/operator. Each of these groups has a leader and it would be beneficial to develop a flowchart that clearly defines when control of the aircraft is being handed over to the next leader. 3. Place an emphasis on smaller aircraft operators, pos- sibly requiring all operators to have a recovery plan on file before being permitted to operate on airport. Con- sider that both small regional jets and large transport category aircraft can result in a runway closure. 4. Airports don’t know what they don’t know. Thus, it is crucial to educate personnel on the recovery of disabled aircraft. Case three—Large Passenger airCraft The third case investigated involved a transport category passenger aircraft at a large Canadian airport. In this case, the aircraft, after landing during heavy rain, veered off the runway into the grass, with the front tires becoming bogged in the grass and mud. The airline representative contacted in this case is actually an aircraft recovery expert. As a result of this individual’s expertise in aircraft recovery, a wide variety of issues were discussed during the interview pertaining to the recovery of disabled aircraft. This aircraft recovery expert, who is a regional manager with the airline, stated that the first order of business for the air- line during the recovery process is to contact company main- tenance control (which is staffed 24/7), as well as the airline’s recovery team lead. This particular airline has 50 individu- als who may be dispatched to assist with an aircraft recovery. After the team has been chosen, they evaluate the situation and determine what type of equipment should be brought on site with them. Members of recovery teams, including the expert, all hold other roles with the airline, as no employee focuses solely on aircraft recovery. Recovery teams typically consist of management staff and aircraft mechanics. Members of management are included in recovery teams because they are not part of any union, and therefore do not need permis- sion to work longer hours or tackle additional projects. This airline does not contract out any of its recovery process to third parties, with the exception of acquiring specific, locally available equipment that an airline may not have on hand. The airline does have two full pre-assembled IATA recovery kits on hand at two locations in the United States. The expert stated that the airline designs and builds much of its own recovery equipment and keeps ropes, jacks, and other equip- ment at all maintenance stations. Regarding assistance from the airport operator, this individual stated that it is important for an airport to know where materials and equipment can be quickly located to assist the airline. Further, since security requirements may not allow airline personnel from other sta- tions or corporate headquarters to access the site, it is crucial for airports to arrange escorts or alternate plans for person- nel access. In closing, this individual stated that his airline coordinates a semi-annual recovery exercise at an “aircraft graveyard” to allow airline personnel to practice recoveries

46 passengers were on board, the pilot concentrates on removing passengers from the aircraft and arranging transportation for them to the terminal and away from the runway. In this case, the airport manager was notified of the incident by the pilot through ATC. This event was the pilot’s first experi- ence with a disabled aircraft, and he was not prepared for the many issues that needed to be addressed during the recovery process. With the single runway closed by the disabled air- craft, the airport operator was intent on moving the aircraft as expeditiously as possible. The pilot admitted that he was not proactive in this regard; as a result, the airport operator sent out maintenance personnel to move the aircraft, which subsequently caused $80,000 worth of additional damage as a result of a jack denting the wing. The pilot mentioned that the dent could have caused a larger problem if it had ruptured the fuel tanks; however, this was not the case. The pilot also stated that the airport manager initiated this recovery attempt to hurriedly reopen the runway. The pilot stepped in after the failed recovery attempt and called in an independent aircraft recovery company, which was well pre- pared for the situation. The contractor removed the aircraft from the site without delay and without causing any further damage. When asked what the airport could have done differently to assist with the recovery, the pilot suggested that airports help pilots, especially of general aviation aircraft, in locat- ing locally available resources (such as tools, equipment, or recovery teams) to assist with the recovery process. If the airport is not prepared in this manner, the pilot is tasked with tracking down these supplies and entities, which may result in longer runway downtime. The pilot believed that one well- equipped recovery company could service several general aviation airports within a specific region. Additionally, the pilot stated that the airport manager might feel obligated to use an airport maintenance tenant over an outside vendor, even though this tenant might not have the skills or equip- ment needed. In this case, hours were wasted during the first attempt and significant secondary damage was caused. In closing, the pilot mentioned that the great quandary associ- ated with aircraft recovery is loss of revenue vs. aircraft dam- age. One could bulldoze an aircraft and expeditiously remove it from a movement area, but this would obviously cause great damage to the aircraft, which aircraft owners/operators and insurance adjustors are unwilling to accept. Thus, the objective in aircraft recovery is to balance the timely removal of aircraft without causing secondary damage. Lessons learned from case four: 1. It is important for the airport operator to assist in iden- tifying qualified recovery personnel if so requested by the aircraft owner/operator. 2. It is important for the airport operator to use good judgment to weigh expeditious recovery of the aircraft versus the liability associated with causing secondary damage to the aircraft. and try new equipment, as well as visit with equipment ven- dors specializing in aircraft recovery. The insurance adjustor representing this airline was also interviewed regarding this case. This individual stated that the company’s main purpose is to ensure that the aircraft is recovered without any secondary damage. This insurance com- pany sends an adjustor on site to represent the aircraft owner/ operator at any time one of its clients is undergoing a recovery. One important aspect of the recovery process is to ensure that knowledgeable and qualified personnel are in place to perform a safe and efficient recovery of the aircraft, resulting in no injuries or additional aircraft damage. In closing, this insur- ance adjustor mentioned that all adjustors employed by his company are experienced engineers and are more than capable of handling the recovery process themselves if needed. Lessons learned from case three: 1. It is important, as part of an airport’s disabled aircraft recovery plan, to consider how to handle a large num- ber of passengers who need to be transported from the disabled aircraft to a staging/sterile area (e.g., blankets and other accessories to comfort passengers and agree- ments with transportation companies to supply buses). 2. Having knowledgeable and qualified personnel in place is most favorable. 3. It is important for airport operators to be knowledge- able of local resources that may be called upon during a disabled aircraft recovery event. Case fOur—Business Jet The fourth case involved a business jet operation at a single- runway airport in the southwestern United States. In this instance, the aircraft departed the runway upon landing and came to rest in a grassy area off the runway edge. Only two indi- viduals could be contacted regarding this incident, the aircraft owner/operator and the airport operator. Unfortunately, the two airport employees who were contacted could not remem- ber this event. They did state, however, that they focus on facilitating communication, and trying not to impede with the recovery process. The airport also knows of three third-party companies that can assist in recovery (by providing pneumatic lift bags and other equipment) and will put the aircraft owner/ operator in contact with these third parties upon request. The aircraft owner/operator interviewed in this case is his company’s only pilot and was the sole pilot (and occupant) on board the aircraft at the time. Thus, he was completely respon- sible for handling the recovery process. The pilot stated that his first order of business was to assess the situation and deter- mine where the aircraft had come to rest. In this incident, the airport was closed, as the aircraft blocked the single runway at the airport. Fortunately, there were no passengers (other than himself) who needed to be evacuated from the aircraft. If

47 and, it is the airport’s responsibility to offer and/or arrange assistance as needed. Lessons learned from case five: 1. A disabled aircraft event can occur at any airport. 2. Expertise and experience is important in recovery personnel. 3. An aircraft recovery plan is beneficial for airport operators to develop. additiOnaL interviews independent recovery Company A representative of an independent aircraft recovery com- pany was also interviewed. This individual stated that those involved with the recovery of GA aircraft are often unpre- pared to handle the recovery and generally have little knowl- edge of what needs to be done. The first person on the scene of an aircraft accident/incident (usually someone from the air- port) is often focused on removing the aircraft from the run- way, and as a result causes much more damage to the aircraft. Additionally, according to this representative, in most cases his recovery team receives an aircraft after it has already been removed from the airport, or at least from the runway or other operating area. His company is almost never included in the initial recovery stages because the airport is solely focused on removing the aircraft from the runway, and often uses what- ever means necessary to drag the aircraft out of the way. In closing, this representative stated that pilots often may do a masterful job of landing and limiting the damage to the air- craft, only to have airport employees cause severe damage as they attempt to remove it from the runway using inexperi- enced personnel, inadequate preparation, and improper tools and equipment. flight standards district Office An FSDO employee at one of the airports involved in the case studies was also interviewed. This individual role is simply to investigate an aircraft accident/incident. Airports can assist in performing an investigation by taking as many photographs as possible of the accident/incident before investigators arrive on site. If it takes some time for investigators to reach the scene, photographs from the airport can assist them in decid- ing whether to classify the case as an accident or incident. The FSDO investigator also stated that recovery may not begin until the scene is released by NTSB. According to this FAA representative, airports should focus on assisting and/ or removing victims from the scene of the accident/incident before undertaking any other responsibilities. 3. Airports can expect a disabled aircraft event to occur and thus plan appropriately. 4. Single runway airports can be significantly impacted by a disabled aircraft. Case five—smaLL generaL aviatiOn events An airport manager at a small, single-runway GA airport was interviewed because of his experience with multiple disabled aircraft events. This airport’s one runway is 5,002 ft long, cre- ating an environment that is conducive to runway excursions, especially for larger twin-engine aircraft and turbojets. This individual’s first advice is: “It can happen at your airport.” On one occasion, for instance, a Learjet, upon rollout and activation of thrust reversers, quickly veered 90 degrees and ran off the edge of the runway. This was caused by an inoperative thrust reverser. Although this airport manager and his personnel were able to ease the aircraft out of soft ground with a large tractor and tow straps, he admitted that they should have contracted with someone with more expertise in aircraft recovery. This airport has also seen collapsed nose gear events and full gear- up landings. He said that they usually improvise and somehow lift the aircraft, get the gear down, and then tow the aircraft to a paved surface. In one instance, however, this airport man- ager did contact a specialized crew to recover an aircraft. This instance involved a larger corporate jet that was taxiing down the taxiway to the departure runway. The pilot had been study- ing charts and had lost track of his progress, and inadvertently taxied the aircraft off the end of the taxiway, where it became bogged in the mud. Although this pilot initially tried to power out of the situation using engine thrust, it became clear that the aircraft was not going to move under its own power. The pilot then called the FBO and the airport manager (who owns and operates the FBO at this airport) responded. Although the pilot asked the airport manager for recovery assistance, the airport manager realized that he did not have anything heavy enough on-site to handle this recovery. After some phone calls, the airport manager arranged for a recovery crew to arrive the following morning. After jacking the aircraft and stabilizing a temporary roadway, an 18,000-lb wrecker was able to ease the aircraft out. When asked for his perspective on how GA airports can best prepare for the recovery of disabled aircraft, this airport manager agreed that an ARP was a good idea, but cautioned that the plan could not anticipate every possible situation. Therefore, he believed the plan’s strength would be in iden- tifying locally available resources and general precautions (such as the issuance of NOTAMs when necessary). Addi- tionally, he shared that GA pilots look to the airport and/ or FBO for assistance when their aircraft becomes disabled,