Miscommunication leads to near collision during aircraft pushback

No fatalities • Melbourne Airport, Victoria

A breakdown in procedural understanding between flight and ground crews resulted in an aircraft beginning its taxi sequence while a tug remained in close proximity.

What happened

During a pushback sequence, a misunderstanding regarding the status of ground equipment led to a near collision. The flight crew interpreted the display of a bypass pin by the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) as a signal that all vehicles and personnel had cleared the aircraft and that it was safe to begin taxiing. Conversely, the ground crew operated under the expectation that the aircraft would remain stationary until all personnel and equipment had crossed the designated boundary of the S7 disconnect point.

Both the flight crew and the AME were waiting for Air Traffic Control (ATC) to confirm that the tug and AME were clear before providing taxi clearance. However, the aircraft began its taxi maneuver while the tug was still in the vicinity. This movement occurred before the tug had moved to a safe distance, creating a risk of impact.

The investigation

Investigators examined the conflicting expectations held by the various parties involved. It was determined that the flight crew and ground crew held differing understandings of the procedures governing the end of the pushback sequence. While flight crew procedures mandate a visual confirmation that all ground equipment is clear of the aircraft before taxiing, the first officer's assessment of the tug and tow bar's position was inaccurate. The investigation noted that the first officer's perception of the distance between the tug and the right engine may have been influenced by the expectation that the area was clear, following communications with the AME and ATC regarding taxi clearance.

Findings

  • The primary cause of the incident was the differing understandings of procedures between the flight crew and the ground crew regarding when it was safe to commence taxi.
  • The flight crew interpreted the AME's bypass pin indication as a notification that all equipment was clear.
  • The ground crew expected the aircraft to wait until all personnel and equipment had crossed the S7 disconnect point boundary.
  • The first officer incorrectly assessed the distance of the tug from the aircraft's right engine.

Probable cause

The near collision was caused by a lack of shared procedural understanding between the flight and ground crews, leading to the aircraft beginning its taxi sequence while the tug and tow bar were still positioned near the engine.

All Airbus A330-200 accidents →

Frequently asked questions

What happened in the 2016-09-09 Airbus A330-343X accident near Melbourne Airport, Victoria?

A breakdown in procedural understanding between flight and ground crews resulted in an aircraft beginning its taxi sequence while a tug remained in close proximity.

Were there any fatalities in the 2016-09-09 Airbus A330-343X accident?

No fatalities were recorded in this accident.

What aircraft was involved and where did it happen?

The accident on 2016-09-09 involved a Airbus A330-343X, registration 9M-XXK, operated by AirAsia X, at Melbourne Airport, Victoria.

What was the probable cause of the accident?

The near collision was caused by a lack of shared procedural understanding between the flight and ground crews, leading to the aircraft beginning its taxi sequence while the tug and tow bar were still positioned near the engine.

Loading the flight search…