NTSB CAROL · Event
Event NYC00LA086
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The tug operator's inadequate visual lookout.
Factual narrative
On March 1, 2000, at 0347 Eastern Standard Time, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30F, N302FE, operated by Federal Express, was substantially damaged during pushback at Newark International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey. On the airplane, the captain, first officer, flight engineer and two couriers were uninjured. On the ground, three maintenance technicians were also uninjured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. An instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the cargo flight, between Newark and Memphis International Airport (MEM), Memphis, Tennessee. The flight was to be conducted under 14 CFR Part 121. According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Inspector, the airplane was taxiing to the runway for departure when the APU door light illuminated. The airplane returned to the loading dock, the engines were shut down, the APU door was closed, and the APU was secured. The airplane's engines were then restarted at the dock, and the airplane began another pushback. During that pushback, it contacted the loading dock, and suffered an 8-foot gash along the left side, below the cockpit area. According to a company safety analyst, for the pushback, one of the maintenance technicians was "on a headset," next to the right side of the airplane. Another technician was acting as a "wing walker," aft of the airplane, and a third technician was driving the tug. The "headset man" stated that the crew gave permission to push back. Halfway through the pushback, the captain told him to stop because he thought the airplane had contacted the loading dock. The headset man walked to the left side of the airplane and then saw the gash. The tug operator stated that he was using a different tug than the one used during the first pushback. The tug had a "2-wheel working fault" indication. After receiving clearance to push, the tug operator "made a gradual turn to avoid equipment and minimize jet blast to other gates. Halfway down the ramp, [I] received [a] stop signal." The safety analyst further stated that, originally, the tug operator had insisted that there were problems with "the tug's drive mechanism sticking in 2-wheel mode or the crab mode." Post-accident investigation of the tug revealed no anomalies, although other mechanics subsequently complained about the same intermittent problem. Components were removed for testing, with no anomalies found; however, once those components were replaced, there were no additional problems with the tug. A representative from the tug's manufacturer stated that "regardless of...system status, the operator will always have control of the front wheel steering and braking." The airplane was taxiing to the runway for departure when the APU door light illuminated. The airplane returned to the loading dock, the engines were shut down, and the APU door was closed and secured. The airplane's engines were then restarted, and the airplane began another pushback. One maintenance technician was wearing a headset, and was located off the right side of the airplane. Another technician was driving the tug. After receiving clearance to push, the tug driver made a gradual turn to avoid equipment and minimize jet blast to other gates. Halfway down the ramp, the airplane contacted the loading dock, and suffered an 8-foot gash along the left side, below the cockpit area. The tug operator stated that the tug's drive mechanism was sticking in a '2-wheel,' or 'crab' mode. Post-accident investigation of the tug revealed no discrepancies, although other technicians subsequently complained of the same intermittent problem. Components were removed for testing, with no anomalies found. However, once those components were replaced, there were no additional problems with the tug. A representative from the tug's manufacturer stated that regardless of system status, the operator would always have had front wheel steering and braking. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2000_NYC00LA086.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (maintenance). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA)
From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
- Semantic Scholar 2025 · Article (Applied Sciences)
Decision-Making Framework for Aviation Safety in Predictive Maintenance Strategies
The implementation of predictive maintenance (PM) in aviation presents unique challenges due to strict safety requirements, complex operational environments, and regulatory constraints.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER)
Low-Resource Automatic Speech Recognition Domain Adaptation – A Case-Study in Aviation Maintenance
With timeliness and efficiency being critical in the aviation maintenance industry, the need has been growing for smart technological solutions that optimize and streamline the different underlying ta…
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER)
A New Trajectory in UAV Safety: Leveraging Reinforcement Learning for Distance Maintenance Under Wind Variations
In the field of aviation, safety is a critical cornerstone, and the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems is deeply connected with this principle.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (IJAAA)
Just Culture in Aviation: A Metaphorical Study on Aircraft Maintenance Students
Just Culture, a sub-dimension of safety culture, has been a prominent and debated topic in aviation safety in recent years.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (IJAAA)
Performance PRISM: A Comprehensive Framework For Performance Measurement In Aircraft Maintenance
Aircraft maintenance is governed by rigorous safety requirements and high operational complexity, demanding robust performance measurement frameworks to ensure optimal maintenance practices.
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗