Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 121.6; Flight Crew Total 1475.7; Flight Crew Type 417.4
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Human Factors; Procedure
We pushed back from [the] gate. Normal communication were established and push back proceeded normally; if very slowly. Tug operator spoke in heavily accented English but seemed to understand his role in the push back. We were cleared to start both engines which proceeded normally as we reached centerline of the taxiway E facing West [ramp] called to inform us there was a problem with the aircraft loading and we needed to return to the gate to have cargo containers moved from one pit to another. At that point I told the tug driver 'Do not disconnect' repeated 3 times. I informed him there was a weight problem and we may need to be towed back on the gate. Once it was determined we would need to return to the gate I told the tug driver I wanted to be towed on to the gate. He asked if I wanted to taxi back and I replied negative I wanted him to tow us back. I requested the First office to get us a clearance back on the gate. Once that was received a clearance I told the tug driver I was releasing the brakes and he was cleared to tow us back to the gate. Both engines were still run at this point and we started to roll forward. The Tug driver shouted to set the brakes; then informed me the tow bar was not connected. At no time was I informed the tow bar had been disconnected and the bypass pin removed. Ground hooked up the tow bar and towed us back to the gate; maintenance was call and an inspection was performed that found some metal gouged on the bracket hold the tow bar pin and paint scraped on the nose gear strut.There was break down in communications between ground and the cockpit. Standard phraseology was not used by the tug driver and he did not seem to entirely understand what was being required. The tug operator did not inform the cockpit they had removed the tow bar and I had assumed the tow bar was still connected and we were to be towed on to the gate. I also felt the was a language barrier that contributed to the incident. In retrospect I also feel using the phrase 'Do not disconnect' was not clear enough to convey what was needed. I think the tug operator may have interpreted the meaning to be 'Remain on the headset' Clear communications would have prevented this entire incident. If he had informed the flight the tow bar had been disconnected the incident would not have occurred. The relief pilot was monitoring the interphone communications with the ground; and no one on the flight deck heard a report the tow bar had been removed and/or the bypass pin had been removed.
During pushback we were told to contact [Operations] regarding a Center of Gravity issue. [Operations] informed us that we needed to return to the gate to move luggage bins. The Captain advised the push crew not to disconnect 3 times and that we needed to be towed back into the gate. We never received the 'tow bar disconnected and bypass pin removed announcement'. When the Captain Requested that we be towed back to the gate; the brakes were released and we rolled a very brief distance into the tow bar which had been disconnected. Brakes were set; the tow bar reattached and we were towed to the gate. A metal scrape was encountered on the nose strut and a write up was performed. Miscommunication and a lack of standard procedure by the ramp crew were contributing factors.
Flight crew reported a breakdown in communication with ground personal during the pushback/engine start maneuver. This miscommunication resulted in the aircraft rolling forward and contacting the disconnected tow bar; causing minor damage to the aircraft.