Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental [Archive]

vapilot2004

16th January 2006, 22:28

Thanks RC and HW for the heads up on the change.

I see CNN changed some info to the article. News never seems to get things correct on the first (or sometimes nth try). The story I posted was time-stamped 4:38PM this one (at the same link) is stamped Monday, January 16, 2006; Posted: 5:55 p.m. EST (22:55 GMT).

I knew an EAL mechanic that got knocked over and beat about in the late eighties from the business end of a 757 engine at TO thrust - he was out of work for a couple of weeks, but alive.

ATN

17th January 2006, 05:55

"Several Continental flights had been delayed while authorities investigated, but it was not known how many flights." El Paso Time
What is the reason for that since the cause was known since the beginning ?

ATN

RiverCity

17th January 2006, 06:16

Could have been they had to interview all ramp personnel, anyone who was in the vicinity, before they left the area. They would not want to miss anyone who could tell them what happened from different views. There might have been some improper procedure in place, or who knows what. The actual cause may not, in fact, be known.

blackmail

17th January 2006, 07:32

hello every one,

terrible event indeed. but according to the news release: "maintenance related engine run up on rh engine". why was this done with normal crew & pax on board? normally this is performed on a remote clear area with qualified engineers on board & outside the aeroplane with airport authorities & atc authorisation & of course no pax .
the only time crew must make a run up is during winter ops in icing conditions & rwy/twy contamination . see boeing FCOM, Vol I, supplemental procedures. also in case of X-bleed start(APU u/s), one must be careful when advancing thrustlever on n°1 engine for increased bleed pressure.
it is all too sad & easy to say this afterwoods & another cruel reminder for what can happen if SOP are, for whatever reason, not followed.

Kalium Chloride

17th January 2006, 08:18

CNN reports Continental setting up PAX counseling ?????
What about the captain, crew,his family and co-workers ? - to **** with the PAX's trauma I say......

So - aircrew are important, but passengers aren't? Do you not think this is just a little selfish?

Even if you hadn't misread the article in the first place, did it not occur to you that the passengers are more likely to have been able to see this ghastly event as it happened?

Would you put up with someone saying "treat the passengers, screw the pilot"? Quite.

Appalling as it might seem, Continental might just still be adhering to that outdated, prehistoric idea of taking as much care of its customers as it does its own. :rolleyes:

Jordan D

17th January 2006, 09:30

An unfortunate event, not helped by CNN's attitude of "Never wrong for long".

Jordan

Few Cloudy

17th January 2006, 09:31

It is terrible that this keeps happening. My sympathies are with the colleagues and the family.

As for "care" after these events, I think it is a modern overdone thing, which when quoted to the newspapers makes a good impression. Personally I would rather deal with having seen a ghastly event without intrusive spooks.

Mind you, lawyers (not you FL) could make something of it I suppose...

spannersatcx

17th January 2006, 10:50

Blacmail - maintenance related engine run up on rh engine". why was this done with normal crew & pax on board? normally this is performed on a remote clear area with qualified engineers on board & outside the aeroplane with airport authorities & atc authorisation & of course no pax .

Not strictly correct, if pax are onboard then the crew have to do it, or be in attendance should the a/c need to be evacuated, depends also on local airport rules, normally anything above idle would require a tow to a remote stand or egr bay, with no pax and most likely not the crew.

the only time crew must make a run up is during winter ops in icing conditions Not true either, our SOP allows us to do it, anti ice is required any time visible moisture is present and OAT less than 10C.

Sympathies to those affected.

blackmail

17th January 2006, 11:40

hello spannersatcx,

i would like to call on common sense here. if an engine related maintenance procedure calls for a run up above idle with an outside observer in attendance, tragically, much too close to the engine in this case, then it is definitely NOT to be performed by normal crew & if any "risk" is involved, certainly not with pax on board. but we don't have all the facts at hand here.

of course, in normal situations, sops do not prohibit a run up, lined up on the rwy eg. if you feel it is necessary for whatever reason. on busy airfields i recommend advising atc as it takes 30secs at 70%N1.

for info: for b737-300, dangerzone in front of engine is a half circle of 4meters radius from engine intake & extending 1.2m behind engine nacelle with thrust above idle.
with idle thrust, figures are 2.7m radius/1.2m behind engine nacelle. but all this will be of little comfort for all those involved.

TURIN

17th January 2006, 15:13

Blacmail, I think you are confused.

Carrying out eng grnd runs with pax on board is very common....as long as the operation is carried out by the flt crew with everyone informed. Maintenance personel may observe in or outside the aircraft. If the operation is to be performed by engineers then it's everybody off, except those directly involved, close the doors and a huge delay.

At least it is where I work.

fescalised portion

17th January 2006, 15:38

I'm with you Turin and Spanners. It's the same at my company too. With pax on board, only the flight crew are permitted to run an engine ....for evacuation purposes.

B757md

17th January 2006, 16:02

At my airline, engine runs with pax onboard isn't an issue, but the crew must be briefed and present for the engine run (for obvious purposes).

Engine are not to be run above idle at the gate with or without pax onboard. It appears that is what has happened here.

matkat

17th January 2006, 16:37

So - aircrew are important, but passengers aren't? Do you not think this is just a little selfish?
Even if you hadn't misread the article in the first place, did it not occur to you that the passengers are more likely to have been able to see this ghastly event as it happened?
Would you put up with someone saying "treat the passengers, screw the pilot"? Quite.
Appalling as it might seem, Continental might just still be adhering to that outdated, prehistoric idea of taking as much care of its customers as it does its own. :rolleyes:
As the Captain was at the controls when the incident happened I am sure He will be far more traumatised than any of the Pax.

blackmail

17th January 2006, 16:48

hello everyone,

i am not confused at all. i mean after a major engine intervention & when the maintenance manuel says so, it's up to the engineers to perform an engine run up,with the aircraft towed to a remote area used for these purposes etc. ... if only minor interventions have been carried out, then the crew can do this, but of course not at the gate, as seems to be the case here & everone briefed exactly about the plan & pax advised in simple terms to explain the noises & associated airframe vibrations.
and then, when the odds line up against you, your run up is out of tolerances & it's back to the gate, everyone off & there goes the schedule, but i know, i am always too pessimistic or too conservative in this regard. but in this case it's all irrelevant, as someone sadly lost his life.

TR4A

17th January 2006, 16:53

The story I heard was it was a contract MX mechanic (not a CAL mechanic). He was checking for an oil leak and wanted 75% power on that engine.
Here is a first hand account from someone who was at the airport after the incident happed.

http://www.clear-and-a-million.com/viewtopic.php?p=15239&highlight=paso#15239

spannersatcx

17th January 2006, 18:05

Sorry blackmail but you seem to be slighly confused.:confused:

if only minor interventions have been carried out, then the crew can do this, but of course not at the gate this is the bit where you are not quite right. As previously stated run ups to IDLE can be carried out at the gate, for leak checks after a filter change for example. Pax can be onboard provided the crew are at the helm.

Anything that requires a run ABOVE idle will require a tow off of stand as previously stated.

It seems this thread has been hijacked a bit, sorry.

There are rules and regulations that have to be followed when doing idle checks on stand, informing ATC, those on the ramp, on the a/c etc etc, as long as you follow these rules and don't try to shortcut, then things should be ok.

I don't wish to speculate on the circumstances, but commercial pressure for OTP seems to be in my mind.

blackmail

17th January 2006, 20:50

hello spannersatc,

yes, by engine run up, i mean above idle, otherwise i agree with all the rest. in this tragic case the plane was at the gate & it seems that the engineer asked for a 75%N1 to check for a suspect oil leak, then when his baseball hat blew off due to the suction?wind towards the engine,his natural action was to try to grab it, lost his equilibrium & was subsequently aspirated into the engine. it reminds me of the same situation when driving along the roadside & a basketball appears from behind parked cars, you may be shure a few yards behind the kid will cross the road without looking in order to retrieve the ball.
here, clearly, standard procedures were not followed & somebody paid the highest price with his life. the bloodstained enginecowls are indeed a gruelsome sight.

SeniorDispatcher

17th January 2006, 22:04

The local media have released the name of the mechanic killed in yesterday's incident at ELP, and his name was Donald Gene Buchanan, 64.

In lieu of posting condolences here on Pprune (which those who could benefit from the extended sympathies will probably not see), those who are so inclined might want to send a card to:

The Buchanan Family
c/o Julie's Aircraft Service, Inc.
El Paso International Airport
6805 Boeing Drive
El Paso, TX 79925 USA

If you have qualms about sending a card to someone who isn't family or a friend, then by all means don't. If as a member of the aviation community and human race you feel compelled to express your sympathies, especially given the horrific nature of the gentleman's passing, you now have the means to do so.

As someone said on another board, "We were so sorry to hear of your loss...That's all one needs to hear." "Can't hurt. Might help."

I hope it does...

st patrick

17th January 2006, 22:53

A similar event happened on a Ryanair 737 a couple of years ago in which an engineer lost part of an arm. You should be able to find the report on www.aaiu.ie

Speedpig

19th January 2006, 10:38

Sympathies to all involved in this horrific event and the family of Mr Buchanan.

got this from the KFOX website...

KFOX spoke with a professor of mechanical engineering at UTEP who tried to explain what may have caused the tragic accident.

"Obviously the only way that could happen is if someone revved the motor or accelerated the motor and I mean basically what you got there is a hurricane in front of that motor, you know hurricanes are 100 miles an hour. You're going to have that same amount of air flowing through that motor," said Gary Hawkins, a professor in UTEP's Mechanical Engineering Department

I thought professors were clever people.

Apparently the poor guy was trying to catch his hat which had blown off his head! I guess it's a reflex action and probably unbalanced him. It doesn't bear thinking about.

booke23

20th January 2006, 23:16

A tragic event indeed.

I don't want to appear heartless, but was curious as to what state the engine would be in after such an event.

I persume damage would be so severe as to render the engine a write off?

TURIN

21st January 2006, 17:58

"I persume damage would be so severe as to render the engine a write off?"

Not necessarily booke23, however I have heard stories of engines being buried with(as) the remains in the past. Probably hypochrophyl (sp).

R.I.P. Donald

There for the grace of............

rampman

21st January 2006, 19:04

deepest sympathies to donalds family and frends R.I.P

TIME AND TIME AGAIN ground crew get to close to engiens that power up above idle it scares me cr@p less when the flight crew do a cross blead people take a risk get to close and its over in a flash ... you will all remember the mantinace person that was killed in moscow last year doing the same thing. it sadens me when somthing like this happens.

everyone please think before doing something dont take the risk

be safe rampman

Creaser

25th January 2006, 14:48

Presumably one can't feel the sudden onset of overwhelming force with enough warning to get out of the way? or is the increase of flow of air gradual and errors of judgement made about how close you can go.

Creaser

AeroTech

21st February 2006, 19:23

Hi,
During engine run-up jet at the gate or the terminal, jet engine power is restricted to "idle" ONE engine at a time for a maximum of FIVE minutes.
Is this statement true?
-Certain engines have the gearbox and accessories under the reverse cowls which can't be opened while the engine is running. How the leak check is performed (let's say the leakage in under the reverse cowls area and the leakage is not static)? Is it difficult to localize a leak in this case?
How the leak check is performed If the gearbox and some accessories are installed on the fan case?
-Is it permissible to perform run-up engine while the fan cowls are open (engine at idle and above idle)? is it permissible for AMT to be around engine especially the fan case (with cowls open) above idle?
-Does the red warning stripe on the cowls indicate the hazard area during idle run-up or above idle? Is the red warning stripe located on the fan cowls or the reverse cowls?
-If during engine run-up the mechanic can't see the red warning stripe because the cowls are open (I hope this is true), is the practise of connecting a safety harness at certain points under the cowls standart for all engines?
Are there a painted lines on the engine run-up remote area (on the floor) to show the mechanic the hazard areas (mechanic under open cowls)?
-Some AMTs don't feel comfortable when performing manual start (start valve opened manually), is it because of the fear of starter desintegration if pilots forget (or delay) shutting the engine start system, OR because the start valve is located in the fan case (at the front of fan case for certain engines like CFM-56) so close the engine inlet? (the start valve is closed at 55% N2 in CFM-56 which is pretty high compared to 35 or 38% N2 in JT8D in the B 737- 200 or B 727.
Feedback appreciated. Thank you.
Best regards.

AeroTech

21st February 2006, 19:26

Hi,

During engine run-up jet at the gate or the terminal, jet engine power is restricted to "idle" ONE engine at a time for a maximum of FIVE minutes.
Is this statement true?

-Certain engines have the gearbox and accessories under the reverse cowls which can't be opened while the engine is running. How the leak check is performed (let's say the leakage in under the reverse cowls area and the leakage is not static)? Is it difficult to localize a leak in this case?
How the leak check is performed If the gearbox and some accessories are installed on the fan case?

-Is it permissible to perform run-up engine while the fan cowls are open (engine at idle and above idle)? is it permissible for AMT to be around engine especially the fan case (with cowls open) above idle?
-Does the red warning stripe on the cowls indicate the hazard area during idle run-up or above idle? Is the red warning stripe located on the fan cowls or the reverse cowls?

-If during engine run-up the mechanic can't see the red warning stripe because the cowls are open (I hope this is true), is the practise of connecting a safety harness at certain points under the cowls standart for all engines?
Are there a painted lines on the engine run-up remote area (on the floor) to show the mechanic the hazard areas (mechanic under open cowls)?

-Some AMTs don't feel comfortable when performing manual start (start valve opened manually), is it because of the fear of starter desintegration if pilots forget (or delay) shutting the engine start system, OR because the start valve is located in the fan case (at the front of fan case for certain engines like CFM-56) so close the engine inlet? (the start valve is closed at 55% N2 in CFM-56 which is pretty high compared to 35 or 38% N2 in JT8D in the B 737- 200 or B 727.

Feedback appreciated. Thank you.
Best regards

TheOddOne

21st February 2006, 21:42

Hi,
During engine run-up jet at the gate or the terminal, jet engine power is restricted to "idle" ONE engine at a time for a maximum of FIVE minutes.
Is this statement true?

Aerotech,

At Gatwick, this rule is rigidly enforced - we call it a 'start-stop' procedure and we monitor such runs to ensure compliance. In VERY exceptional circumstance, slightly elevated power runs have been approved at the gate, but with lots of safety precautions in place, marshallers to stop traffic fore and aft, clear briefing for all concerned by engineers etc etc. I've only approved 2 such in the past 15 years, both to get a flight away before a night noise restriction time. Not sure I'd even approve for that reason, now...

Cheers,
TheOddOne

Dr Illitout

22nd February 2006, 09:00

Aero Tech you have asked a lot of questions there! I shall try to answer some of them.
Leak checks on items under the cowlings are done by motoring the engine over on the starter with the reverser cowls opened and fuel on. Called a wet cycle. This will find most leaks. You then close up and start the engine, leave it at idle for a time specified in the MM, shut it down, open the reverser cowls and check for leaks. If you have a leak that only apears at high power you do the same thing but obviously you have to run the engine at power!.
The MM will give you more information

You can open the fan cowls with the engine running to do a leak check. It is peferred that you start the engine with the cowls closed as the cowls are part of the fire containment area of the engine.(If you fire the fire bottles off with the cowls opened the extinguishing agent would blow away)

I would ONLY run an engine at idle with the cowls opened and I would not want anybody near the engine at above idle least of all me!

The red stripe indicates the danger area at idle ONLY and it is on the fan cowl

Safety straps are advisable but in my 28 years of engineering I have never seen one

Paint lines in the run bays? No

The manual start access point is within the danger area! Never done one and I don't want to do one either!!

I hope that will be of some use to you. Say a prayer for the guys that died and remember the desk sargent on Hill Street blues..

"Let's all be careful out there"

Rgds Dr I

AeroTech

24th February 2006, 00:43

hi,
Thank you for your posts.

Originally posted by Dr Illitout
Safety straps are advisable but in my 28 years of engineering I have never seen one
I think safety harness is mentioned in the AMM (737-200), I don't know if it is used for trimming purpose or high power checks, may be not used on high bypass engines?

When performing leak check above idle, are the fan cowls open or closed (let's say there is a leak in the fan case area)? I am asking this because when engine is above idle, the suction or injestion area is increased over the fan case, and with the cowls open this may cause damage to the fan case and also to the engine through FOD (items or part of items may be tear off from the fan case and sucked into engine).
I read that some engines can be operated at 70%0 N1 to perform part-power leak check, how this is performed? (fan cowls open or close, if open the AMT must be near engine.....?)

I guess it is not eazy to find a leakage with cowls closed (thrust reverser and fan cowls) and engine running at idle or above.

Feedback appreciated. Thank you.
Best regards.

numbskull

24th February 2006, 10:44

we will carry out leak checks(and approach the engine) with fan cowls open at idle only.

Any leak check under the thrust reverser cowls requires them closed to run the engines. Open cowls and carry out leak check after the engine is shut down.

Any leak check above idle(usually only high pressure fuel lines) require cowls to be closed for eng run, shut down engine. Open cowls after engine is shut down and carry out leak check.

Mistakes are made easily and can have devasating consequences, RIP Donald Gene Buchanan.