I hate it when this happens! (chock thrown into engine)
Thread Starter
I hate it when this happens!
From todays FAA accident reports.
Happy New Year?
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 313FL Make/Model: B737 Description: 737-300
Date: 01/01/2003 Time: 1945
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Unknown
LOCATION City: DENVER State: CO Country: US
DESCRIPTION
FRONTIER 136 WAS PUSHING BACK FOR DEPARTURE WHEN A MECHANIC THREW A WHEEL CHOCK INTO ONE OF THE ENGINES. DENVER, CO.
Whoops....................
Happy New Year?
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 313FL Make/Model: B737 Description: 737-300
Date: 01/01/2003 Time: 1945
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Unknown
LOCATION City: DENVER State: CO Country: US
DESCRIPTION
FRONTIER 136 WAS PUSHING BACK FOR DEPARTURE WHEN A MECHANIC THREW A WHEEL CHOCK INTO ONE OF THE ENGINES. DENVER, CO.
Whoops....................
Paid up
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case he has to look for a new career, I think he could do worse than consider something in the professional sporting arena if he did indeed manage to throw the damn thing hard enough to go upstream through the jetpipe 
Have a look here for more info.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030102/airlines_frontier_1.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030102/airlines_frontier_1.html
Thread Starter
After the alleged incident, a wheel chock, about two feet long, was removed from the engine during overnight repairs and the plane put back in service.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyclic Hotline, did you just want to post something on the incident without thinking?
Where in the article does it say that the plane was returned to service with the damaged engine?
Application of a little common sense would tell me that the overnight change included an engine change especially as this incident happened just after noon on New Years day.
Where in the article does it say that the plane was returned to service with the damaged engine?
Application of a little common sense would tell me that the overnight change included an engine change especially as this incident happened just after noon on New Years day.
Panman
Do check your dictionary for the meaning of "droll", "irony" and "lighten up"
I can imagine what the engine looked like. Be interesting to see how the chock fared.
Do check your dictionary for the meaning of "droll", "irony" and "lighten up"
I can imagine what the engine looked like. Be interesting to see how the chock fared.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frontier mechanic charged with disabling jet
Frontier mechanic charged with disabling jet
Thursday January 2, 8:44 pm ET
By Jeanie Stokes
DENVER, Jan 2 (Reuters) - A Frontier Airlines Inc. (NasdaqNM:FRNT - News) mechanic was charged in federal court in Denver on Thursday with sabotaging a Dallas-bound jet to prevent it from taking off because he thought the aircraft was not safe.
Corydon Van Dyke Cochran, 44, allegedly threw a rubber wheel chock into the running engine of a Boeing 737 after deciding that was the only way to prevent Frontier flight 136 from taking off on New Year's Day.
Cochran, who has been suspended by Frontier pending an investigation, faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted, prosecutors said.
According to an affidavit filed with the court by FBI Special Agent Nick Vanicelli, the incident occurred about 12:40 p.m. on New Year's Day as Frontier flight 136 was preparing to depart on a flight to Dallas-Fort Worth.
David Davidson, the pilot of the Boeing 737, was in the cockpit preparing to depart, when he saw Cochran, walk toward the aircraft and throw a wheel chock into the number one engine, which was running, the affidavit said.
Davidson shut down the aircraft, and it was towed back to the gate. A ramp supervisor told the FBI that he also saw Cochran throw the rubber block into the engine.
Cochran had seen a burned-out light on the wing of the jet and was concerned that an inspection that had been done in Tampa the previous day was "probably suspect," Vanicelli told the court.
"Cochran explained that he felt aircraft 313 was unsafe and should have a lightning strike inspection performed on it prior to departing," the affidavit said. "Cochran stated that as the aircraft was being pushed back from the gate, he decided that the only way to keep it from flying was to disable it."
A representative for Cochran, who was released on his own recognizance after the court appearance, could not be immediately reached for comment.
Said Frontier spokeswoman Elise Eberwein, There certainly were other options he probably could have taken to prevent the flight from departing," including notifying the Federal Aviation Administration.
The plane had been inspected twice in Tampa on Tuesday night, flown uneventfully to Denver and had been checked out again there for possible damage, Eberwein said.
After the alleged incident, a wheel chock, about two feet long, was removed from the engine during overnight repairs and the plane put back in service.
The 130 passengers aboard the flight were sent on to Dallas on another airplane, Eberwein said.
Thursday January 2, 8:44 pm ET
By Jeanie Stokes
DENVER, Jan 2 (Reuters) - A Frontier Airlines Inc. (NasdaqNM:FRNT - News) mechanic was charged in federal court in Denver on Thursday with sabotaging a Dallas-bound jet to prevent it from taking off because he thought the aircraft was not safe.
Corydon Van Dyke Cochran, 44, allegedly threw a rubber wheel chock into the running engine of a Boeing 737 after deciding that was the only way to prevent Frontier flight 136 from taking off on New Year's Day.
Cochran, who has been suspended by Frontier pending an investigation, faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted, prosecutors said.
According to an affidavit filed with the court by FBI Special Agent Nick Vanicelli, the incident occurred about 12:40 p.m. on New Year's Day as Frontier flight 136 was preparing to depart on a flight to Dallas-Fort Worth.
David Davidson, the pilot of the Boeing 737, was in the cockpit preparing to depart, when he saw Cochran, walk toward the aircraft and throw a wheel chock into the number one engine, which was running, the affidavit said.
Davidson shut down the aircraft, and it was towed back to the gate. A ramp supervisor told the FBI that he also saw Cochran throw the rubber block into the engine.
Cochran had seen a burned-out light on the wing of the jet and was concerned that an inspection that had been done in Tampa the previous day was "probably suspect," Vanicelli told the court.
"Cochran explained that he felt aircraft 313 was unsafe and should have a lightning strike inspection performed on it prior to departing," the affidavit said. "Cochran stated that as the aircraft was being pushed back from the gate, he decided that the only way to keep it from flying was to disable it."
A representative for Cochran, who was released on his own recognizance after the court appearance, could not be immediately reached for comment.
Said Frontier spokeswoman Elise Eberwein, There certainly were other options he probably could have taken to prevent the flight from departing," including notifying the Federal Aviation Administration.
The plane had been inspected twice in Tampa on Tuesday night, flown uneventfully to Denver and had been checked out again there for possible damage, Eberwein said.
After the alleged incident, a wheel chock, about two feet long, was removed from the engine during overnight repairs and the plane put back in service.
The 130 passengers aboard the flight were sent on to Dallas on another airplane, Eberwein said.
Source: Yahoo
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a company memo posted on Aero News :
The purpose of this communication is not to speculate as to what happened or cause greater concern. Rather, when a situation like this occurs, the best recovery for us as a company is to be out in front of the issue with our customers. Our customers will likely see news coverage of this incident and may have questions for customer contact employees. Answering those questions as professionally as possible is key and those efforts are appreciated. The facts as we know them at this time are:
The aircraft sustained a lightening strike the night before (Tuesday evening, Dec. 31, 2002) inbound to Tampa.
The aircraft underwent two lightening strike inspections in Tampa, and was approved for flight and signed off.
Upon arrival in Denver, additional inspections were performed, and all of the mechanics involved in that inspection, with the exception of one, approved the aircraft for flight.
The pilot in command also approved the aircraft for flight.
The employee who claims to have had additional doubt about the aircraft inspection process did not utilize proper channels to voice those doubts or document those concerns. Instead, he apparently took very extreme steps that caused damage to the aircraft.
Safety is paramount to everything we do at Frontier, and there is no doubt among any of the other employees involved in this incident that the aircraft was in any way unsafe for flight...
(I think they mean the opposite - PT)
You may confirm that Frontier is working with the appropriate authorities, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Federal Aviation Administration to investigate the incident, and those organizations will be releasing any pertinent information about the incident, as they deem appropriate.
The purpose of this communication is not to speculate as to what happened or cause greater concern. Rather, when a situation like this occurs, the best recovery for us as a company is to be out in front of the issue with our customers. Our customers will likely see news coverage of this incident and may have questions for customer contact employees. Answering those questions as professionally as possible is key and those efforts are appreciated. The facts as we know them at this time are:
The aircraft sustained a lightening strike the night before (Tuesday evening, Dec. 31, 2002) inbound to Tampa.
The aircraft underwent two lightening strike inspections in Tampa, and was approved for flight and signed off.
Upon arrival in Denver, additional inspections were performed, and all of the mechanics involved in that inspection, with the exception of one, approved the aircraft for flight.
The pilot in command also approved the aircraft for flight.
The employee who claims to have had additional doubt about the aircraft inspection process did not utilize proper channels to voice those doubts or document those concerns. Instead, he apparently took very extreme steps that caused damage to the aircraft.
Safety is paramount to everything we do at Frontier, and there is no doubt among any of the other employees involved in this incident that the aircraft was in any way unsafe for flight...
(I think they mean the opposite - PT)
You may confirm that Frontier is working with the appropriate authorities, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Federal Aviation Administration to investigate the incident, and those organizations will be releasing any pertinent information about the incident, as they deem appropriate.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dang, I just started the same thread in the basement, which is my first stop before coming here. Oh well.
I'm looking forward to how this all unfolds. I think we are getting the "for public consumption" version of events. Otherwise we are going to have to add mental health screenings to drug testing and security checks we have to go through.
I'm looking forward to how this all unfolds. I think we are getting the "for public consumption" version of events. Otherwise we are going to have to add mental health screenings to drug testing and security checks we have to go through.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw a message thread on Yahoo's stock board for Frontier, and maybe it sheds more light on what happened..
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN...2112&mid=10436
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN...2112&mid=10436
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No highway in the sky revisited
In the movie No highway in the sky Jimmy Stewart collapsed the gear on the Reindeer to prevent it from flying because he felt it was unsafe and would suffer a tail separation. I think this guy can use the Reindeer defense. He was obviously sticking with his convictions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 74
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courageous!
I'd like to think that if I were in a situation where I was convinced that there was a problem that I would stick to my guns and refuse to release the aircraft. I think his action was a bit extreme but I'd like to get his version. There's more to it, methinks
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creepy stuff
A guy with a license in his pocket throws a chock into a running engine because he believes the airplane is unsafe to fly as there is a NAV light out. A freaking NAV light!
Did it not occur to said licensed mechanic, that hurling the chock into the said running engine, could cause mass conflagration and serious injury and death to the passengers and crew aboard the aircraft he was purporting to defend?
Are we surrounded by morons?
I don't know the whole story, but I can guarantee that there are much safer ways to stop a departure than throwing a chock in the inlet. Jimmy Stewart be damned.
And that was a great movie, BTW, wasn't it Marlene Dietrich's last?
PB
Did it not occur to said licensed mechanic, that hurling the chock into the said running engine, could cause mass conflagration and serious injury and death to the passengers and crew aboard the aircraft he was purporting to defend?
Are we surrounded by morons?
I don't know the whole story, but I can guarantee that there are much safer ways to stop a departure than throwing a chock in the inlet. Jimmy Stewart be damned.
And that was a great movie, BTW, wasn't it Marlene Dietrich's last?
PB
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bedfordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref :- Plastic Bug, You seem to have missed the point!!!!,
" A guy with a license in his pocket throws a chock into a running engine because he believes the airplane is unsafe to fly as there is a NAV light out. A freaking NAV light!"
The Aircraft had supposidly suffered a lightning strike, A blown Nav Light could be only one of many problems, fried wiring in the wing which could cause shorts arcing ect remember youve got fuel pumps and fuel in the wing, The a/c generators could have been affected by the lightnig stike as could the a/c intruments and the affect might not be immediatly apparent but may fail at a later point or even give incorrect information, which could as you probably know cause lots of problems.
I think what the Engineer did was a bit extreme, and throwing a chock down an engine isnt the safest thing to do particually to ones self, but please dont say it was only a nav light that was u/s, lightning strikes can and do cause lots of damage and not all of it immidiatly apparent.
Edited for duplication
" A guy with a license in his pocket throws a chock into a running engine because he believes the airplane is unsafe to fly as there is a NAV light out. A freaking NAV light!"
The Aircraft had supposidly suffered a lightning strike, A blown Nav Light could be only one of many problems, fried wiring in the wing which could cause shorts arcing ect remember youve got fuel pumps and fuel in the wing, The a/c generators could have been affected by the lightnig stike as could the a/c intruments and the affect might not be immediatly apparent but may fail at a later point or even give incorrect information, which could as you probably know cause lots of problems.
I think what the Engineer did was a bit extreme, and throwing a chock down an engine isnt the safest thing to do particually to ones self, but please dont say it was only a nav light that was u/s, lightning strikes can and do cause lots of damage and not all of it immidiatly apparent.
Edited for duplication
Last edited by Danny; 4th Jan 2003 at 16:20.