No Guppy, sadly I am not. You are perhaps unable to compare risks to employees in different industries as you have been dedicated to mainly the one I assume?
Yes, you
assume a lot. You recently tried to be a pilot in a different thread, finally admitting you hadn't a clue whence you spoke. Here then, are you not a mechanic, either? Have you ever performed maintenance on an aircraft or performed engine runs?
I certainly have. Being able to move about the aircraft to observe and in most cases make adjustments, make measurements, verify valve positioning, etc, is part of doing the engine run; particularly in the case of doing engine trims and measurements.
Mistakes happen. Tethers and protective harnesses are appropriate in certain areas, such as work from a scaffolding where one stays primarily upon the scaffolding. This is not at all the same as performing an engine run or maintenance during an engine run.
I am not aware of the circumstances regarding this mishap, and won't comment as to what was done properly or improperly. That would be speculation, and highly inappropriate. When facts are released regarding what occured, then a proper discussion may be had.
I have worked in various capacities in various industries, but what other industries do is hardly relevant to what we do in aviation. This is an aviation board, we work in aviation, and the practices, policies, and procedures we use are relevant here. You can certainly make a comparison when you find window washers and coal miners trimming a 60,000 lb thrust engine on the job.
There is no such thing as commonsense within 10 feet of a running aircraft engine.
There had damn well better be.
It might surprise you that in the construction industry in London you will rarely see a ladder thesedays because workers are generally required to use safer means
Actually, no, it doesn't. Nor do I care. Nor is it relevant.
I don't blame you for being surprised, but the world has moved on in some industries more than others.
Again with the
assumption. I'm not surprised. I really don't care about the other industries.
If the operative controlling the engine was an engineer, see above. If the operative was a pilot, then where again was the necessary training, control procedure and oversight.
More and more
assumption. You assume the deceased wasn't doing the supervising. You just don't know. We just don't know. And it really doesn't matter.
As far as the pilot goes, you believe that somehow more training or oversight would have prevented this by the pilot? The pilot often can't see the powerplant (engine, motor, whatever you wish to call it in the UK), let alone have any concept of who is by the engine when it's running during the test. Generally the test is prebriefed, everybody knows their assigment and what to do. From the cockpit, the pilot can do nothing but run the engine, and shut it down if required...certainly no way to do that in time once someone is headed for the intake.
Ground supervision; see someone being drawn into the intake, there just isn't time to shut that engine down no matter how one signals. It takes time. The solution? Don't be in front of that engine within the suck zone in the first place.
You seem to have a lot of suggestions, but absolutely no concept of how to apply them here or the experience to know what you're talking about. Perhaps you should stick to ladderless construction in London and leave ramp safety to others.