Engineneer death in Tenerife South during engine test [Archive]

irish330

17th Jun 2008, 15:22

As an engineer myself, i would never ever be up to close when running an engine at any power setting above idle, and even at idle we'd be at nose of aircraft with headset contact with flightdeck.
The only reason we might have to be at engine is when manually opening the start valve, and extreme care should be taken when doing this procedure.
Ground staff i.e Loaders and catering etc need a crash course in engine safety. They have no idea what a CFM 56 can do even when its spooling down. I see in the not so distant future more deaths with unsafe work practices, stands closer together, and more and more passengers being badly marshalled into terminal or too aircraft.
If you operate in or out of Dublin you'll know what i mean.

slip and turn

17th Jun 2008, 15:35

What a sad and terrible waste. This is the second one reported in R&N in just a few months is it not?

Something is very wrong in the industry if it permits such obvious risk to go unmanaged and inevitable accidents to occur.

Where is the master engineering oversight that might have prevented it?

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.

A poor 24 year old has died, not just because he was too close, but because nothing stopped him.

It's like working on a roof with no scaffolding or safety rails - how can it be permitted? If training, control procedures and master oversight are not the solution, why aren't such engineers forced to wear harnesses and short lanyards attached to their van or the undercarriage or something that prevents them going in?

sitigeltfel

17th Jun 2008, 16:06

Correct me if I am wrong, but I witnessed this incident at Beauvais two years ago.

A Ryanair was on the ramp preparing for departure, the steps were still down and baggage was still being loaded. The red anti-collision lights came on and the ground crew chief evacuated all his staff away from the aircraft. A lot of verbal was exchanged between the cockpit window and the ground with the crew chief refusing to allow his guys near the aircraft until the lights were turned off. The captain even got out and came down the steps to continue their “discussion”. I took it that switching on the lights was a signal that the engines were about to be started and the crew chief was simply protecting his staff. The lights were eventually turned off, and normal service resumed.

SNS3Guppy

17th Jun 2008, 16:30

It's like working on a roof with no scaffolding or safety rails - how can it be permitted? If training, control procedures and master oversight are not the solution, why aren't such engineers forced to wear harnesses and short lanyards attached to their van or the undercarriage or something that prevents them going in?

You're joking, right?

slip and turn

17th Jun 2008, 16:56

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?

I know you may be thinking well what difference does a landyard make and if it is too long might it not get hung up and wind him in, but something has to be there to stop this happening.

You may even be thinking what is the difference between this and walking out into a road in front of a noisy bus - no landyards for pedestrians, eh? Well revving buses usually move and cannot cause harm in invisible ways when they are stationary.

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 e.g. MEWP (...work platform) to access heights even though it costs ridiculous amounts in extra kit. I was surprised when I learned it. Once they are in said MEWP with rails around them they are still trained to wear short lanyards to harnesses in case something odd occurs and they might otherwise topple out.

I read that in London recently, the government Health & Safety Executive conducted lightning inspections on random sites and applied temporary closure orders on half of them. Perhaps a shot over the bows in the lead up to massive London 2012 construction which is about to go exponential.

Similarly, no risk such as the one we are discussing would be conducted without there being a proper written risk assessment by qualified persons, including the provision of a method statement and if it was seen as a risk of certain death like this if procedures were not followed closely, then I think it would requre a special written permit by a site safety chief for every occasion it was undertaken. Maybe the problem is that all these things are done but they are seen as obligatory aviation aircraft safety control documents like all the other aviation engineering documented systems and not as anything designed specifically to safeguard the workers.

I don't blame you for being surprised, but the world has moved on in some industries more than others. Trained individuals are responsible for their own safety of course but we are all responsible for each other's safety too. It's supposed to work like the security model (onion layer thing).

If we can't stop accidents like this by training and procedures then that's when authorities start insisting on physical restraints.

Expect changes.

BYALPHAINDIA

17th Jun 2008, 16:59

Very sad indeed, Although safety has never being 'Al a carte' in spain IMHO.:ugh:

The incident last summer in PMI with the FCA 757 was unbelievable also, That again was an example of no training - Fire service filled engine with water on stand - 2m engine gone:ugh::*

Visiting spain & the canaries regular it seemed that training & safety was taught more, But sadly there are some companies who are 'sailing' a tight ship & cut corners too far.

I do think the majority of companies in spain have all the safety procedures in place.

Condolences to the family & everyone else involved,

But It is just commonsense not to go 10 feet near a running Aircraft engine.:sad:

slip and turn

17th Jun 2008, 17:07

But It is just commonsense not to go 10 feet near a running Aircraft engine.

There is no such thing as commonsense within 10 feet of a running aircraft engine. It must be fully trained sense with appropriate control and oversight.

I have seen an experienced dispatcher run out of the gate again when he realised he'd loaded an unaccompanied bag and run round to the captain's window in a blind panic during a four engine start up. Dumb? Yes, but no he wasn't. He was uncommonly smart. Happened? Yes. Was he hurt? Thank Goodness no, and he learned something afterwards.

SNS3Guppy

17th Jun 2008, 17:30

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.

irish330

17th Jun 2008, 17:30

Safety harnesses are required under Irish law when working on an elevated platform or up at any height. The airport authority in Dublin is enforcing this due to large amount of building going on.
I have been made stop working on a Pylon even though i was on steps. With the enforcement a change in culture is slowly happening.
However wearing a lanyard or harness is not going to work in my opinion. It may work with running engine on stand, but while pushing and starting aircraft for departure, not a hope it would work.
My reasons for this are i'm not going to let anyone tell me that i should be attached to aircraft with harness for a departure, and also i'm not going to be attached to tug either. There is a lot of pro's for a harness however there are many more of negatives.
The Ramp is a dangerous place you need eyes in the back of your head sometimes. Sorry ALL OF THE TIME.

Aircart

17th Jun 2008, 18:55

I have just been to TFS this lunch time and can't believe the A/C is still sat on the apron near the threshold of rwy 08 with no cover over the affected area and in full view of the passengers and myself! :eek:

Very sad in any case, as an ex A/C engineer i know all too well the dangers of being near an operating engine, at the end of the day though if you get to close you will get hurt.

lomapaseo

17th Jun 2008, 19:29

I have just been to TFS this lunch time and can't believe the A/C is still sat on the apron near the threshold of rwy 08 with no cover over the affected area and in full view of the passengers and myself!

from an investigation standpoint, you don't want it covered and you don't want it moved.

Hopefully is not all that visible to unknowing passengers.

Aircart

17th Jun 2008, 19:50

Joetom

17th Jun 2008, 20:38

Thoughts with all involved.

Engines and/or Anti-Col Beacon Lights on, stay away unless trained.

Even if trained, an engine can accel to full power very quick for a variety of reasons (engine malfunction/person falls on the power lever).

RIP.

glad rag

17th Jun 2008, 21:17

I'm afraid to say that ALL was visible and it wasn't nice to look at. I had no doubt what I was looking at.
I understand that an investigation needs to be done but it shouldn't be so visible.

Even just parking vehicles or something around the wing would go a long way.

Even today, in some countries life is cheap, taking responsibility for ensuring (some) dignity in death does not come easily...............want to argue about it? go look at the TACA accident videos on uTube...........dead flight crew videoed through windscreen............:(

An2

17th Jun 2008, 21:53

Very sad, this story. As are all work-related death accidents.

For engine testing, on a/c's with underwing engine pods, I got the idea of having some sort of cage to cover the air intake.
If it's a big enough one, it wouldn't disturb the airflow, but would stop ingestion of groundcrew.

They can easily be made mobile, with retractable wheels, so that they can be hauled around.

Of course, all this would mean extra costs and time being spent on other things than direct maintenance.:rolleyes:

Bearcat

17th Jun 2008, 22:24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4

this guy made it but just look at what a turbojet can do as against a fan.

RIP to that chap. I remember years ago luxair sucked an engineer into a 200 in Ibiza....grizzly stuff.

Mikhail Sharpowicz

17th Jun 2008, 22:41

It does seem a little dense to be near an engine during test, but it happens. All too easily unfortunately. We've all seen the various videos on youTube.
A few years back during a rotors running Lynx test one of the Techs had an absent-minded look at the oil level in the intermediate gearbox at the bottom of the tail. He was thinking 'My - It's a bit Windy down here!?!', just for half a second, before realising why.:eek::rolleyes:
Then a poor girl, having been briefed before a flight, and before exiting the aircraft to go forwards until clear of the rotor disc, in her excitement jumped out and ran around the back with predictable consequences.
Sometimes people just crack on without thinking 100% because you can't SEE the danger, especially when you do it in normal safety day in, day out, and engines are a bit of a special case, even though the noise is a bit of a giveaway.:(
ps Nice Photo

Jofm5

17th Jun 2008, 23:32

I think as in most walks of life familiarity does breed contempt. You may as others have said walked around a dangerous environment many times before and got away with it - however with a jet engine the nearer you tempt those boundaries the closer you get and once you cross the line there is no second chance.

However, whilst the above is a good observation of life (at least in my view) we cant say this is what happend to this poor soul - it could be they stumbled and fell, it could be so sinister they were pushed - I dont think we can speculate really on what happened without the facts but I do applaud the observations that can encourage more respect around the environment.

Keep up the educational and informative reading.

Regards,

A humble PAX

fruitloop

18th Jun 2008, 00:40

"Quote"i see these guys doing engine tests day in day out, im always amazed to see them lying directly under the engine when its at full throttle......
As far as I am aware Airbus states that the Fan cowls are to be closed when the engine is run at "Full throttle"...I personally wouldn't want to just rely on the fan cowl supports when power settings above 74% (just above the "No-Go zone")
My condolances to the engineer"s family..

adiruwho

18th Jun 2008, 02:25

Having worked on and around the cfm's amongst others for for over 25 years, there are numerous reasons to approach, inspect, and adjust a running turbine engine. The entry/exit zones are stated in the manual. As are the use and connection points of a safety harness. Also typically no need to be near an inlet hazard zone above idle power. A previous poster was correct, above idle fan cowls closed. It is sad that this fellow was was killed, what also is sad is that proper training and procedures weren't followed. Maybe in the future this will remind others of one of the dangers A&P"S or Engineers to you CAA types face each day on the line. Next time it could be you.

Plastic Bug

18th Jun 2008, 03:24

Guppy,

Thanks for keeping me from having to reply to this thread directly. You Sir, will be the recipient of many beers at the next squadron party.

I'm trying to imagine what kind of lanyard would have to be used to keep one from being ingested. Oh, the one that keeps you 25 feet from the inlet! Yeah, that one. The same one that keeps you from getting close enough to actually DO anything.

Seriously, there isn't really any reason to be that close to an engine at power, but people do it to save time. I have to ask, who's time is being saved and is it worth it?

THAT is the problem. But what do I know.

Thanks for your post Guppy, you said it all.

PB

pacplyer

18th Jun 2008, 06:34

Actually, IIRC, big fans like the JT9D's the graphic cone of danger is actually 20 some feet in front of the engine at full rated power. There is an extreme danger depiction at something like ten feet. The cubic volume of air being affected is enormous at max power. Enough to suck passengers into the engines off the upper deck of United in Hawaii.

Blame the operator? That's silly. The rated and qualified mechanic or pilot in this case was probably blameless. He can't see what's going on from upstairs. Tethers? Ridiculous. We have a bad enough tripping hazard with just the fuel static line.

Working around spinning props is even more dangerous, but mechanics must do it. One second of absent-mindedness and you've just walked into oblivion.

When I was 22 we couldn't get the second engine started on a Falcon 20. The FBO's gpu had already taken off (they didn't wait for anything.) No Apu. I told the captain I would drop the aft hatch and climb into the tail to bang on the circut breaker panel that we knew housed the sticking relay (while he pressed the start button.) The captain reluctantly agreed. On the way to the hatch in the dark, I passed by the running aft-fan (fuel sprayed) GE CF700 tail pipe. Even though I was partially leaning forward, it burned the hair off the very top of my head. Man did the smell of burning hair smell bad! If I'd have been any taller I'd have been in bad shape! Got it started though.

Later that year, an Evergreen mechanic from Marana was in Phoenix meeting an Emery DC-8 that had lost nose gear steering out of SFO. When the jet stopped the 21 year old mechanic climbed into the nose wheel well to survey the problem. Bang. Crash. The nose gear retracted cutting him into pieces. Don't know if it hurt anybody on board, as it was quite a fall, but it was certainly a horrific sight as we parked right next to them after it happened.

Young men make stupid mistakes sometimes in aviation. It's still the safest form of transportation ever devised. And definitely safer than roofing!

Southernboy

18th Jun 2008, 07:33

it was my understanding that regulations required a steel cage to be placed in front of the engine prior to a ground run up.

Mr.Brown

18th Jun 2008, 08:14

it was my understanding that regulations required a steel cage to be placed in front of the engine prior to a ground run up.

As far as I know boeing state in their precautions that an inlet guard should be used..

How many engineers have actually had access to one these in a line enviornment???????
I never had, and I know what would happen if I refused to run an engine wihout one.

Southernboy

18th Jun 2008, 08:42

That's appalling. What are they saying then, the airlines that won't provide safety equipment? That ground staff don't matter?

CHINOOKER

18th Jun 2008, 08:54

Sitigeltfel....Do you know exactly where the photo in your post was taken??....If it is where i think it is,a full set of engine guards are provided at this location and SHOULD have been used!!.
As for working on engines whilst they are running,yes most engineers have probably done this on many occasions,but i have never known anyone do this when the engine is above idle....Even at that setting on a Trent/GE90 it is a little disconcerting,so good teamwork/trust is vital to say the least.
I cannot ever recall seeing anyone on a "tethered line",so cannot comment on this approach, but in my opinion,it does seem to add an extra hazard to the proceedings.

Condolences to all involved.

Terry McCassey

18th Jun 2008, 09:26

There is a modicum of sense in what mr slip and turn says. We used to do compressor washes at Gatwick on the DC10s in the 70's and this was well before the H&S people had bite. Every wing engine wash was done with a harness on and anchored to the faithful Douglas push back tug. This however was a set and well rehearsed procedure where the harness was a necessity. Even now I shiver at the power of the fan, would suck a pen out of the pocket no problem. Even worse was trimming the JT3D with the thing running, now that's just plain daft these days. I agree that many engine runs require the headset guy to be free to move about but now when I run ANY aircraft above idle power, the blokes are at the front windows where we can see them. Sad day indeed, keep safe . . . . .

itwilldoatrip

18th Jun 2008, 14:47

Mr Brown

We had cages on the Comet @ Dans' in the 'Good old days'. Can remember being under an Avon that surged saw the shock wave in front of me and engulfed me.
They were the day's

lgweng

18th Jun 2008, 16:35

With any modern, hi-bypass, turbo fan engine today, there should never be a reason to be close to the engine during hi-power operations. The danger areas (both intake and exhaust) would prevent you from getting close enough to carry out any maintenance safely. Some procedures require you to carry out maintenance at idle power but if this is necessary, any sensible engineer-in-charge will have briefed all their staff on safe access corridors before the run starts. Unfortunately, it is too easy to get distracted or forget these procedures in the middle of a noisy engine run. It is a very stressful environment and only experience and common sense can prevent these accidents.

lomapaseo

18th Jun 2008, 20:02

Are there any facts about what power setting was briefed for this engine run vs what actually happened:confused:

I'm not sure I know what went wrong vs all the speculation on here about what not to do and who's at fault.

r75

18th Jun 2008, 21:20

lomapaseo

19th Jun 2008, 02:11

Fargoo

19th Jun 2008, 08:14

We ALWAYS use full intake guards when ground running RB211s and are fully trained/briefed on ground runs, an engine even at ground idle commands respect, I have seen a guard blasted foreward when checking reverse thrust, that photograph looks decidedly dangerous.

Wheras we regularly run up RB211s and other types on the ramp with no guards. Never above idle and never with anyone anywhere near the engine.
This report mentions the engineer was with 2 colleagues by the nose gear , I fail to see how he was ingested from that distance with an engine running at idle.

We only use guards when adjustments or test are needed on a running engine and again only ever at idle. The picture in this thread of a 747 engine run is perfectly acceptable to me given that the staff monitoring it are generally inside a van well away from the engine.

Sad case , lets hope we find out exactly what happened in time so we can all learn from it. RIP

sitigeltfel

19th Jun 2008, 08:54

Sitigeltfel....Do you know exactly where the photo in your post was taken??

Sorry, no info on that. I lifted the shot from a non-aviation photo enthusiasts website.

CHINOOKER

19th Jun 2008, 10:55

Fargoo,
Whilst i agree with much you said in your last post,your assumption that it is ok to run an engine at high power settings "unguarded" is not totally correct,especially within BA.
Whilst i agree with you that if you are at a remote location,(ie doing a block run on runway 23 at LHR),this is acceptable,as everyone should be secure in a van/tug etc...well away from the a/c
However do the same thing within the confines of the run up pens at the maintenance base and you immediately fall foul of both H&S rulings and the BA Quality dept as "appropriate engine guards" are provided at these locations!!
Its sad to say,but there are a few individuals i know that tend to often
"overlook/dismiss" these requirements as they are always under pressure to get the job done!! All well and good,until something tragic happens.....then see how much support you get from those above you!!

IFIX

19th Jun 2008, 12:58

Are the engines on a A320 FADEC controlled and if so can someone pls give me a sound reason for being near a FADEC equiped engine?

I do runups on mechanically controlled engines (although not high bypass ratio), during engine trims you have to be at the engine for adjustments.
I cannot think of any reason for being anywhere near a running engine which is FADEC controlled.
No adjusments to be made equalls STAY CLEAR!!

My thoughts are with the relatives he leaves behind :(

Spanner Turner

19th Jun 2008, 13:42

This clip may be of interest to some of you. It has little to do with the recent tragedy but thought it might give some readers an insight/appreciation of the power that can be involved. Mods - if considered unrelated - please delete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waDeveWle54

Note - the engine in the clip above is a General Electric CF6-80C2B6.
Its rated thrust is 60,060lbs. It is fitted to a 767-300. This engine is not a FADEC type - it has old school throttle cables and an old-style fuel control. Consequently they need fairly regular ground runs (and often to take-off power) whenever major components are replaced, faulty or if control cable rigging takes place.

Please note that a zoom was used to film this.

Maintenance manual stipulates personnel to remain 18ft (5.5 metres) away from the inlet cowl lip at take-off setting. (we almost always are a lot further away than that)

:ok:

Mr.Brown

19th Jun 2008, 16:30

Its sad to say,but there are a few individuals i know that tend to often
"overlook/dismiss" these requirements as they are always under pressure to get the job done!! All well and good,until something tragic happens.....then see how much support you get from those above you!!

This is a great point, but should we not have more of an input from our aviation authorities on these issue's to help us stand up to these pressures....

MAN777

19th Jun 2008, 17:59

Very sad and a reminder to all of us that work around aircraft engines, I have spent 30 years working in close proximity to rotors and turbines and still today I treat any aircraft, lights on, with utmost respect, I even double check airliners with APUs running. when training new staff I really try and hammer home the point to them, Something that all us wrinklies should do and maybe we can stop needless deaths like this.

Out of interest, how on earth do you keep an airliner on a full power engine run from moving forward ? and if you just run one engine at full power does it put any strain on the airframe / undercarriage / tyres. Just interested !

boeing_eng

19th Jun 2008, 19:04

You cannot just run one engine (on say a twin engined aircraft) at high power.

Both engines have to be run to equalise the stresses.

Another terrible tragedy in TFS........I would just echo other comments that there is never a technical need to be anywhere near an engine at anything above idle power.

IcePack

19th Jun 2008, 21:35

b e

I guess their is a lot of stressed airframes out there then !

CHINOOKER

19th Jun 2008, 23:07

SASKATOON9999
With regard what an engine guard looks like,well they are basically a steel meshed box on a set of wheels....the guards would have a steelwork frame with meshed sides/front and base. The engine side of this "box" would usually profiled to go around the engine intake cowl.
Simple to use,you just wheel them into position,so that the engine intake is just inside the "box"...lock down the brakes on the wheels so it doesn't move whilst the engine is running and off you go!

411A

20th Jun 2008, 18:14

The true problem is....all the old folks have retired, you remember them, some of their friends were sucked right through jet engines in the 50's and 60's...now the new generation of ground engineers have to learn the hard way that a large turbine engine is like a very big Hoover...thump...everything close gets minced up, sliced and diced, quite nicely.

One wonders...do these new guys get ANY type of training on these factors, today?
And IF not, WHY not?

Blink182

20th Jun 2008, 19:10

One wonders...do these new guys get ANY type of training on these factors, today?
And IF not, WHY not?Easy one that..............

Money.

Debonair V12

20th Jun 2008, 20:14

Chinooker.I can confirm that the photo you refer to was taken at the British Airways penal colony down the M4 at Cardiff.:eek:

VAFFPAX

20th Jun 2008, 21:28

Very, very sad and a terrible way to die.
An example of the forces involved when an engine is being run up,
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee201/sitigeltfel/Vortex.jpg
WOW. That is a photo and a half. Thanks for the post.

I'm sorry for the loss of the engineer. :-(

S.

Tempsford

20th Jun 2008, 23:10

A very sad accident and my thoughts go out to the family. Contributors to this thread are quite correct, larger fans, increased engine efficiency, less need to go anywhere near an engine at anything above idle power, yet these terrible accidents still happen and will continue to happen.
Our company has taken this unfortunate accident on board and once more information is known, we will be using the information to relate to our staff attending human factors training. We are also reviewing our procedures to ensure that all staff involved with EGR are fully aware of the potential risks.
As apprentices we learnt how to operate in such dangerous conditions by being taught by the old hands that worked on Lancasters, Yorks etc. This was taught rigidly as part of an Apprenticeship which lasted four years. Unfortuntalely, fast tracking people to become engineers can miss out exposure to such important lessons as how to behave and work in dangerous environments such as EGR, gear retractions, control surface movement checks, pressurisation checks etc etc.
Yes, use intake guards if they are available, but in 35 years working in commercial aircraft maintenance worldwide I have rarely seen them being available. Many is the time that you are doing EGR in places that do not have any or limited engineering facilities and then you rely on what you were taught and ensure that those working with you are fully briefed and protected during the EGR. The key is very good communication and understanding both before and during the EGR with all involved.

Temps

pacplyer

21st Jun 2008, 00:38

Somebody (an engineer) mentioned running symmetrical engines to reduce stress when big fans are run up and I remember procedures for the 747 that took the opposite side engine to say 50% while the target engine was run up to rated power. Probably a model specific recommendation. Bet it's not observed very often.

In Fiji, we had an overtemping JT9D-7F loaner engine, and we would taxi to the end of the runway, the mechanics would stick in "flags", they would stand off, and we would run up the engines. It didn't work very well. The assistant mechanics had trouble with this technique, "flags blowing out?" or something. Can anybody explain what this was about? The charter mechanic (who never got his hands dirty) was upset with the competence of these young island mechanics in their ability to follow his directions. After two days of this garbage, the Fiji tower had had enough of us eroding the end of the airport (looked like a volcano behind us) and refused to give us taxi clearance to go do it again! Reflecting now, I'm glad no one got hurt.

Ruined a otherwise great layover though.

Cheers.

Nepotisim

21st Jun 2008, 01:09

The 'flags' would be placed over the various bleed valves on the engine as a visual indicator as to whether or not the bleed valve was working or not.

You then stand at a distance as the engine power is increased to see at what epr the bleed valve closes. It has got to close at the right time or the engine gets hot due to not enough airflow through the engine.:ok:

Dogma

21st Jun 2008, 08:33

Gather engineers are pouring over the engine today. Not a very nice job.

Reminds me of the worker last year, who was riding a conveyer into a bread oven to remove an obstruction, conveyer belt did not stop as planned and he got toasted.

I hope this engineers family get well looked after.

matkat

21st Jun 2008, 09:30

When I was a line engineer(B747) we used to run symetrical engines at the same power setting, this was usually done at the noise abatment facilility in Madrid, prior to ANY run I would brief all personel (including the guy on the headset) the brief was always similar but I always emphasised to the guy outside that the closest he could be to the engine at idle (obviously circumstance dependant) would be at the nose gear if high power was required he would disconnect and stand behind the abatement wall, this part was not circumstance dependant.

HZ123

21st Jun 2008, 11:28

At BA LHR we use the clip from U-tube to indicate to ground / ramp staff the issues involved with engine starts and runniing down on stand. That said I still see these people ignoring the rules when they are out on the patch. It is always the same complacency creeps in and often the hearing protectors take away the noise so the threat seems much less.
When in other locations I am alarmed by the complete lack of training given to many of the staff in particular GHA's. It seems we will never learn and the industry should/must take a lesson from the UK construction industry that in 10 years has gone from almost a death daily to only a few per annum.

Beeline

23rd Jun 2008, 11:58

Yes post 60 is bad taste and is not related to the thread in anyway!

Digressing dilutes the fact that it is a warning to engineers regardless of age and experience to keep away from engines above idle, or if at idle to never walk across the face of the intake.

People should also be aware of the air evacuating their lungs if you get too close, run guards or not!

Said company on picture do have a line of the walk in area at idle on the cowlings but the manual air valve starter panel is outside the zone!!!

Never did get that!

RIP

Dr Illitout

23rd Jun 2008, 18:05

It's not just the engineers that need the warning. Some of the ground handling crews at MAN have a death wish! I have spoken to several of them over the past few years. I have spoken to their managers and to the airfield ops people but still get far to close for (my) comfort.

R.I.P.

Rgds Dr I

Golden Rivit

23rd Jun 2008, 23:00

slip and turn

25th Jun 2008, 00:11

Like Dogma, I also very much hope the employer is taking good care of this engineer's family and I see no reason whatsoever for any lawyer to be involved if that good care is done right, and also, if it is done right, then I don't see much point in an investigation other than one to satisfy the family or the equivalent of the local coroner.

Frankly, I would guess that if Prof Ladkin's "why because" type of analysis was applied, this wouldn't rate as an aviation specific accident at all save perhaps the out of date industry attitudes to some aspects of ground ops safety. There are a thousand industries with machines to fall into which would inevitably swallow a man as soon as all means of escape are denied by gravity or some similarly unyielding force.

Does anyone else think a full aviation regulatory investigation would teach us anything worthwhile that we don't already know?

Re post #26, this wasn't military so what beers are stood in squadron bars is of no interest on this thread I suggest, even if they've undoubtedly got all the t-shirts.

24 summers just isn't enough for most people to even appreciate what it means to be young...let alone to lose your life because your olders and betters still haven't learned what it is to be wise.

kristofera

25th Jun 2008, 03:02

This is just an amateur's guess (and maybe a bit offtopic), but would an inlet screen really have saved the life of the engineer?

I would imagine that they are good for protecting the engine / fans, but a person getting sucked into the screen in front of an engine at takeoff power wouldn't survive anyway unless wearing a helmet / protective clothing etc...?

anartificialhorizon

25th Jun 2008, 07:39

"Are the engines on a A320 FADEC controlled and if so can someone pls give me a sound reason for being near a FADEC equiped engine?

I do runups on mechanically controlled engines (although not high bypass ratio), during engine trims you have to be at the engine for adjustments.
I cannot think of any reason for being anywhere near a running engine which is FADEC controlled.
No adjusments to be made equalls STAY CLEAR!!

My thoughts are with the relatives he leaves behind "

In answer to your question, there are a multitude of reasons why you might have to be near a running FADEC controlled engine,not least leak checking components recently fitted which may require higher power settings than idle.

However ALL safety precautions should be taken, including not encroaching on suction areas, which also extend rearwards of the lip, and may require safety harnesses to be worn.

Whilst an engine run guard would not have prevented the suction grabbing the poor guy it would have stopped him being sucked into the engine and given time for the crew to shut down the engine.

There was a guy a BA years back who was sucked into a VC10 engine and was saved by his large anorak and the IGV's. Lost his arm and damaged his hearing I believe......

RIP the poor guy in Tenerife

Plane Speaker

25th Jun 2008, 07:44

Sadly a silar thing happened at Hatfield in the late 80's resulting in a fatality when one of the engineers was ingested into a 502. Shortly after the incident gaurds were placed in front of all engines prior to to ANY engine run. That was a manufacturers response, but today I dont see any similar device used on any runs perfomed when either coming out of heavy maintenance. It takes the loss of a person to ram home the effect, but of course it's too late. Effective and training and confidence of actions plus situational awareness are key to being safe if there is no mechanical means of ingestion prevention. My sympathies to the poor guys family.

anartificialhorizon

25th Jun 2008, 08:29

You are correct Plane Speaker.

There is too much emphasis on rush rush rush nowadays. It takes something like this to make people sit up and then it's usually only for a short time....

Green Flash

25th Jun 2008, 09:57

The inlet screens we used in the USN on F-4's and A-7's caused surging,false indications,and were a nightmare to inspect and maintain.I remember the poor NDI guys inspecting every weld on every square of mesh screen! probably some of the reasons airlines don't use them.

Airlines in a rush = money - or a bloke dies? Hmm, tricky call, that. Intake gaurds. Stops you going in and also stops other big things going in AND if you paint them bright red reminds anyone approaching the aircraft that the motors are running!!! The RAF Nimrod fleet use 'em all the time. OK, so maybe a Spey doesn't move as much air as a CFM - but they are still a bloody good idea! You won't stop people going near running donks no matter how many edicts are issued so the next thing is to try and stop them going down the intakes.

lgweng

25th Jun 2008, 10:11

With regard to the statement about leak checking components at above idle power settings, there is still no need whatsoever to be near the engine. Developer spray can be used for leak checking fuel/oil components and developer/tin foil can be used for pneumatic components.
As for trim adjustments, if the components that need adjusting are inside the danger areas for that power settings, you do not go near them.

Blacksheep

25th Jun 2008, 10:51

but a person getting sucked into the screen in front of an engine at takeoff power wouldn't survive anyway unless wearing a helmet / protective clothing etc...?The chap who was sucked into a VC10 engine at BA years ago survived (badly injured) because the RR Conway has guide vanes in front of the first stage fan. As he went into the intake, his body stuck on the vanes long enough to cause compressor stall, which blew him back out again. Deaf in one ear and minus one hand and several fingers, but alive. Getting stuck on an inlet screen would have much the same effect but without the loss of any body parts.

For those who haven't tried working near the front of an engine at full power, its easy to lose concentration and get too far into the intake depression. I always tied myself to the stand when doing trim runs on the VC10.

the rim

25th Jun 2008, 11:02

the v2500 in fully fadec dont why you would be any where near the engine at power ...most checks done at idle anyhow on fadec

AeroTech

30th Jun 2008, 22:42

Hi,

Here a quote from another aviation forum:
As to strapping the fan, I looked this up in the A310 mm, though Im pretty sure it applies to all JT9's, sorry cant link it.
The mm says you CAN use this procedure while performing test 03. Test 03 is basically a leak test which is required after the replacement of many engine components. P&W calls it a "locked fan rotor ground run". The mm is very specific about how you strap the fan, they call for installing seven straps which must be woven through the fan blades at specific clock locations. The straps must be positioned "outboard of and against the mid span shroud as far outboard on fan exit vanes as possible".
The advantage of using this procedure is you can run the engine with ALL of the cowling open. The disadvantage is it obviously takes lots of time to set up and you are supposed to have fire fighting equipment standing by because the engine fire bottles will be ineffective with the cowling open. You can not go above ground idle. As an alternative you can do test 03 with the cowling closed (no straps) then open it up and look for leaks.

1-I am wondering if this method is still applied for the recent engines?

2-Is there any procedure in the maintenance manuals to lock the prop during engine run-up to have relatively closer look at the engine with cowls open?

Is it possible to approach (but not really close) a turboprop with open cowls and in THRUST REVERSE to have a closer look to the engine during run-up?

Feedback appreciated.
Thank you.

lomapaseo

30th Jun 2008, 23:45

Tis true that many engines can start and run at idle with the fan strapped.

However even with the fan turning there is not much suckng power in back of the inlet at idle.

Captain Wonderful

1st Jul 2008, 06:04

Please don t use the phrase "Crash Course" on pprune.:)

pacplyer

1st Jul 2008, 11:03

Thanks Aero Tech,

Fantastic post. Bet no one was aware of the procedure. I must confess, however, that I am a little confused. When you state A310mm I am not aware of any JT9d's hung on an A310. Are you saying these are common procedures between the engine types?

Thanks for any clarification, maybe I read it wrong.

I find the unspoken mtc procedures to be fascinating.

Thanks again.

pac

threemiles

1st Jul 2008, 11:06

JT9D-7R4 hanging on A310s

pacplyer

1st Jul 2008, 11:08

Sorry,

It's happy hour here!

I see now that it's a quote you took from another forum.
Could you be so kind as to provide a link?

And please disregard my earlier post as it applies to qualified mtc personnel.

Cheers,

pac

Kiwiconehead

1st Jul 2008, 11:27

Aerotech - with regard to the turboprop - you could approach - but there isn't really any reason.

Only reason I have ever had to approach a turboprop running was the stupid early Metros where the ground power receptacle was in the side of the nacelle - brown trouser experience that.

Have been in the wheel well of a Dash 8 with engine in Start/Feather leak checking a hyd component that could only be powered up off EDP.

Otherwise - stay the f*ck away - especially at power.

Dash scares me at power inside let alone anywhere near it outside - people give me strange looks when I put on the belts before giving it the onions - I've seen one leap before.

pacplyer

1st Jul 2008, 11:48

Thanks Threemiles,

It's coming back to me now. Yes those Pratts that we operated with all the reverser problems were actually part of the JT9D family of big fans.

We got rid of them in asia since they weren't reliable for our culture (no, I can't elaborate further; had to do with inbreeding.....) GE CF6's were light years ahead in reliability and performance for us.

Forgot all about those. Pratts didn't even have a real fadec as I recall. Some scheme called PFD or PFM and MEC? or something?

can't remember now.

wrenchbender

2nd Jul 2008, 02:53

"In answer to your question, there are a multitude of reasons why you might have to be near a running FADEC controlled engine..."

How about manually closing the start valve?

AeroTech

2nd Jul 2008, 08:41

Guys, thank you for your posts.

Pacplyer, I apologize for the delay to answer you. Here the link (Please read reply (post) 27)
Rattling CFM56's? — Tech Ops Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/136830)

Since I didn't get answer regarding the procedure of strapping the fan during engine run-up, I assume this method was applied only for JT9 engines. Is this true?

I never worked on a turboprop. I am wondering if a mechanic was unable to detect a leak by using developer spray/tin foil not efficient to detect the leak(s) OR was performing trim adjustements (if they exist in turboprop), is it possible to approach the turboprop while running?

Do you think tought that using thrust reverse will allow to approach relatively the turboprop?
I assume only few turboprops can be operated on "hotel mode" as an APU where the prop is locked: in such case I assume it is easy to approach the engine.

Feedback appreciated.
Thank you.

tristar 500

2nd Jul 2008, 09:31

Having worked on the Dart & the Tyne, yes we used to be under the engine when it was running.

With either engine in "ground fine pitch" the propellor was onle discing "ie" not producing any thrust. There was no reverse on the Dart (Viscount) but you would not be able to approach the Tyne (Vanguard) if it was in reverse.

The main difference was that the Tyne was a constant speed engine so to get the correct pressures etc you had to go to High ground idle & this was what was needed to carry out leak checks etc.

tristar 500

tom775257

21st Jul 2008, 10:48

To highlight the dangers of working around running engines (be it Cessna 150 or A380)

I was told by an engineer at TFS: Apparently a ground run was going on (high speed run), one engineer under the engine (secured to the engine with a harness) and an engineer on the headset by the nose gear talking to the flight deck. The engineer under the engine signaled to the engineer on the headset to shut the engine down - the signal was not understood, so the engineer approached the engine from the side to speak to the person under the engine - the instruction was communicated, and the unfortunate engineer rather that walking sideways away from the engine walked forward. That one mistake near a prop or jet and it could be your last.