View Full Version : Ground collision - 3 x RJ

22nd Jul 2008, 17:42
WAFB Channel 9, Baton Rouge, LA |Three planes collide on the ground at Baton Rouge Metro Airport (http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=8711634)

No injuries, but somebody probably looking for a new job.

22nd Jul 2008, 18:18
I am of course no expert and its wise to wait until an investigation has been made before making any conclusion but.......

If the engineer pressed a starter switch in the cockpit shouldn't she of checked to make sure that both throttle levers are in the "idle" position before doing anything?

Correct me if i am wrong but the only way to start an engine is via the cockpit!

Unless of course the thrust levers were at idle and there was some sort of mechanical problem which caused the aircraft to move forward but only time & the NTSB will tell!


22nd Jul 2008, 19:17
I'm interested to know how you can get a jet, presumably starting from off, to takeoff power that quickly. I know they are smaller engines, but what's the spool-up time? The NTSB report on this one ought to be interesting to read...

22nd Jul 2008, 19:19
Maybe she should have checked the thrust levers were closed, but better not to comment too early. They may have been jerked open by a fall, manual dropping whatever. Maybe it was a dreadful mistake in starting with thrust lever wide open, but you must learn we all make mistakes in our jobs at sometime. A whole industry is built around trapping those errors so they become harmless. This was an unusual procedure, starting up in a hangar. Mistakes are part of life, that is why there are rubbers on the end of pencils (OK then, erasers to you Americans!). One hopes the young mechanic is treated with sympathy- can you imagine how she feels?

Now you made a serious grammatical error in your post. Work on that and trap that error before back to school time!

With many jets, the engine must spool up to idle before thrust position is recognised. From idle to full power for a CRJ- a few seconds. Brakes probably off as in hangar- movement very rapidly. By the time realisation happened, it would probably be too late to stop immediately.

L Peacock
22nd Jul 2008, 20:35
Good post Rainboe. How many of us have made subtle mistakes that, on reflection, could have ended in bitter tears. Most times you're able to make a mental note to self and learn for next time.
I hope she gets the opportunity not to make the same mistake again.

22nd Jul 2008, 21:18
Just a little bit puzzled. No blame intended. Photos gone so can not say if this was a 1/2 or 7/900. Because if it was a 100/200 you can not just start the engine. You would have to arm the ignition, engage the starter and open the thrust leaver and advance power. Opening the thrust leaver from shut off to Idle requires one to lift the guard move the TL to idle then release the guard before one can advance the TL. I do not expect somebody to do these actions just for drymotoring.
On the 7/900 series you do ot need to arm the ignition but still have to open the thrust leaver from shut off to idle. The 1/200 series require quite some thrust increase for break away power single engine, even more so the 7/9. There for the article does not make any sence. But whatever happend I hope she is treated fairly!

Regards Micky

22nd Jul 2008, 21:27

Aggressor was a 701, victims both 200s. N706EV into N916EV and N975EV, two reportedly w/o but doesn't say which.

22nd Jul 2008, 21:39
The mechanic will be lauded by a hero by the company and a bum by the insurance company.

22nd Jul 2008, 22:57
There is a slightly less hysterical item in Flightglobal.

22nd Jul 2008, 23:41

23rd Jul 2008, 01:15
Write-offs? Nonsense! Bit of sheet aluminium and a pop rivet kit and they're away!


Well, JADEC (http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm) doesn't believe so.......
"N706EV and N916EV are likely to be declared a total loss."

23rd Jul 2008, 01:15
Lesson To Be Had For All Mechanics (pics) � Tech Ops Forum | Airliners.net (http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=airliners.net+lesson+to+be+had+for+all+mechanics&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/233419/&w=airliners+.net+lesson+had+mechanics+mechanic%27s&d=JwvwxC72RJpA&icp=1&.intl=us)

Lots of pictures here...

"706 was suppose to be getting a compressor wash. Somehow the left
engine throttle was at max power, Igniter breakers were not pulled, and
the hydraulics were not on and brakes were bled down, and finally the
torque links were not connected.. With this in mind put someone in the
cockpit untrained and no reason to be in there, to turn over the engines
for a compressor wash. The young lady pushed the button for the right
engine, then when time completed stopped it, she pushed the start button
for the left... Since it has a FADEC when the conditions were met the
engine spooled up and it lit off, in 3 seconds it was at 85% and jumping
the chalks. 5 seconds later it was over. I had two aircraft to inspect
that night. Only one left that morning Setting

- 975 had been in the night before and was swapped out and sent back.
On my walk around at the gate I found a flat spot on the tires. So with
an LC1 and nose tires, the lead decided to nose the aircraft in. That
put 975, 45 feet in front of 706 and closer to the hanger. A/C 916 was
backed into tail dock for throttle gearbox inspections.

Chain of events.
A cleaner was three feet forward of the pax door on 975, across from him
starting the process of changing the nose tires was a new mechanic. Two
other cleaners were inside of 975 as well as one mechanic. 975's lead
was at the lead desk as well as one mechanic. On 706, Lead mechanic
xxxxxx told xxxxxx to do the cockpit part of comp wash
even with reservations. xxxx a new mechanic was sent to operate the
cart. The remaining two crew members were sent to trouble shoot Duct Mon
under wing. The inspector for 706 like myself had more than one a/c to
inspect and was in the office as well as acting supervisor. On 916 there
was a mechanic on each engine doing gearbox inspection. The third
mechanic was doing LC-2 check inspections. Acting lead xxxx xxx

When 706 engines started to get loud, I looked up and saw it jump the
chalks.xxxx xxx questioned himself why was the engine so loud for the
start of a comp wash. xxxx the mechanic running the cart ran away
noting that his shirt felt like he was going to be sucked into the
engine. The two mechanics under the wing hearing the engine, thought
that was not right and ran towards the ditch off to the right.

When 706 started moving xxx (the Cleaner) and the mechanic starting to
change the nose tires dived forward and away of 975. Willy was missed by
975 by a mere 5 inches.

706s pax door made first contact with 975 winglet underside violently
throwing it into the air. The wing came down on 706's fuselage at the
point connection is painted on the side where it snapped into two
pieces. 706's wing was pushed below 975's wing and made contact with
it's gear and lodged in place. The forward momentum, the down force on
the left wing on 706 and Inertia caused by the lock between 706's wing
and 975 gear caused a 90 degree turn by 706 in which the nose and the
right main temporarily came off the ground. The nose was high enough
that the pax door was sheered off by a Tug that was still attached to
916. 706 stopped because its nose made contact with 916 nose. 3/4 way
through its 90 degree turn 706 left engine started ingesting 975 winglet
and was FODing out. 706 came to rest sitting on top of the large tug.

975 with first contact was pushed back about five feet. The locking of
its gear to 706's wing made 975 also to do a 90 degree turn also. This
was when willy was just missed. This action also pushed 975 onto its
tail shattering it.

916 contact with 706 at the nose in a down ward movement, snapped 916
drag brace and caused the tail go into the air and pierce itself on the
tail stand. This movement threw xxxx xxx out of the aft equipment bay.

It is hard to believe that it took all of five seconds after 706 jumped
the chalks for all of this to occur and not Kill anyone. If 975 had not
been where it was..706 left wing would have clipped the hanger. That
with the left engine at max there would have been an explosion at the
least. With 916 being in the hanger on that side we would have lost the
hanger as well as many people."

23rd Jul 2008, 03:50
Cor !!!!! :eek::eek::eek:
It sort of reminds me of that hilarious story of the bricklayer..."on the way down I unfortunately met the brick carrier coming back up""
I'm sure that somebody out there will be able to name the raconteur.

23rd Jul 2008, 06:55
The Bricklayer's Story by Gerard Hoffnung. Google it

23rd Jul 2008, 07:00
:hmm: I believe aeroplanes go inside hangars!

23rd Jul 2008, 11:52
took some time but I finally got back the ''famous'' photos, erased on almost every english speaking internet site :

french version, alas

Cajun CRJ salad, help yourself !

WWW.CRASH-AERIEN.COM :: Voir le sujet - CRJ' salad ; don't press the red button, miss...trop tard (http://www.crash-aerien.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61352#61352)

23rd Jul 2008, 13:40
Found the pictures on a Macedonian forum.

Македонска Авијација Форум : Преглед на тема - Три авиони се судриле поради механичарска грешка (http://forum.avijacija.com.mk/viewtopic.php?t=3167)

23rd Jul 2008, 15:33
Thanks CS, it was late (for me) last night when I wrote my former p*st and the grey cells wern't up to par.

"The Bricklayer's Story by Gerard Hoffnung" always had me in stitches !!:ok:

Love your 'handle' btw. !!

Carbon Bootprint
23rd Jul 2008, 21:37
I believe aeroplanes go inside hangars!I also believe they are usually kept in place by chocks, not chalks. Where is Rainboe when you need him? :}

23rd Jul 2008, 22:05
Maybe if they had used chocks instead of chalks, this whole thing wouldn't have happened :hmm:

23rd Jul 2008, 22:23
I also believed "ground collision" usually referred to what happens on runways and taxiways, or to the messes caused by soused (errr... that should read 'clumsy') tug drivers, not to what happens when RJs dance a jig inside a hangar.
I may be wrong...
Rainboe, your opinion?

23rd Jul 2008, 22:27
Just out of interest.. Who shut it down afterwards?

23rd Jul 2008, 22:59
I was wondering what 'chalks' were, but I thought better keep your trap shut and don't show your ignorance! Is my understanding correct that aeroplanes stored in hangars never have their brakes on, or is that a light aeroplane thing only? Bigger planes with equipment attached would obviously have parking brake set?

I don't know what to call it. Ground collision is one thing, but when you get incidents like the Saudia 747 under tow, the Astraeus 737 at Gatwick last winter, and this, it's hardly a 'ground collision' I think. When you are driving something and it hits something else, that's a 'collision' Wild things, out of control......any offers?. 'Hangar balls-up'?

Boss Raptor
24th Jul 2008, 10:36
'total $100 million' ?! - I think not - assuming it is a CRJ100 or 200 then each is worth a max of $12-13 mil hull value (and as low as $3 mil) with a probable insured max of $17-18 mil - therefore about $50-60 mil max for 3

24th Jul 2008, 10:46
I can't help thinking the damage is possibly quite superficial. They must have been slow collisions of very light aircraft. It all depends on the current values of the airframes, but I wouldn't be surprised if on further examination and revue, they decided at least one was repairable. However the CRJ doesn't seem to be flavour of the month commuter-wise, so this will count against repair.

24th Jul 2008, 15:39
I can't help thinking the damage is possibly quite superficial.You saw the photos, I take it? I wouldn't call a CRJ with half a wing missing exactly superficial.

24th Jul 2008, 17:37
One of or newspapers the other day had an interview with a mole that had had an actress removed (Sarah Jessica Parker). So this half wing has had an aeroplane removed? I was just suggesting that one or the other could have the rest replaced. Quite badly damaged aeroplanes can fly again. I won't bring up the pictures of it being done again! I have seen too many 'that's a write off' aeroplanes that got airborne again to rely on immediate inexpert judgements.

24th Jul 2008, 18:33
Quite badly damaged aeroplanes can fly again.I have the impression both you and I come from an era where "file to adjust, bash to fit, rivet to fix, paint to finish" were still valid ways to get an aircraft back in the air. And Queen Mary's were still plentiful.

With present-day wages (to rebuild), insurance premiums, book-keeping methods, and a certain urge to get less-than-pristine assets off the books ASAP, the mentalities may have changed...



24th Jul 2008, 23:48
I think a big problem for repair (apart from the actual damage) is that CRJs don't make money anymore. Write-off values are far more attractive at the moment! But wings can be replaced quite easily, fuselage damage ditto. When the Classic 747s were returned to Boeing to have the upper deck converted with more windows, I was told Boeing simply took a saw to the fuselage and hacked the whole upper deck off. Nothing to metal workers!