Starting engines in close proximity to hangars etc

[fireflybob]

I was always taught that the practice of starting engine(s) in very close proximity to hangars was potentially dangerous in the event of a fire on start up.

Can anyone tell me if there is a recommended minimum distance from hangars/buildings for starting engine(s)?

Also from time to time one observes pilots taxiing aircraft into the inside of hangars - a practice which is also potentially dangerous.

I would be interested to hear any comments.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've never seen a specific distance - but in general terms, close enough to blow anything into an open hangar door, is too close.

I can't think of any good reason, in most parts of the world, to taxi into a hangar. The risk of an accidental blip of the throttle taking the aircraft into another aircraft, or blowing over another aircraft in the hangar, is above zero - and entirely avoidable.

G

[Whopity]

I recently went to a presentation by two Ex Red Arrows ground crew who emphasised that the deliberately kept one hangar door closed to prevent the boss flying through it

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Ray_Red1_low.jpg

[ShyTorque]

I can't think of any good reason, in most parts of the world, to taxi into a hangar. The risk of an accidental blip of the throttle taking the aircraft into another aircraft, or blowing over another aircraft in the hangar, is above zero - and entirely avoidable.

So... do you think I should stop hover taxying into the hangar?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've got in trouble on these forums before for suggesting to senior members that their behaviours might be misguided, so I will leave you to your own devices I think.

G

[keith williams]

A quick Google search revealed the item below.

Australian Civil Aviation Order 20.9

5.1.4 An aircraft engine shall not be started or operated:
(a) within 5 metres (17 ft) of any sealed building; or
(b) within 8 metres (25 ft) of other aircraft; or
(c) within 15 metres (50 ft) of any exposed public area; or
(d) within 15 metres (50 ft) of any unsealed building in the case of an aircraft with a maximum take-off weight exceeding 5 700 kg (12 566 lb); or
(e) within 8 metres (25 ft) of any unsealed building in the case of an aircraft with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 5 700 kg (12 566 lb);

There is probably something similar in the EASA system, or in the more general Health & Safety legislation, but my search did not find it.

[Whopity]

Military aircract started up and taxied out of and into a HAS

[fireflybob]

Military aircract started up and taxied out of and into a HAS

Not quite sure what HAS means but I get the gist!

Presumably with good fire cover?

[Burnie5204]

HAS - Hardened Aircraft Shelter. Specifically designed for Aircraft to be serviced under armoured cover. Sometimes designed with doors at both ends for taxi-in, taxi-out.


http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/6/3/1359361.jpg

[keith williams]

Military aircract started up and taxied out of and into a HAS

That's true. But is it the case that military aircraft start up and taxi out of hangars everywhere? They certainly didn't during my time in the military and I would be very surprised if the do so now.

It is one thing to start up and taxi in a building that has been specifically designed with this type of operation in mind. It is an entirely different thing to do so from all hangars.

Many years ago the WESSEX squadrons at NAS CULDROSE were permitted to do main rotor tracking inside a hangar. But it was only permitted in exceptional circumstances and in one specific hangar, and that hangar was subject to regular surveys of things like the security of the overhead lights to minimize the risk of things falling onto the aircraft.

As I said in my earlier post, the Australian government have issued an order covering this subject. I would be very surprised if other governments have not issued similar orders.

The fact that a person has carried out a certain action without incident for many years, does not prove that the action is safe or legal. But it is a fact that things which should always have been common sense suddenly become common sense after an accident.

[mad_jock]

There is nothing on paper to my knowledge.

And those rules would prevent any aircraft starting on stand in europe.

Certainly most ga parking is wing tip to wing tip and you start and taxi off .

And last time I was on a mil base 3 years ago they were still doing it.

Personally i see no point taxing inside a hanger the floor is flat and its easy enough to pull it.

As for near there are plenty of school parking lines where the planes are pushed back so the tail is up to the hanger wall. Then taxied off. Must have done it myself hundreds of times.

And i break those auzzie rules everyday at work. And shock horror even power backs within 20ft of buildings. As do all of the tp`s

[djpil]

Whenever I have queried those rules with a superior pilot I am told that the distance is measured from the engine to fuel filler or some other similar rational interpretation - but the rules don't say that so I guess a lawyer would say the clearance is required from the closest bit of the aircraft.
Incidentally, a typical hangar here may be closed but is it sealed?
CASA is very good at writing rules where interpretation varies from one individual inspector to another.

[BillieBob]

Jet aircraft/wooden hangar - now that's what I call a fire hazard!

http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads/w_swede-thruhangar_4eD.jpg

Norman 'Swede' Ralston flies an AT-6 Texan through the USN blimp hangar at NAS Tillamook, Oregon, the largest wooden structure in the world.

[glendalegoon]

fireflybob


maybe not so much for fire prevention, but if you start up in such a way as to blow things into hangars, the mechanis/engineers get very upset

[mad_jock]

In scotland we call that for health and safety reasons.

ie your health and safety will be at risk due to getting a punch in the face by the engineer.

Come on its all common sense.

Check where your wash is going to go.

Check that your not going to run into anything or anybody if the brakes don't work.

Have respect for other users of the apron. ie treat others how you would like treated yourself.

Don't be lazy about pulling aircraft about or spinning them round.

Directly out of a hanger with the wash going straight in is going to piss people off. Rotate the aircraft by 90 degrees and you are just going to get a wave as you taxi off.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[keith williams]

As I said in my earlier post MJ

things which should always have been common sense suddenly become common sense after an accident

Unfortunately for some people the fact that it is raining may be sufficient excuse for starting up in the hangar. And for these people, the fact that nobody has ever prevented them from doing these things is likely to be interpreted as confirmation that they are normal/acceptable practice.

One man's common sense is another man's OCD.

[ShyTorque]

Yes, aircraft engines running in hangars can cause terrible accidents.

1z2BFlwbGiQ

[Ksu_aviator]

I was always taught that the practice of starting engine(s) in very close proximity to hangars was potentially dangerous in the event of a fire on start up.

Can anyone tell me if there is a recommended minimum distance from hangars/buildings for starting engine(s)?

Also from time to time one observes pilots taxiing aircraft into the inside of hangars - a practice which is also potentially dangerous.

I would be interested to hear any comments.

There is no national regulation. But, a lot of airports prohibit starting in the hangar or taxiing in under power. The reason is the fire hazard. Hangars can trap combustible fumes. Most unions prohibit it as a safety concern.

The safest practice is to start and shutdown outside a hangar.