Air India engineer sucked into an aircraft engine at Mumbai [Archive]

Airbubba

16th Dec 2015, 18:39

I remember discussing a similar tragedy at ELP years ago with an eyewitness.

Air India staffer sucked into jet engine at Mumbai airport, dies

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Mumbai/New Delhi
Updated: Dec 16, 2015 23:47 IST

An Air India technician died after being sucked into an aircraft engine parked at the Mumbai airport on Wednesday.

The mishap occurred when the co-pilot of Mumbai-Hyderabad flight AI 619 mistook a signal for starting the engine and the victim, Ravi Subramanian, got sucked into it at bay 28 of the Chhatrapati Shivaji domestic airport around 8.40pm.

“An Air India technician died in a mishap during pushback of flight AI 619; the incident is being investigated,” Air India CMD Ashwani Lohani said. “We are deeply saddened and regret the tragic incident at Mumbai airport,” he added.

“The body is still stuck in the engine, efforts are going on to retrieve it,” an airport official said on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to speak on the matter.

An Air India source said a probe has been ordered into the incident. “At the moment, we are absolutely clueless on how this person was near the aircraft. Only an inquiry can establish whose negligence it was and whether the engine should have been switched on at that time,” the official said.

Air India staffer sucked into jet engine at Mumbai airport, dies | india | Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/air-india-staffer-sucked-into-aircraft-engine-dies-at-mumbai-airport/story-AVIuGaeOQniBcYMYl4liON.html)

er340790

16th Dec 2015, 20:06

It's not as uncommon as you may think. There was a similar incident with, I believe, a Continental 737 in the States a few years ago. I'll try and get the link.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ae_1273782186

wanabee777

16th Dec 2015, 20:15

Pennsylvania Air National Guard A-7, Dec 24th 1979?, Pittsburgh Int'l

TURIN

16th Dec 2015, 21:55

Poor bugger!
This is the only thing that has ever kept me awake at night.
Be careful out there chaps.

saffi

16th Dec 2015, 22:53

This clip springs to mind... this guy survived though, very lucky..

My condolences for the family of the air India engineer.

https://youtu.be/unXNdrtf2_g

Airbubba

16th Dec 2015, 23:23

It's not as uncommon as you may think. There was a similar incident with, I believe, a Continental 737 in the States a few years ago.

That was the one in ELP I mentioned above:

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060131X00140&ntsbno=DFW06FA056&akey=1

The maintenance supervisor I spoke with said it appeared that the mechanic had his ball cap come off and when he stood up to catch it he got ingested by the CFM. He also said there was confusion over whether the run up was to be at 70% N1 or 70% N2.

In the 1989 United 811 B-747 cargo door failure out of HNL several passengers were ejected from the aircraft and human remains were found in engine number 3 after the emergency landing back in HNL.

One story floating around the business at the time was that the engine was quietly barged out to sea and sunk.

But, I read in a travel column years ago that the engine was buried near SFO and a memorial was erected.

Anyone know which, if either, of these accounts is correct? :confused:

lomapaseo

16th Dec 2015, 23:48

UA811 was in the US and the coroner was in charge of the remains.

Airbubba

17th Dec 2015, 00:06

Another account from the Indian Express with a few more details:

An aircraft technician with Air India was killed Wednesday at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport when he was sucked into the engine of an aircraft that was getting ready to taxi.

The incident occurred as the Mumbai-Hyderabad flight AI 619 began its pushback at 8.46 pm. The technician, Ravi Subramanian, got pulled into the engine and died instantly. Hours later, the process of extricating the severely mutilated body was still underway.

An investigation was announced by Air India immediately. The DGCA also ordered an inquiry.

In a statement, Air India chairman and managing director Ashwani Lohani said, “We are deeply saddened and regret the tragic incident at Mumbai airport this evening when an Air India technician died in a mishap during pushback of flight AI 619. The incident is being investigated.”

Speaking to The Indian Express, Lohani said, “The flight was already boarded. It was ready for take-off. While it was pushing back to come on the airstrip, he (Subramanian) was working on the ground. His body got entangled in the engine.”

Pushback is the process of using tugs or tows to move an aircraft backward before it taxies out.

Subramaniam, 56, was a Vashi resident and worked as a service engineer. His job included disconnecting the pushcart from the aircraft before it moves towards the runway.

When the accident happened, an aircraft maintenance engineer was also with him.

According to the standard operating procedure, a maintenance engineer first gives clearance to the pilot by waving a red flag, after which the pilot can start the engine for taxiing out.

According to an eyewitness, it appeared that the flight captain may have started the engine before the clearance, though officials could not confirm this immediately.

Subramanian was near the nose wheel along with the pushcart when the engine started and he was sucked in.

The Mumbai Police is also investigating the accident. “Prima facie evidence indicates a case of accidental death, no one appears to be at fault,” Virendra Mishra, zonal DCP, said. A case of accidental death has been registered at the Sahar police station.

Technician sucked into Air India plane engine in Mumbai airport, killed | The Indian Express (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/air-india-technician-dies-after-getting-stuck-in-flight-engine-in-mumbai-airport/)

Like a many of us, I've operated out of BOM a few times over the years. I've always had the ground engineer on the headset from what I remember. With AI does the ground guy really wave a red flag as clearance to start? :confused:

goeasy

17th Dec 2015, 02:40

The red flag will be the NWS pin streamer, to indicate all clear.

However it's possible they saw him walking away with pin and started taxiing not realising another person was still walking away from aircraft.

Just a guess....

Airbubba

17th Dec 2015, 03:00

The red flag will be the NWS pin streamer, to indicate all clear.

Thanks, that makes sense, I appreciate it. :ok:

Check Airman

17th Dec 2015, 03:10

Something doesn't add up.

The first report said that he was ingested when the engine started. Even if he was standing right next to the engine as it started, surely it wasn't immediately producing enough power to ingest him as it spooled up to idle.

The next report said that he was standing by the nosegear when it happened. Had that been true, we'd be killing people every day.

No doubt something horrible happened, but it doesn't seem that we have the full story yet.

Stanwell

17th Dec 2015, 03:30

Check Airman,
Yes, I raised an eyebrow at those two as well.

From the very limited information we have at the moment, I think goeasy's guess could be close to the mark.

Very sad.

framer

17th Dec 2015, 05:22

Subramanian was near the nose wheel along with the pushcart when the engine started and he was sucked in.

I think that must be inaccurate reporting.
Does anyone know the aircraft type?

kibz2005

17th Dec 2015, 05:54

There would have to have been a helluva lot of power applied for him to have been ingested. Maybe a crossbleed start?:( Absolutely tragic

DaveReidUK

17th Dec 2015, 06:30

Does anyone know the aircraft type?

AIC619 is usually an A319 (CFMI).

Maybe a crossbleed start?

One of the comments here (unconfirmed) would support that:

Technician sucked into Air India plane engine in Mumbai airport, killed | The Indian Express (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/air-india-technician-dies-after-getting-stuck-in-flight-engine-in-mumbai-airport/)

"It was reported that the APUs [sic] on the aircraft were not functional, so it was impossible to start both engines on the taxiway. Hence, one engine was started with ground power before pushback, and pushback was taking place with that engine on idle. After pushback, the engine would be revved up to 35%, and the second engine started with power from the running engine (since the APUs were not functional). It appears that the running engine was revved up *before* the pushback cart and personnel had moved to safe locations."

ecureilx

17th Dec 2015, 06:41

Does anyone know the aircraft type?

AI 619 lists A 319 as equipment type

rog747

17th Dec 2015, 07:15

if one engine had been started with the airstart unit due an inop APU why was eng #2 not started the same way or does one only start engine #1 first then disconnect airstart then use cross bleed air to start #2 ?

or does an A319 not need an airstart if no APU? (news to me if it does)
they keep mentioning a pushcart - which would be near the nose out of harms way #??

NSEU

17th Dec 2015, 07:44

if one engine had been started with the airstart unit due an inop APU why was eng #2 not started the same way

A lot of airports don't allow more than one engine to be started at the gate. I can think of numerous reasons, one being that other engines may be too close to the aerobridge.

rog747

17th Dec 2015, 07:53

thanks for that

skippybangkok

17th Dec 2015, 10:04

I am sure you can't be sucked into an engine in idle mode from the nose gear position

He was either closer or engines we higher than idle

Fire Ball XL5

17th Dec 2015, 10:09

I read they had an APU inop, and were in the midst of a cross bleed start... Indian news paper.

Chris Scott

17th Dec 2015, 10:39

rog747,

Normal practice with a u/s APU is to crossbleed-start the second engine, as you thought. This is sometimes done during pushback, I think, although the increased thrust on the delivering engine puts a strain on whatever vehicle is being used for the pushback. Better to wait until pushback is complete and the parking brake on. If the apron is too busy, it can obviously be done before pushback, provided pier structures and ground equipment are well clear of the delivering engine.

DaveReidUK

17th Dec 2015, 11:05

glad rag

17th Dec 2015, 13:21

Straying from SOP's and running engines is a bad combination, start doing that regularly [and I know, having been the innocent party on the subsequent receiving end] and the countdown counter is started....

poor guy, what a horrible death.

RIP

Airbubba

17th Dec 2015, 14:32

A lot of airports don't allow more than one engine to be started at the gate. I can think of numerous reasons, one being that other engines may be too close to the aerobridge.

Excerpts from BOM 'START-UP & PUSH-BACK PROCEDURES' (Jepp page 10-1P5):

When pilot is ready for start-up, he shall seek confirmation from the ground crew for hazard free zone prior to starting ACFT engines. On receipt of the clearance, pilot shall read back the push-back clearance given by ATC, then coordinate with ground crew for push-back and start-up of the ACFT.

To expedite departure, the Pilot-In-Command may start engines (on idle power) before commencing push-back on the ACFT stand, in coordination with the ground crew.

No cross-bleed start-up by ACFT is permitted till the push-back and/or pull ahead procedure is complete and the ACFT is aligned with the taxilane/taxiway center-line marking.

Pilots shall adhere to the push-back and start-up procedures and will use minimum breakaway power.

Pilots shall use minimum taxi power when operating on the apron areas to minimize effect of jet blast in the surrounding areas.

Looks like stand 28 is a taxi out spot, over at what was the old Sahar domestic airport terminal. I don't see much other guidance for start on a taxi out spot other than the pushback procedures above.

The taxi procedure is given as:

Power out facing North-West on taxilane K1. Taxi out via taxilane K1.

Something doesn't add up.

The first report said that he was ingested when the engine started. Even if he was standing right next to the engine as it started, surely it wasn't immediately producing enough power to ingest him as it spooled up to idle.

The next report said that he was standing by the nosegear when it happened. Had that been true, we'd be killing people every day.

No doubt something horrible happened, but it doesn't seem that we have the full story yet.

As with much of U.S. media, aviation reporting in India is influenced by the tabloid news style emphasizing sensational and horrific aspects over factual reporting. At times it almost seems to me like details are invented to flesh in missing parts of the news story.

Some of these reporting discrepancies are probably due to the polyglot Indian culture.

In BOM, often the eyewitness and expert interviews in the news are conducted in Hindi or Marathi and translated into the local BOM dialect of English.

Throughout Asia and the Middle East many of our ground engineers also speak Tamil or Malayalam as well. Those folks have fixed my plane so many times over the years. :ok:

Anyway, AI mourns the loss of a colleague:

Air India offers job, Rs 5 lakh ex-gratia to dead technician's kin

By PTI | 17 Dec, 2015, 04.20PM IST

MUMBAI: Air India Chairman Ashwani Lohani today announced an ex-gratia of Rs 5 lakh [about USD $7,500 - Airbubba] and a job in the airline to the family of the AI engineer who was killed in a freak accident wherein he got sucked in by the engine.

"We have lost a family member. An ex-gratia amount of Rs 5 lakh has been given to the family. We have also offered a job to the family of the victim," Lohani told reporters at the airport today.

He said the funeral of Ravi Subramanian, in his 40s, will be held tomorrow and a two-minute silence will be observed in AI offices across the network at 11 AM.

When asked about the reason of the accident, according to him, he said since the regulator DGCA is already conducting an inquiry into the incident it will not be proper for him to comment.

However, he said "initially it seems that there was some communication gap. No disciplinary action has been taken against anyone till now".

In a freak accident last evening involving an AI flight (619, an Airbus 319) to Hyderabad from Mumbai, a service engineer, who was signalling the aircraft to reverse before take-off, got sucked in by the roaring engine and died immediately.

The impact of the engine was so hard that the remains of the body could not even be sent for postmortem.

Air India offers job, Rs 5 lakh ex-gratia to dead technician's kin - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/air-india-offers-job-rs-5-lakh-ex-gratia-to-dead-technicians-kin/articleshow/50219288.cms)

FDMII

17th Dec 2015, 16:37

An A319 AOM indicates the "danger zone" for an engine at idle thrust as an area around the engine with a radius of 7.2ft, and for an engine at TO thrust as an area with a radius of 19.5ft.

For information only, for an A319, nineteen-and-a-half feet, (the danger zone when the engine is at takeoff thrust), is just behind the cockpit. One cannot possibly imagine an engine a such thrust settings during pushback or initial taxi. Seven feet is a few feet in front of the leading edge of the wing where it meets the fuselage - a long way from the nosewheel area.

roulishollandais

17th Dec 2015, 16:52

I remember a flight with the Chief Pilot as Captain, suddenly starting the left engine without the ground clearance and a Mekanik was standing before the engine, happily no accident but the Mekanik was very very angry. I (F/O) was terrified to see the Captain being in a hurry and doing such a dangerous action without to feel culprit nor excuse.

I did wonder how many many pilots did not respect the Mekaniks and ground Crews.

FDMII

17th Dec 2015, 17:26

Roulis, the rarity of such a terrible event shows how strictly the engine-starting routines are for air carriers.

Millions of departures over decades, and only a few such serious occurrences. Likely it is not as simple as a just matter of "respect for Mekaniks [sic] and ground Crews".

Let us be patient, for we do not yet know the circumstances surrounding this particular accident yet and how a routine engine start ended so tragically.

tdracer

17th Dec 2015, 18:43

It may be interesting to note that human ingestion events were far more likely in the days before high bypass engines became the norm. When JT3C/D and JT8D engines were the norm, people were not nearly as cautious and ingestion events were not particularly uncommon. Of course, since those engine had inlet guide vanes, an ingestion event was not automatically fatal (although they occasionally were). There is a video out there (presumably on you-tube if someone wants to search) where, during carrier ops, a crewman gets ingested into a (IIRC) A-6. The engine promptly surges and spits him back out with non-life threatening injuries.:eek:

For a surprisingly long time after big fan engines became common, there were no human ingestion events - presumably because an couple meter diameter fan, unprotected, spinning at several hundred rpm provided sufficient fear factor to keep people alert.
Unfortunately that record didn't remain intact, but given the tens of thousands of big turbofan operations that occur each and day world wide (and the lax safety standards in some areas), such events remain remarkably (and thankfully) rare.

mickjoebill

17th Dec 2015, 20:07

Wearing ear protection, is it possible to differentiate if more than one engine is at idle from ones sense of hearing alone?

If it is the case that one engine was not at idle is it possible to determine by hearing aline, which one when wearing ear protection?

How long does spoolup take at startup to the point where threat of ingestion is lethal?

Mickjoebill

roulishollandais

17th Dec 2015, 23:10

FDMII,
Of course I didn't want to suggest any responsibility in the Air India accident.

But
1. Pilot starting the engine is always specially concerned by ground Crews
2. I met some mekanik students at school and one of them said "Captains are always in a hurry". Of course we have never enough time, but I told the students they could not totally trust to pilot, they had to keep distance with that for them dangerous hurry
3. It is a sad fact, at least in civilian aviation in France, that pilots are seeing themselves like God and seeing mekaniks like robot slaves but ask them their life, rest, safety, reputation... and close the mouth about "God"s' mistakes.

Check Airman

18th Dec 2015, 03:28

How long does spoolup take at startup to the point where threat of ingestion is lethal?

I believe those particular engines take somewhere in the region of 45-60s to reach idle. Even if he had been leaning against the engine as it started, surely he would have noticed it starting. Is the hearing protection that good?

oliver2002

18th Dec 2015, 04:15

Some more detail:

Airport horror: scan onLapses (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1151218/jsp/nation/story_59102.jsp#.VnOVrOKqGJc)

Ground staff and the pilots have been blaming each other.

A top Air India source said the pilots appeared to have started the engine without the ground engineers' clearance after the pushback, causing Subramaniam, who was standing before the engine, to be pulled into it.

"They started the engines as soon as Ravi gave his helper the instruction to remove the tow bar, which is clamped on during a pushback. The ATC clearance for the flight to begin taxiing came right then and the pilot asked the co-pilot to check whether both sides of the aircraft were clear," the source said.

"The co-pilot said it was and the pilot pushed the thrust lever, starting the engines, and Ravi got sucked in."

Ravi still had his headset on and was facing the tow truck with his back to the engine as his helper removed the tow bar and the pilots pulled the throttle.

"They are calling it a communication gap because they do not want to upset the pilots," said a member of the ground staff who claimed to have been present in the area at the time of the accident.

"First, the pilots did not wait for ground staff clearance before starting the engine. Second, they had to ensure that both the left and right sides of the aircraft were clear before they started the engine. This is SOP," the groundsman said.

Stanwell

18th Dec 2015, 05:45

Thanks, Oliver.
This is going to be tedious.

India - where all facts have to be first processed through the sieve of 'cultural sensitivities'.
This will, no doubt, keep an army of public servants and opportunists in work for at least a year.
The pilots will then be exonerated and poor Ravi will be found to have been having 'problems at home' or somesuch.

The gushingly generous, sub-judice award to his family of $7000 and a sweeper's job for one his kids amply demonstrates AI's thoughts on the matter.

DaveReidUK

18th Dec 2015, 07:10

There is a suggestion on the link I posted earlier, again unconfirmed, that the tug had cleared the aircraft but the parking brake had not been applied, causing the aircraft to roll forward when power was increased on the running engine.

That's hard to believe, but if true would explain how an experienced professional could be caught off guard, with tragic results.

That scenario is sounding more likely.

From the link a couple of posts above:

"In this case, no chocks were placed on the wheels. So, as soon as the pilot started the engine - again without following norms, like waiting for an all-clear signal from the ground engineers - the wheels of the plane moved forward and the engine sucked in the technician standing ahead."

TURIN

18th Dec 2015, 08:25

Mercifully, these incidents are rare. However, close calls do happen more often than you think. Some that I have witnessed.
1. Medium sized turboprop starts taxing before engineer was clear. (Eng had to run to avoid getting hit by the prop).
2. A large four engined jet started taxiing before the all clear had been given. The two engineers that we're walking clear hit the deck and hung on to each other as the #3 engine went over them. (I understand the captain was fired)
3. Large jet twin waiting on stand for GPU to be connected with engines running due to inop APU.
One of the turnaround team walked towards the running engine, head down, oblivious of the danger. Saved by quick thinking loaders and others yelling and waving at him.
4. Similar to no.3 but a security person walked towards and past then behind a running engine. How that didn't end in tragedy I do not know.

It's dangerous out there. Be safe and never, ever rush.
A delay means more paperwork. That's all.

Evanelpus

18th Dec 2015, 08:55

Whilst these incidents are rare, when they happen the consequencies are horrific.

We lost a colleague at Hatfield in similar circumstances and I sometimes think about him and all the guys who were working with him at the time and wonder whether what happened that day still has any effects on them today.

When blame is dished out it won't change things that much. It might stop another Air India employee suffering the same fate but it will happen again somewhere else around the world.

RIP JC

sensor_validation

18th Dec 2015, 09:11

I remember this happening at British Aerospace Hatfield in 1980s, mentioned here before

http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/137674-engineer-sucked-into-737-700-engine.html
http://www.pprune.org/questions/94963-how-close-would-you-have-stand.html

Only factual report I can find
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=te0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not much changed in standards in Journalism

Sadly history keeps repeating

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/331524-engineneer-death-tenerife-south-during-engine-test.html

Airbubba

18th Dec 2015, 16:00

I was initially wondering why there would be a pushback or towbar involved if the aircraft was indeed on taxi out stand 28 as reported.

That 'Power out facing North-West on taxilane K1. Taxi out via taxilane K1.' instruction quoted earlier seems to be removed in the latest Jepp revision.

But, the crossbleed start guidance is still there: 'No cross-bleed start-up by ACFT is permitted till the push-back and/or pull ahead procedure is complete and the ACFT is aligned with the taxilane/taxiway center-line marking.'

So, was the plane towed to K1 after the first engine start to assure clearance to run up the power to start the second engine? And to avoid a higher than usual thrust setting on one engine with a row of aircraft behind on stands 34 through 40?

Whatever the case, APU inop start is an unusual situation, everyone's startup workflows are not normal, there are several options and I always try hard to make sure we all have the same plan. Sometimes you start one engine in the blocks, sometimes two if the huffer hose and connection permit, or do the crossbleed start etc.

And, speaking of single engine taxi, there is some PTU or something that makes the A319 sound like skeletons on a tin roof back in the cabin during single engine taxi as I recall from riding in one a while back.

iflytb20

19th Dec 2015, 14:01

The aircraft was parked at V28L which puts it on the new terminal side. And afaik those are pushback stands.

AtomKraft

19th Dec 2015, 14:21

Don't call for the 'after start checks' until you have received the ground crew clearance.
Don't call for taxi until you've finished that checklist.

A wise pilot told me why, once.

r75

19th Dec 2015, 16:00

I can only speak from experience of 74s. When at ground idle, standing by the NLG and talking to the Flightdeck,it's pretty obvious the engines are only at ground idle,you can clearly see the white spiral on the spinner fairing rotating.Thats why it is there,in a very noisy environment you need a visual indication the engines are running. Once the engines start to accelerate,it does not take long for that indication to vanish,in fact at high thrust you can clearly see the intake guide vanes on the core. When taking part in a high power test run,especially looking for the start of a surge,you would be a good distance in front of the NLG,even with intake guards in place.

Airbubba

19th Dec 2015, 17:36

The aircraft was parked at V28L which puts it on the new terminal side. And afaik those are pushback stands.

OK, thanks! That makes more sense.

Don't call for the 'after start checks' until you have received the ground crew clearance.
Don't call for taxi until you've finished that checklist.

Amen to that. :D

Some outfits do the after start checklist before disconnecting from the mechanic in case a valve doesn't close or a light doesn't go out.

I work with some folks who are already calling for taxi clearance while I'm trying to clear the mechanic/ground engineer off the headset. :ugh: It's spring loaded to mess up the habit pattern and workflow with a bad outcome in my opinion. And, I'd kinda like to hear the taxi clearance firsthand as well.

hifly787

20th Dec 2015, 08:20

Oliver2002 has got the horror story right. To add PIC was a senior TRI and P2 was just starting his SLF (Supervised line flying) in Ai parlance.

TURIN

20th Dec 2015, 08:42

Don't call for the 'after start checks' until you have received the ground crew clearance.
Don't call for taxi until you've finished that checklist.

A wise pilot told me why, once.

Good point.
A quick question. Is setting the flaps an after start item?

One operator I often work with sets the flaps after engine start but before the pushback is complete. On some of their a/c this puts the engines in to flight idle. An increase in engine power while the headset man is still around. I have tried to determine the logic of this as not all of the a/c do it.

Antiquis gubernator

20th Dec 2015, 11:05

it happened to me on a BA 747/100 in Piarco in 1989 during the night as we were on the runway waiting to take off.
A nutter hijacked a security truck, rammed the number 3 engine and eventually threw himself in the number 2.
We hosed him out of the engine the next day...There wasn't a lot of him left!

Airbubba

20th Dec 2015, 14:51

Oliver2002 has got the horror story right. To add PIC was a senior TRI and P2 was just starting his SLF (Supervised line flying) in Ai parlance.

A lot of holes in the Emmental cheese threat matrix with training, APU inop and a new flight crewmember.

A quick question. Is setting the flaps an after start item?

One operator I often work with sets the flaps after engine start but before the pushback is complete. On some of their a/c this puts the engines in to flight idle. An increase in engine power while the headset man is still around. I have tried to determine the logic of this as not all of the a/c do it.

I've seen several flap setting strategies in airliners over the years. The early jets like the 707 and DC-8 had low wings and the fear was that a fire bottle or something else left on the ramp might ding the flap (and somehow miss the engine) on taxi out so the flaps were not extended until clearing the ramp area. It was also a common 'technique' to disable the takeoff config warning horn ('set off by the white knobs' on the Boeing oral gouge) to avoid spurious alerts while taxiing so the situation was set up for a calamity.

I flew with a couple of operators who reset the flaps to a takeoff position after landing thinking that would default to a flyable configuration for the next crew if all else failed.

These days we set the flaps when the aircraft first moves forward under its own power. Unless there is frozen precip, contaminated taxiways and such, in which case we taxi out with flaps up but the PIC has to devise a 'plan of action' to ensure that the flaps are properly extended for takeoff. The Styrofoam coffee cup placed on the flap handle is one popular visible reminder that something needs to be done with that handle before takeoff.

As you observe, some planes go to flight idle when the flaps are extended on the ground, others only do it only when the flaps are extended while airborne. Also, turning on engine heat for taxi, which would be on the after start checklist, also bumps up the idle with some motors.

A320FOX

20th Dec 2015, 15:58

After starting the engines we do the flow performing certain items that will be requested later, then if everything is normal we advise the ground people to disconnect and when they wave us off we read the "after start check list". Now we can both concentrate on the taxi instructions so we request taxi clearance.

Taxi lights on before starting to move are a must.

At times when performing an abnormal checklist, like this "no APU bleed" or "crossbleed" start, other factors mix things up more, like a very warm uncomfortable cockpit due to no bleed air for the packs or behind schedule because of no APU related reasons. Now is when we need most a crew that is used to follow SOPs and a management that doesn't press crews for the reason of the delay. In my airline we can't press management for the reason why the APU hasn't been fixed and has been MELed for a week.:ugh:

lomapaseo

20th Dec 2015, 16:45

at high thrust you can clearly see the intake guide vanes on the core

Your ability to see the inlet guide vanes behind the spinning fan is a function of your eye angle to the engine. You are actually looking between blades whether the fan is turning or not. The clarity of your vision is also a function of the abiity of your eye to average what it sees.

It aint the same when you look out the other side cockpit window :)

r75

20th Dec 2015, 22:07

The point I am trying to make,that may have been missed,is that at high thrust settings and a noisy environment,to the inexperienced,that person may not realise that the reason those spiral markings cannot be seen is that the engine is at such a high thrust setting and must be kept well clear of.

AtomKraft

21st Dec 2015, 04:45

One of the stupid practices which persists in India, is that 'he who calls for taxi first, takes off first'. ATC enforce this pointless procedure routinely.

No one has ever explained to me why they do this here, but they do.

So, for some crews, there's a temptation to call for taxi before they are really ready to, in order to ensure they get to go first.

I wonder if this silly procedure was part of the lead up to this tragedy?

barit1

23rd Dec 2015, 14:13

From wikipedia:

The perception and definition of engineer varies across countries and continents. British school children in the 1950s were brought up with stirring tales of "the Victorian Engineers", chief amongst whom were the Brunels, the Stephensons, Telford and their contemporaries. In the UK, "engineering" was more recently perceived as an industry sector consisting of employers and employees loosely termed "engineers" who included the semi-skilled trades. However, the 21st-century view, especially amongst the more educated members of society, is to reserve the term Engineer to describe a university-educated practitioner of ingenuity represented by the Chartered (or Incorporated) Engineer. However, a large proportion of the UK public still sees Engineers as semi skilled tradespeople with a high school education.

In the US and Canada, engineering is a regulated profession whose practice and practitioners are licensed and governed by law. A 2002 study by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers revealed that engineers are the third most respected professionals behind doctors and pharmacists.[19]

G-CPTN

23rd Dec 2015, 14:20

So a locomotive driver is an engineer? :confused:

DaveReidUK

23rd Dec 2015, 15:30

So a locomotive driver is an engineer?

Of course, just ask Casey Jones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig3GcDBjQN4

llondel

23rd Dec 2015, 17:28

However, the 21st-century view, especially amongst the more educated members of society, is to reserve the term Engineer to describe a university-educated practitioner of ingenuity represented by the Chartered (or Incorporated) Engineer.

I'd challenge that bit - an awful lot of people (me included) who haver a career in engineering never bothered to get Chartered status because it was of no benefit to what we were doing. If you're doing certain types of job then it is useful, but for the most part the simplistic view is that it's paying out money to be able to have CEng after your name. Ironically, the people who benefit most are the ones who did not get a degree and did the hard slog up the route requiring 15 years' experience because to them, it's a piece of paper showing they're at least equal to the ones with degrees and that does have value with employers.

ukv1145

23rd Dec 2015, 18:16

Barit1, the point of your post defining 'engineer' is? Cant really see any relevance to this thread. Are you trying to intimate something about the education of maintenence personnel?

HJS bhullar

24th Dec 2015, 01:24

A different take on AI 619 accident.
Chain of events :
A senior examiner flies down from somewhere in middle east to mumbai . Same time this flight to Hyderabad gets stuck because of a last minute sick report by another captain. The examiner is pulled out to operate this flight to Hyderabad, this also being a training flight of a 10 hours old trainee first officer.
Now , this stand 28L itself is a very confusing pushback stand as at the end of the pushback the tow tractor is at the 10 o'clock position to the Captain's seat and the nose ends up at an angle of close to 25* right.
Once pushback gets completed and the Captain has also asked the engineer to disconnect everything , he asks the trainee first officer to ask for taxi clearance. During the same time, the engineer removes the pin without having the tow tractor move away and starts folding up his headset cord at that position.
Now the entire ground equipment parks on the right side that is towards the first officer side. So the towing tractor and the ground staff has to cross under the nose of the aircraft to cross to the right.
Captain asks for right clear and that time first officer sighting nothing on the right says " right clear" .
Last but not the least , ATC asks the pilot to "EXPEDITE" to allow movement of another aircraft. The turn from pushback from 28L requires a steep left turn to come on the adjoining taxiway. During all this time the engineer was still folding his headset cord. Now as the aircraft is about to move, he starts proceeding from left to right under the nose along with his helper. The pilot puts in extra power on the right to help turn the aircraft to the left. He falls vertically right in the front of the aircraft as soon as the high power is applied and gets sucked in. His helper falls flat on the ground as he realises what has gone wrong. Hence a chain of events result into this tragedy!
May his soul rest in peace!

Plz note that I have got this version about accident on watsapp and found it worth to share and doesn't claim any responsibility of credibility.
Thanks

Check Airman

27th Dec 2015, 03:32

That version, while interesting, still seems odd.

1. Why would he walk underneath the aircraft?

2. You can't see the engines from the cockpit of an A319. Is Air India not required to get an "all clear" signal from the ground crew prior to moving the aircraft or calling for taxi?

ACMS

27th Dec 2015, 07:17

You never release the park brake until you see the engineers walk away and wave you off with the pin....EVER.

You never increase thrust on an Engine above idle without Engineer approval on the headset AND ATC clearance.....EVER.

Lessons learned the hard way before this incident killed someone, it should NOT have happened.

In some places if you are trying to be clever and request taxi clearance before the Engineers are clear ATC will tell you the engineers are still under the nose, why are you requesting taxi now? I've heard it plenty of times....

AtomKraft

27th Dec 2015, 18:06

I work in India.
Standards here are awful.
I refer you to my post #42.
In the confused and confusing condition referred to by HJS Bhullar earlier, my advice is even more relevant.

You simply cannot see whether the ground crew are clear, from the cockpit.

You MUST wait for that 'thumbs up' from the pushback crew before doing the after start cx.

Then, and only then, Do the 'after start checks' and after that, call for taxi.

I know this from hard experience, and only good luck saved me when my FO, who was in a hurry, called for taxi early to try to beat someone to the hold.

It's insidious, but stick to these rules and you'll never have to explain why you ran a guy over, who was removing the chocks, or why that guy got sucked into your engine.

WAIT, for the clearance from the ground crew.

DO, the after starts.

Then, call for taxi.

That'll be 100 rupees from all who read this post- and a bloody bargain it is too!:=

hifly787

29th Dec 2015, 00:38

Bhullars version is not correct. The captain was scheduled Mumbai/rajkot /Mumbai/Hyd. He was in a flaming hurry and as a result did not wait for ground waveoff,asked for taxi and asked f/o for right wing tip clearance and opened power resulting in the tragedy.The inexperience of the f/o was a contributory factor.
Atom you are right. Take care.

Algol

31st Dec 2015, 01:56

What do you all think of the policy in my company which dictates that - at a certain airport in China - we should not start the APU after landing, but taxi in and park on gate with both running (for noise and pollution reduction reasons), and wait for external power, which always takes several minutes to actually connect?
Personally I think it's an accident waiting to happen, and a self defeating policy anyhow. Two big engines running for two minutes versus an APU running for maybe 4 or 5 minutes!

IcePack

31st Dec 2015, 02:56

Algol
I gave up that practise at AGP when they initiated the APU ban on terminal stands. Lots of persons running around in front of two RB 211's IMHO only a matter of time before catastrophic accident. Ground personnel wearing ear defenders & being chased to get the turn around done crazy SOP.

Uplinker

7th Jan 2016, 15:59

This might have already been suggested - I haven't the time right now to check the whole thread - but I had a thought today as I did my walkaround.

On the engines there is a pictogram showing the minimum safe distance from the (running) engine intake one should be. On the A321 with V2500 engines I flew today it says no closer than 15' or 5 meters with engine at idle. However, the warning is on the engine itself which is not much use to ramp workers, because if they are close enough to read the warning they are probably too close for safety.

What is needed is some sort of semi-circular marking on the underneath and sides of the fuselage behind the nose-wheel, aft of which one should never go if the engines are running. Pushback crew would be able to clearly see the line from the front and sides of the aircraft and be told never to go further backwards towards running engines than that line.

This might improve safety but would not prevent a problem if the aircraft moved forwards before the crews were clear. I can't remember which, but I have been to an airfield where the headset person places a chock in front of the nose wheel after pushback until they are fully disconnected, and as they are walking clear, they pull the chock with them, thus preventing the aircraft running forwards until they are safe.

TURIN

7th Jan 2016, 16:20

This might have already been suggested - I haven't the time right now to check the whole thread - but I had a thought today as I did my walkaround.

What is needed is some sort of semi-circular marking on the underneath and sides of the fuselage behind the nose-wheel, aft of which one should never go if the engines are running. Pushback crew would be able to clearly see the line from the front and sides of the aircraft and be told never to go further backwards towards running engines than that line.

This might improve safety but would not prevent a problem if the aircraft moved forwards before the crews were clear. I can't remember which, but I have been to an airfield where the headset person places a chock in front of the nose wheel after pushback until they are fully disconnected, and as they are walking clear, they pull the chock with them, thus preventing the aircraft running forwards until they are safe.

The old BA 737-300s used to have the fuselage red line I think.

As for the chock. Swssport at MAN do that. Not sure I like it as it has been left behind and just become a FOD nuisance. (It's also against MAN Airport's standing instructions too but no one seems bothered)