Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
Continental Airlines Flight 1515 a 735 was preparing for taxi when this occured:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/16/air...ity/index.html
CNN reports Continental setting up PAX counseling ?????
What about the captain, crew,his family and co-workers ? - to
with the PAX's trauma I say......
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/16/air...ity/index.html
CNN reports Continental setting up PAX counseling ?????
What about the captain, crew,his family and co-workers ? - to
with the PAX's trauma I say......
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Notre Dame IN USA
Age: 82
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
What about the captain, etc.? Read the rest of the article you linked.
"Continental is coordinating assistance for passengers who need help dealing with this tragedy," Kellner said. "Continental's Employee Assistance Program team is also flying to El Paso to meet with employees."
Not available in stores.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eye of the Storm
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
It actually occurred at El Paso International Airport in Texas. The CO plane was preparing to fly to KIAH.
Terrible event, in any case.
Terrible event, in any case.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
Thanks RC and HW for the heads up on the change.
I see CNN changed some info to the article. News never seems to get things correct on the first (or sometimes nth try). The story I posted was time-stamped 4:38PM this one (at the same link) is stamped Monday, January 16, 2006; Posted: 5:55 p.m. EST (22:55 GMT).
I knew an EAL mechanic that got knocked over and beat about in the late eighties from the business end of a 757 engine at TO thrust - he was out of work for a couple of weeks, but alive.
I see CNN changed some info to the article. News never seems to get things correct on the first (or sometimes nth try). The story I posted was time-stamped 4:38PM this one (at the same link) is stamped Monday, January 16, 2006; Posted: 5:55 p.m. EST (22:55 GMT).
I knew an EAL mechanic that got knocked over and beat about in the late eighties from the business end of a 757 engine at TO thrust - he was out of work for a couple of weeks, but alive.
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
"Several Continental flights had been delayed while authorities investigated, but it was not known how many flights." El Paso Time
What is the reason for that since the cause was known since the beginning ?
ATN
What is the reason for that since the cause was known since the beginning ?
ATN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Notre Dame IN USA
Age: 82
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
Could have been they had to interview all ramp personnel, anyone who was in the vicinity, before they left the area. They would not want to miss anyone who could tell them what happened from different views. There might have been some improper procedure in place, or who knows what. The actual cause may not, in fact, be known.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
hello every one,
terrible event indeed. but according to the news release: "maintenance related engine run up on rh engine". why was this done with normal crew & pax on board? normally this is performed on a remote clear area with qualified engineers on board & outside the aeroplane with airport authorities & atc authorisation & of course no pax .
the only time crew must make a run up is during winter ops in icing conditions & rwy/twy contamination . see boeing FCOM, Vol I, supplemental procedures. also in case of X-bleed start(APU u/s), one must be careful when advancing thrustlever on n°1 engine for increased bleed pressure.
it is all too sad & easy to say this afterwoods & another cruel reminder for what can happen if SOP are, for whatever reason, not followed.
terrible event indeed. but according to the news release: "maintenance related engine run up on rh engine". why was this done with normal crew & pax on board? normally this is performed on a remote clear area with qualified engineers on board & outside the aeroplane with airport authorities & atc authorisation & of course no pax .
the only time crew must make a run up is during winter ops in icing conditions & rwy/twy contamination . see boeing FCOM, Vol I, supplemental procedures. also in case of X-bleed start(APU u/s), one must be careful when advancing thrustlever on n°1 engine for increased bleed pressure.
it is all too sad & easy to say this afterwoods & another cruel reminder for what can happen if SOP are, for whatever reason, not followed.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
Originally Posted by vapilot2004
CNN reports Continental setting up PAX counseling ?????
What about the captain, crew,his family and co-workers ? - to **** with the PAX's trauma I say......
What about the captain, crew,his family and co-workers ? - to **** with the PAX's trauma I say......
Even if you hadn't misread the article in the first place, did it not occur to you that the passengers are more likely to have been able to see this ghastly event as it happened?
Would you put up with someone saying "treat the passengers, screw the pilot"? Quite.
Appalling as it might seem, Continental might just still be adhering to that outdated, prehistoric idea of taking as much care of its customers as it does its own.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
It is terrible that this keeps happening. My sympathies are with the colleagues and the family.
As for "care" after these events, I think it is a modern overdone thing, which when quoted to the newspapers makes a good impression. Personally I would rather deal with having seen a ghastly event without intrusive spooks.
Mind you, lawyers (not you FL) could make something of it I suppose...
As for "care" after these events, I think it is a modern overdone thing, which when quoted to the newspapers makes a good impression. Personally I would rather deal with having seen a ghastly event without intrusive spooks.
Mind you, lawyers (not you FL) could make something of it I suppose...
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mechanic sucked into 737 at George Bush Intercontinental
Blacmail -
Not strictly correct, if pax are onboard then the crew have to do it, or be in attendance should the a/c need to be evacuated, depends also on local airport rules, normally anything above idle would require a tow to a remote stand or egr bay, with no pax and most likely not the crew.
Not true either, our SOP allows us to do it, anti ice is required any time visible moisture is present and OAT less than 10C.
Sympathies to those affected.
maintenance related engine run up on rh engine". why was this done with normal crew & pax on board? normally this is performed on a remote clear area with qualified engineers on board & outside the aeroplane with airport authorities & atc authorisation & of course no pax .
the only time crew must make a run up is during winter ops in icing conditions
Sympathies to those affected.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mechanic sucked into 737 at GB Intercontinental
hello spannersatcx,
i would like to call on common sense here. if an engine related maintenance procedure calls for a run up above idle with an outside observer in attendance, tragically, much too close to the engine in this case, then it is definitely NOT to be performed by normal crew & if any "risk" is involved, certainly not with pax on board. but we don't have all the facts at hand here.
of course, in normal situations, sops do not prohibit a run up, lined up on the rwy eg. if you feel it is necessary for whatever reason. on busy airfields i recommend advising atc as it takes 30secs at 70%N1.
for info: for b737-300, dangerzone in front of engine is a half circle of 4meters radius from engine intake & extending 1.2m behind engine nacelle with thrust above idle.
with idle thrust, figures are 2.7m radius/1.2m behind engine nacelle. but all this will be of little comfort for all those involved.
i would like to call on common sense here. if an engine related maintenance procedure calls for a run up above idle with an outside observer in attendance, tragically, much too close to the engine in this case, then it is definitely NOT to be performed by normal crew & if any "risk" is involved, certainly not with pax on board. but we don't have all the facts at hand here.
of course, in normal situations, sops do not prohibit a run up, lined up on the rwy eg. if you feel it is necessary for whatever reason. on busy airfields i recommend advising atc as it takes 30secs at 70%N1.
for info: for b737-300, dangerzone in front of engine is a half circle of 4meters radius from engine intake & extending 1.2m behind engine nacelle with thrust above idle.
with idle thrust, figures are 2.7m radius/1.2m behind engine nacelle. but all this will be of little comfort for all those involved.
Last edited by blackmail; 17th Jan 2006 at 12:06.
Blacmail, I think you are confused.
Carrying out eng grnd runs with pax on board is very common....as long as the operation is carried out by the flt crew with everyone informed. Maintenance personel may observe in or outside the aircraft. If the operation is to be performed by engineers then it's everybody off, except those directly involved, close the doors and a huge delay.
At least it is where I work.
Carrying out eng grnd runs with pax on board is very common....as long as the operation is carried out by the flt crew with everyone informed. Maintenance personel may observe in or outside the aircraft. If the operation is to be performed by engineers then it's everybody off, except those directly involved, close the doors and a huge delay.
At least it is where I work.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Jersey
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my airline, engine runs with pax onboard isn't an issue, but the crew must be briefed and present for the engine run (for obvious purposes).
Engine are not to be run above idle at the gate with or without pax onboard. It appears that is what has happened here.
Engine are not to be run above idle at the gate with or without pax onboard. It appears that is what has happened here.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kalium Chloride
So - aircrew are important, but passengers aren't? Do you not think this is just a little selfish?
Even if you hadn't misread the article in the first place, did it not occur to you that the passengers are more likely to have been able to see this ghastly event as it happened?
Would you put up with someone saying "treat the passengers, screw the pilot"? Quite.
Appalling as it might seem, Continental might just still be adhering to that outdated, prehistoric idea of taking as much care of its customers as it does its own.
Even if you hadn't misread the article in the first place, did it not occur to you that the passengers are more likely to have been able to see this ghastly event as it happened?
Would you put up with someone saying "treat the passengers, screw the pilot"? Quite.
Appalling as it might seem, Continental might just still be adhering to that outdated, prehistoric idea of taking as much care of its customers as it does its own.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mechanic sucked into 737 at GBI
hello everyone,
i am not confused at all. i mean after a major engine intervention & when the maintenance manuel says so, it's up to the engineers to perform an engine run up,with the aircraft towed to a remote area used for these purposes etc. ... if only minor interventions have been carried out, then the crew can do this, but of course not at the gate, as seems to be the case here & everone briefed exactly about the plan & pax advised in simple terms to explain the noises & associated airframe vibrations.
and then, when the odds line up against you, your run up is out of tolerances & it's back to the gate, everyone off & there goes the schedule, but i know, i am always too pessimistic or too conservative in this regard. but in this case it's all irrelevant, as someone sadly lost his life.
i am not confused at all. i mean after a major engine intervention & when the maintenance manuel says so, it's up to the engineers to perform an engine run up,with the aircraft towed to a remote area used for these purposes etc. ... if only minor interventions have been carried out, then the crew can do this, but of course not at the gate, as seems to be the case here & everone briefed exactly about the plan & pax advised in simple terms to explain the noises & associated airframe vibrations.
and then, when the odds line up against you, your run up is out of tolerances & it's back to the gate, everyone off & there goes the schedule, but i know, i am always too pessimistic or too conservative in this regard. but in this case it's all irrelevant, as someone sadly lost his life.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story I heard was it was a contract MX mechanic (not a CAL mechanic). He was checking for an oil leak and wanted 75% power on that engine.
Here is a first hand account from someone who was at the airport after the incident happed.
http://www.clear-and-a-million.com/v...ght=paso#15239
Here is a first hand account from someone who was at the airport after the incident happed.
http://www.clear-and-a-million.com/v...ght=paso#15239
Last edited by TR4A; 17th Jan 2006 at 17:37.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry blackmail but you seem to be slighly confused.
this is the bit where you are not quite right. As previously stated run ups to IDLE can be carried out at the gate, for leak checks after a filter change for example. Pax can be onboard provided the crew are at the helm.
Anything that requires a run ABOVE idle will require a tow off of stand as previously stated.
It seems this thread has been hijacked a bit, sorry.
There are rules and regulations that have to be followed when doing idle checks on stand, informing ATC, those on the ramp, on the a/c etc etc, as long as you follow these rules and don't try to shortcut, then things should be ok.
I don't wish to speculate on the circumstances, but commercial pressure for OTP seems to be in my mind.
if only minor interventions have been carried out, then the crew can do this, but of course not at the gate
Anything that requires a run ABOVE idle will require a tow off of stand as previously stated.
It seems this thread has been hijacked a bit, sorry.
There are rules and regulations that have to be followed when doing idle checks on stand, informing ATC, those on the ramp, on the a/c etc etc, as long as you follow these rules and don't try to shortcut, then things should be ok.
I don't wish to speculate on the circumstances, but commercial pressure for OTP seems to be in my mind.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello spannersatc,
yes, by engine run up, i mean above idle, otherwise i agree with all the rest. in this tragic case the plane was at the gate & it seems that the engineer asked for a 75%N1 to check for a suspect oil leak, then when his baseball hat blew off due to the suction?wind towards the engine,his natural action was to try to grab it, lost his equilibrium & was subsequently aspirated into the engine. it reminds me of the same situation when driving along the roadside & a basketball appears from behind parked cars, you may be shure a few yards behind the kid will cross the road without looking in order to retrieve the ball.
here, clearly, standard procedures were not followed & somebody paid the highest price with his life. the bloodstained enginecowls are indeed a gruelsome sight.
yes, by engine run up, i mean above idle, otherwise i agree with all the rest. in this tragic case the plane was at the gate & it seems that the engineer asked for a 75%N1 to check for a suspect oil leak, then when his baseball hat blew off due to the suction?wind towards the engine,his natural action was to try to grab it, lost his equilibrium & was subsequently aspirated into the engine. it reminds me of the same situation when driving along the roadside & a basketball appears from behind parked cars, you may be shure a few yards behind the kid will cross the road without looking in order to retrieve the ball.
here, clearly, standard procedures were not followed & somebody paid the highest price with his life. the bloodstained enginecowls are indeed a gruelsome sight.