Essendon today
 

Whoops a daisy:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6cd9525b2.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5bfe3b885.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b6a002977.jpeg

Wow, ol' Zouky is NOT going to be happy with that one :P

Channel Nine chopper damaged also.
How does the jet get that far during an engine test?

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cea1cd38c.jpeg
Photo from Twitter

You could ask Airbus! They've proved it can happen no matter the size or the jet...

Wow. I originally thought 'significant weather event' causing fence to collapse onto the jet and also moving and damaging the chopper.

Did the jet really run through the fence?? If yes, "whoops" is one way of describing it.

Interesting; so the Challenger was doing engine runs? were there chocks under the wheels?

Believe there was a pilot and engineer on board? Can anyone confirm status?

Challenger + Merlin III + Helicopter, + building damage....

Big dent in the pride of Aust, Corp Jets, Where are you Sam?

Terrible place to face failed brakes amongst any emergency. Almost zero room to manoeuvre thanks to greedy developers who have built shopping malls, car yards, offices, right up to the inch of every bloody taxiway, runway, and hangers.

The news report said that it jumped the chocks.

It was just trying to get TF out of Victoria.

Nothings' jumped me lately... sorry to say.:)

Our's said the brakes failed, one thing in evidence is both could could have lead to the obvious result, but if it jumped the chocks why didn't the brakes stop it?

It is not my position to comment on this unfortunate incident.

What I will say that the procedure in a very well disciplined company I worked for was to take the following precautions for any engine ground runs: Park brake applied, chocks in front of each MLG, aircraft pointed towards an “escape route” in case it jumped the chocks, a qualified person in the flightdeck command seat at all times, and, if necessary, a spotter to to keep a general eye on things.

Does the ASIC apply on the other side of the fence? -)

Very Good advice.
The following is a question only to spark debate so that we may learn from the collective knowledge.
I have discussed on many occasions the way to chock an aircraft. I recall reading some advice from Boeing, allegedly as I do not have the reference to hand right now, that the correct way to chock an aircraft (for engine runs) is to place the chocks about an inch in front of the wheels. The reason for this being that if the chock is tight against the wheel the chock becomes a ramp it is quite likely to ride up over the chock but if there is a small gap when the wheel contacts the chock it pushes down into the chock. The assumption being that if the chocks are placed hard into the wheel then the wheel could ride up over the chock.

Discuss, politely and in an mature adult manner please.

MM

Why do people do a run up facing a fence, building or other ac?

dirtyd,

Laziness, coupled with poor safety management skills, lack of SMS training, analysis and risk assessment are the reasons why..

There may be underlying factors. Was the crew on board occupying the control seats qualified to be there, for example a type rated pilot, aircraft engineer certified for engine runs in no flight crew member present. Was the pre-flight, pre-start checklist completed. Braking pressure checked, emergency braking system armed and checked?

Photo's suggest there was a tow bar attached at the time of the incident, so there would have been adequate equipment available to position the aircraft to a more sensible location.

No doubt the Underwriters will be looking very closely at all the factors.

The Main thing is nobody was injured

Not sure about the chocks becoming a ramp, might depend upon the type of chock? I do recall being taught to put the chocks about an inch away from the wheels so you can get the damn things out after refueling!!

If that EGR was above idle why wasn’t it ran at the run up bay?

Golden Rivet, answer - too lazy !

Penultimate182 - you have no idea at all what you are talking about. Millions of dollars of liability to two or possibly three aircraft, as I believe a Merlin III aircraft may be involved. Damage to expensive ground equipment, and damage to surrounding property, buildings. Were the people occupying the control seats wearing their seat belts?? so lets now look into claims for whiplash, trauma, PTSD and whatever else is currently legal crap.

A long time ago, at a RAAF Base that will remain nameless, a deeper level maintenance facility was set up for a needle-nosed delta-winged aluminium death-tube, of a type that will remain nameless. Post-maintenance checks included run-ups of the aircraft’s engine which was very good at turning Avtur into noise, heat and thrust very, very quickly. At full AB no park brake or chock would prevent the aircraft from moving.

Part of an existing taxiway was modified by ‘slotting’ metal ‘sleeves’ into which a special bracket inserted into the mainwheel axles of the aircraft would slide. Those metal brackets were of Sydney Harbour Bridge stanchion strength. During normal operations aircraft would just taxi over the slots. Anyhooo….

Comes the day to do the first engine test using the brackets inserted into the sleeves. Everything is set up with the brackets secured in the mainwheel axles and taxiway slots. Wind up the engine and everything’s looking secure and safe. Time for full AB. (Only those who work or have worked closely with these kinds of aircraft know the ‘whole of body’ experience that is being in close proximity to an engine in full AB. Most people would wear kidney belts to preserve those organs…)

The nose gear is at maximum compression as the jet is just aching to be let loose.

Then two things happened, only one of which was initially noticed by those in close proximity. The grass next to the taxiway caught fire because of the heat of the afterburner. Flame and smoke, but the fire front is a long distance from any valuable assets and propagating quite slowly. A distracting focus, nonetheless.

The second thing was a little more problematic and took a little longer to comprehend. The taxiway in front of the slots was starting to compress and crumble! The slot was being ‘bulldozed’ through the taxiway by the pressure.

When a sumpie in the cockpit of one of these things sees all his colleagues walking backwards slowly, waving one arm urgently while giving the ‘knife across the throat’ signal, the hint will usually be taken.

I reckon if the tarmac had given way completely while the engine was in full AB, the jet would have been in the main street of the town adjacent to the Base before the sumpie had a chance to react to shut the engine down.

G Rivet. agree with you. My observations in Port Moresby is that other than idle engine runs for compressor wash/rinse or checking for oil leaks post maintenance, anything above idle is always in the run up bay or compass swing area. No matter the size of the aircraft.

So it was for the Mirage then.

I wouldn't know. I was in the urinal at the time...

Wonder the anti Essendon airport brigade haven’t been on TV, calling for the immediate closure of the aerodrome.

?? your first line says it is not my position to comment..... Then you go on with a paragraph of comments ??

Never do a high power run with tow bar attached, and NWS bypassed...

Yes KRviator,

I thought I had read about that one before and it doesn't matter what size jet it is, it can happen.

The Airbus accident also caused a bit of a problem when everything stopped moving.

Shutting down two of the engines proved a bit of a problem. They drowned one with water and foam to stop it and they couldn't shut the other one down. It took about 9 hours for the tank to run dry to stop it!

It was referenced in the QF32 report at page 36 Airbus Accident Mention

Tinkicker

Once upon a time, Essendon Airport had acres of space and plenty of open areas to do a run up. These days developers have boxed the apron in, a similar story for a lot of Australian city airports. I'm unsure of the specifics of this particular accident, but considering that developers' brains are wired to only see the runway requirement and not much else then it's no surprise they are taking every inch they can of this land parcel for themselves.

Brave lad in the cockpit. Chose to stay with it and put it into the only clearing rather than the nearby school and day care center.

Non aviation development at airports is an issue, there is no longer a southern helipad any more at Moorabbin, covered in massive amounts of soil that was removed from areas where non aviation warehouses are being built.

thats pretty funnny

Have a look but there is a recently released NOTAM warning that on certain runways given certain wind strengths and directions a pilot can expect turbulence.
I have no doubt that turbulence comes from the the box warehouses.
Look again. On final for runway 22 there is a dandy raised mast. Don't stray off the approach centre line!

Ah, an engine run incident at Essendon? I don’t think it got airborne or anywhere near Moorabbin.

The way Moorabbin is going what does the future hold for the airport and the museum in particular.
can it go the way of the Bankstown aviation museum when the leaseholders wanted more returns

I wouldn't say that. Master Plan 1.1.2 Dash point 12. For 5 years at least, the MAC will invest in the museum. A "Homage" to aviation if you like, for the short term anyway.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....fd641d516f.png

The MAC invested in the CAE building. I wonder how that will go during the COVID recovery? Has the landlord given the the business a rental reduction?

Sorry for the thread drift. Back to Essendon Today