Mechanic Dead-Who is at fault?
There are numerous safety breaches on the ramp.
For example, we've arrived in the flight deck whilst engineers are working on flight controls. OK, an experienced and sensible pilot is not going to pressurise the hydraulics but, on occasion, they are already pressurised for checks. No locks, no warning notice.
Perhaps a very direct and frightening approach backed up by horror pics, videos and lots of actual events would help.
In RAF, used to be considered a joke by gnd eng to press hot relight button with other eng up jetpipe.
Bas - who once just stepped out of the crankcase of a marine diesel as the Second Eng test-started it
For example, we've arrived in the flight deck whilst engineers are working on flight controls. OK, an experienced and sensible pilot is not going to pressurise the hydraulics but, on occasion, they are already pressurised for checks. No locks, no warning notice.
Perhaps a very direct and frightening approach backed up by horror pics, videos and lots of actual events would help.
In RAF, used to be considered a joke by gnd eng to press hot relight button with other eng up jetpipe.
Bas - who once just stepped out of the crankcase of a marine diesel as the Second Eng test-started it
)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I became aware of this accident shortly after it happened. Without doubt it is a horrible way to die, and my condolence to his family. However, I do not see how the pilots can possibly be held accountable. In such aircraft, the crew's visibility is essentially restricted to what's ahead and beside. That's why ground personnel have to indicate that the area around the plane is clear. Whether or not it was at a the gate is immaterial. The crew was given the all clear signal and they proceeded accordingly. It's preposterous to even consider criminal charges.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: following the yellow brick road
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it incredibly hard to believe that anybody would go to 70%N1 on only one engine at the gate. I humbly suggest it was probably 70%N2.
If it was indeed rated on N1 normal procedure is to have the other (non test) engine at 60% N1 to counter the moment when the test engine exceeds 60%.
Everybody involved in this tragic incident shares the blame as no pilot I know would use that kind of power at the gate to check for an oil leak. From my point of view the airport authority is ultimately to blame as they did not require that permission be requested when carrying out ground runs. If it had been the case then the outcome would probably have been different.
I always hated the 737-500 when doing ground runs and pushbacks as you were always close to the intake due to its short forward fuselage.
Happy Trails
If it was indeed rated on N1 normal procedure is to have the other (non test) engine at 60% N1 to counter the moment when the test engine exceeds 60%.
Everybody involved in this tragic incident shares the blame as no pilot I know would use that kind of power at the gate to check for an oil leak. From my point of view the airport authority is ultimately to blame as they did not require that permission be requested when carrying out ground runs. If it had been the case then the outcome would probably have been different.
I always hated the 737-500 when doing ground runs and pushbacks as you were always close to the intake due to its short forward fuselage.
Happy Trails
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can never blame the pilots... If they run off a runway.. Or fire a gun on the flightdeck or suck a guy in to the motor it is not there fault...Someone else is the problem...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I became aware of this accident shortly after it happened. Without doubt it is a horrible way to die, and my condolence to his family. However, I do not see how the pilots can possibly be held accountable. In such aircraft, the crew's visibility is essentially restricted to what's ahead and beside.
You cannot operate an engine on stand at 70% N1 and not be responsible....
Like I said a series of mistakes....
Just goes to show the implications when Engineers and pilots make mistakes....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter the rights or wrongs of a high power run on the gate, IT WAS THE ENGINEER WHO ERRED BY GOING TOO CLOSE TO THE ENGINE - whatever the thrust setting!!!!!! Get it into your head boys and girls that engines are DAMNED DANGEROUS THINGS....................
Sidman - yours is a banal and stupid comment
Dipstick..
Rant over...
Sidman - yours is a banal and stupid comment
Dipstick..Rant over...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southeast U K
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the old, old, story on the line. Too much to do, Too little
time to do it.
Despatch people chasing you up for on time departures and
general choas all around.
No wonder that these sort of accidents happen every now
and again!
It will never change, there will always be the time when all
types of pressures combine to cause this sort of incident,.,
I would just like to express my condolences to the family
and friends of this unfortunate engineer.
time to do it.
Despatch people chasing you up for on time departures and
general choas all around.
No wonder that these sort of accidents happen every now
and again!
It will never change, there will always be the time when all
types of pressures combine to cause this sort of incident,.,
I would just like to express my condolences to the family
and friends of this unfortunate engineer.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can never blame the pilots... If they run off a runway.. Or fire a gun on the flightdeck or suck a guy in to the motor it is not there fault...Someone else is the problem...
Indeed it is somebody else's fault. Like the idiot(s) who decided guns mix with airplanes.
Indeed it is somebody else's fault. Like the idiot(s) who decided guns mix with airplanes.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few have questioned what difference running a jet at high power will make when leak checking.I can't comment on the 737 but this is the data I have from my training notes on the Airbus.
Airbus A320 powered by IAE V2500-A5 the oil pressure at idle is approx 160 psi. At 90% N2 the oil pressure becomes approx 300 psi, almost double.
Certain systems require High powered engine runs and these are completed in a run pen or a designated taxi way block at LHR.
Airbus A320 powered by IAE V2500-A5 the oil pressure at idle is approx 160 psi. At 90% N2 the oil pressure becomes approx 300 psi, almost double.
Certain systems require High powered engine runs and these are completed in a run pen or a designated taxi way block at LHR.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely at the very least they neeeded ATC permission for anyhing above idle power & the article suggests this would not have been forthcoming as the airport rule was idle only on the ramp since 1996, presumably for exactly this kind of reason.
ATC permission is a basic safety procedure and not obtaining it makes them culpable to a large extent for me because it would have prevented this.
If I'm asked to run up to 70% I would only think of N1 as thats all we do crew run up procedures based on (in icing conditions etc).
ATC permission is a basic safety procedure and not obtaining it makes them culpable to a large extent for me because it would have prevented this.
If I'm asked to run up to 70% I would only think of N1 as thats all we do crew run up procedures based on (in icing conditions etc).
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What at all does ATC know about engine running, answer, nothing, it is up to airport management to make a policy, engine runs of that type should be established (far away from jet-ways), ATC simply enforces the policy. 
One problem is that when mechs are asked to troubleshoot, pilots tend to assume that the mechs know their job and the required safety precautions -- result, the pilots do as asked by the mechs.
Another problem is that the pilots are trained for pushback, taxi and flying, but not necessarily for ground runs.
Another problem is that the pilots are trained for pushback, taxi and flying, but not necessarily for ground runs.
Although not wholly the the commanders fault,the buck stops with the guy in the left hand seat.If adequate communications were not available,the ground run should not have been carried out.In this case the blame is partial,but as ever it was the classic Swiss cheese event.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In front of the computer
Age: 53
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is like any other serious event. Several factors and errors all in a line. Who's at fault?
Pilot(s) - Should have familiarised themselves with airport policy RE maintenance run ups. (single engine, idle only according to NTSB report) This is (usually) laid down in the airport plates.
Did they call for start? If yes ATC would approve the start but (should) state any conditions i.e. single engine idle only.
When requested to go to 70% they should have requested this from ATC, who I'm guessing would have told them don't be stupid.
Engineer(s) - Should not have requested 70% on stand full of PAX.
When they did request 70% why did they tell the Captain they were clear of the area, when clearly they were not?
ATC - Did they approve the engine run? Did they state idle only?
Airport - Do maintenance engine runs require start approval? I know some stateside airports do not. I personally believe all engine runs should require pre start approval from ATC, if only to make them aware of a maintenance run up and therefore the increased incident risk (e.g. run ups with cowls open = possible fire containment issues) so they can act quickly if they need to.
No problem requesting the crew's to carry out the run. Quite often there are not maintenance staff on duty who hold the necessary approval to start the engines, but as stated before the pilots tend to do as instructed, assuming the maintenance guys are familiar with the airport requirements.
Pilot(s) - Should have familiarised themselves with airport policy RE maintenance run ups. (single engine, idle only according to NTSB report) This is (usually) laid down in the airport plates.
Did they call for start? If yes ATC would approve the start but (should) state any conditions i.e. single engine idle only.
When requested to go to 70% they should have requested this from ATC, who I'm guessing would have told them don't be stupid.
Engineer(s) - Should not have requested 70% on stand full of PAX.
When they did request 70% why did they tell the Captain they were clear of the area, when clearly they were not?
ATC - Did they approve the engine run? Did they state idle only?
Airport - Do maintenance engine runs require start approval? I know some stateside airports do not. I personally believe all engine runs should require pre start approval from ATC, if only to make them aware of a maintenance run up and therefore the increased incident risk (e.g. run ups with cowls open = possible fire containment issues) so they can act quickly if they need to.
No problem requesting the crew's to carry out the run. Quite often there are not maintenance staff on duty who hold the necessary approval to start the engines, but as stated before the pilots tend to do as instructed, assuming the maintenance guys are familiar with the airport requirements.
Last edited by Riccardo; 4th Apr 2008 at 19:18. Reason: Missing letters - I blam the kyboard......
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should not have brought the engine up to 70% N1 in the first place regardless if they were requested to or not and the mechanic should not have been anywhere near.
Mr. Brown, after being told that the area is clear, why would the pilot NOT follow the directions given to him? He can't see behind him- the engineers can.
Should not have requested 70% on stand full of PAX.
...since the accident would not have happened if the plane was full of tuna right?
When they did request 70% why did they tell the Captain they were clear of the area, when clearly they were not?
The area WAS clear. Everybody was in position. The guy moved- that's what caused the accident. The outcome would have been the same at the designated runup spot, or in the middle of a desert.
Mr. Brown, after being told that the area is clear, why would the pilot NOT follow the directions given to him? He can't see behind him- the engineers can.
Should not have requested 70% on stand full of PAX.
...since the accident would not have happened if the plane was full of tuna right?
When they did request 70% why did they tell the Captain they were clear of the area, when clearly they were not?
The area WAS clear. Everybody was in position. The guy moved- that's what caused the accident. The outcome would have been the same at the designated runup spot, or in the middle of a desert.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Long White Cloud
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not an engineer, although I am a private pilot, air traffic controller and for many years worked for a handling agent. After reading this thread and the newspaper article it seems to me the crew should be subject to blame but not as already stated for the death of the engineer. The crew were obviously not the brightest bulbs in the box, for starters doing an engine run to check serviceability while passengers are on board/boarding is not only irresponsible but bad for PR. That aside, running the engine up to that level of power whilst in an enclosed area suggests the crew really didn't understand or think about the risks involved. At the airfield I work at no a/c is allowed to do greater than engine idle whilst on stand and I've never before witnessed it done with passengers on, if needs be they will disembark them. This seems to be a tragic accident and the death of the engineer was a combination of bad descisions and lack of training.