Mechanic Dead-Who is at fault?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Blame the pilots......Blame the pilots. Just an excuse to try and take the blame away from someone foolish enough to chase after his hat near an intake during a high power run.
The flight crew may have not been allowed to do this run with pax on board or at a gate, but if all the rules had been followed and it was an empty plane in the appropriate location, someone would have still been running after his hat.
Where is 411A when you need him for a comment?
The flight crew may have not been allowed to do this run with pax on board or at a gate, but if all the rules had been followed and it was an empty plane in the appropriate location, someone would have still been running after his hat.
Where is 411A when you need him for a comment?
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a parking bay next to a passenger terminal is not a safe place to operate an engine at that power rating, most all airline pilots when requesting permission to start at the bay have heard ATC reply with something like "approved, idle power only", why is that, it's because it's not safe to do otherwise. Blame the pilots for not using commonsense, yes, responsible for death, no!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record, the crew did not "call ATC for start" because that simply isn't done in a place like ELP, nor the vast majority of US airports. If you want to run an engine at idle, you just run it. Different culture.
And punkalouver had it right; none of the flight crews infractions had anything to do with the mechanic getting sucked in. He clearly was not in a mental frame to be tinkering on a running CFM.
And punkalouver had it right; none of the flight crews infractions had anything to do with the mechanic getting sucked in. He clearly was not in a mental frame to be tinkering on a running CFM.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sausageside
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly we lost a mech/tech. My condolences to the family but when an a/c is on the ground it is your own responsibility to yourself to keep out of the way of running engines. Yellow vests will not save you. The only answer are the ground running guards used by the RAF and BAe to prevent such a thing and lets face it they should not be required for 99% of the time and even then a poorly designed guard could be more trouble than its worth. I for one would not fancy the idea of dragging an engine running guard around for a low power eng run on stand. One other point at all the places I have worked, when the a/c is on the ground and has a snag the ground engineer is in control of the a/c until it is declared serviceable and handed back to the crew. Even on pushback in the good old days (?) when the eng was involved, you were in control until the final wave off. The crew were only responsible for flying (and breaking) the thing. So lets stop the pilot bashing please.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And punkalouver had it right; none of the flight crews infractions had anything to do with the mechanic getting sucked in. He clearly was not in a mental frame to be tinkering on a running CFM.
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.
Check Airman I'm not sure if your a pilot or not but if you are alot of you coleagues would disagree.You just do not run an engine at 70% N1 in an operational area on a ramp... too many variables... (Common sense)
Thats why we have enigne test bays or areas away for stands were there are no people about!
I said early in this thread I think all the details have not been released...
What airlaine would want there pilots to be blamed.. Lawsuit..
Look at that, I think it was, the TransAT A330 that gluiding for miles... The pilot got a medal for what was without doubt a fantastic bit of flying... But he did previous to that, transfer all his fuel into the tank that was leaking and saw it wasn;t helping and contuined to do it anyway... not very clever.. but he got an award anyway...
Yes the engineer ran after his hat when the engine was really motoring over, big mistake, but I think losing his life is enough punishment!
Those pilots, regardless what we say, have to live with themselves knowing they should never have had that engine up so high in the first place
It's must be awful on the family to think that he's getting all the official blame for his own death when there wasmuch more involved...
My thoughts are with them.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's surely blindingly simple who is at fault? But the connundrum now being played is whether it is fair to lay all the blame on just the one pair of shoulders?
The spin still spooled on the second question just depends on who you wish to be kind to after the event.
The general lessons that should have been learned from this event probably won't be, except by thinkers on forums like this.
The spin still spooled on the second question just depends on who you wish to be kind to after the event.
The general lessons that should have been learned from this event probably won't be, except by thinkers on forums like this.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So he would have survived if it was just running on idle then?
Doesnt matter how up to date and modern we get its the same old accidents,from the begginning of aviation people have walked into props, from the begginning of jets , been sucked into engines ! Suggest its complacency these days, just a quick job, cant happen to me attitude. We're lucky in the UK in that you couldnt even consider anything above idle on stand, but having said that , with the right wind conditions an idle run can still be very dangerous on some of the big fans. My concern as an engineer is we dont have safety rammed down our throats the way we did twenty or thirty years ago, or was it just the military with all those flight safety films we were regularly shown ?? I know we laughed at the time but it stays in your mind . I think the problem for flight crews is that most operators dont have a set procedure for the crews to do ground runs , so the engineer should be briefing them on procedures to be followed , so ultimately , in my view its the engineer thats responsible if its a maintenance run thats being carried out.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman wrote:-
The point is that the onboard pax are at risk with a high power engine run (chock jump, uncontrolled runaway & destruct etc.) which is why they are never normally carried out with pax on board.
The tuna, I imagine, would already be dead & hence the risk greatly reduced.
"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?"
...since the accident would not have happened if the plane was full of tuna right?"
The tuna, I imagine, would already be dead & hence the risk greatly reduced.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety around aircraft
BVCU,
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head – a regime of ‘safety first ’ whether military or civil, and regular films / bulletins to suit.
I know when I was an apprentice fitter we were shown horrific photo’s of people who’d been scalped by lathes etc, so although I had relatively short hair was very cautious ! –
Also a Test Pilot was professional enough to put a warning on the airfield notice boards…
He had forgotten to secure all of the ejection seat pins, and as he said, it was pure luck the next ( groundcrew ) person into the cockpit had been on the ball.
On the same day, a French pilot did the same thing; end result, drogue fired through the engineer’s head, “ lines and all ” – that’s not something one forgets in a hurry !
As for ingestion ( either FOD or actual people ) / efflux / prop’s - the grapevine was full of such stories, so we took it pretty seriously – maybe there’s a ‘ Bad P.R. ’ element especially with airlines which needs to be addressed, and safety hammered home ?
I was told there was a photograph in one of the messes of the ‘old’ HMS ‘ Ark Royal’ of a chap halfway down a Phantom intake, saved only by a chum grabbing his legs – now THAT’S a reminder every time one sits down !
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head – a regime of ‘safety first ’ whether military or civil, and regular films / bulletins to suit.
I know when I was an apprentice fitter we were shown horrific photo’s of people who’d been scalped by lathes etc, so although I had relatively short hair was very cautious ! –
Also a Test Pilot was professional enough to put a warning on the airfield notice boards…
He had forgotten to secure all of the ejection seat pins, and as he said, it was pure luck the next ( groundcrew ) person into the cockpit had been on the ball.
On the same day, a French pilot did the same thing; end result, drogue fired through the engineer’s head, “ lines and all ” – that’s not something one forgets in a hurry !
As for ingestion ( either FOD or actual people ) / efflux / prop’s - the grapevine was full of such stories, so we took it pretty seriously – maybe there’s a ‘ Bad P.R. ’ element especially with airlines which needs to be addressed, and safety hammered home ?
I was told there was a photograph in one of the messes of the ‘old’ HMS ‘ Ark Royal’ of a chap halfway down a Phantom intake, saved only by a chum grabbing his legs – now THAT’S a reminder every time one sits down !
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I was shown a video loop of military ground crew who bent down on one leg head towards an intake to remove a nosewheel chock - may have been a Phantom, possibly a Harrier, I wasn't trying to ID the aircraft - he bent down and got sucked in all in one fluid movement ... in he went, head first, and survived. Word was that his helmet made contact with the blades but he was ok ... as 00 says, the image tends to stick in the mind and is heeded for life.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just about everybody here assumes that 70%N1 was set. For good reason too- N1 is the primary indication. However, the report conspicuously does not mention N1 or N2 (or I missed it). Since it was not mentioned, let's not assume that it was 70% N1, as 70% N2 would have been more reasonable.
Mr. Brown, as to not following engineer instructions, If I need to do an abnormal procedure (engine run) and I'm told the area is clear, I think it's a perfectly reasonable request to set higher than idle power. True, the crew could have contacted ATC to request a runup (similar to informing ATC before a crossbleed start), so maybe I'll fault them there, but at the end of the day, being at the gate did not cause the accident, so I'd hardly classify it as a contributory factor.
Mr. Brown, as to not following engineer instructions, If I need to do an abnormal procedure (engine run) and I'm told the area is clear, I think it's a perfectly reasonable request to set higher than idle power. True, the crew could have contacted ATC to request a runup (similar to informing ATC before a crossbleed start), so maybe I'll fault them there, but at the end of the day, being at the gate did not cause the accident, so I'd hardly classify it as a contributory factor.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also a good US Navy safety web site that shows a guy being ingested into an A6 Prowler on a flight deck at night. The engine goes pop but he survives.
I must be misreading this...somebody was ingested and survived?!?!? Care to give a bit more info, or a link?
I must be misreading this...somebody was ingested and survived?!?!? Care to give a bit more info, or a link?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So he would have survived if it was just running on idle then?
Idle Power : 9ft radius infront of the inlet and 4 feet aft of the inlet.
higher power: 13ft radius in front and 5 feet aft.
These figures have to increase by 20% if the surface wind is higer than 25knots.
So to answer your question, yes at idle he might of been killed but he'd have a much better chance... Also at 70% N1 you wouldn't have much of a chance when it started to pull you in and at about 21% when it starts to pull you have might have a couple of seconds to back track..
Anyone could get killed by a car while crossing the road, but you don't go playing with the traffic, and if you see someone playing with the traffic you do not speed up do you???? That would be stupid
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I blame the ship's cook on that one, stevef ! That man had not had enough steak dinners - they should've given him some divers lead boots while they fattened him up a bit