Mechanic Dead-Who is at fault?

[AA SLF]

The newspaper article that prompts this thread is at this link. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.461e7f3.html

Seems that the pilots have been totally excused of manslaughter and that the life of a Mechanic is only worth $46,100 USD. Oh yes, by the way, seems the mechanics are at fault according to the FAA!

Something just doesn't sit right with me in this situation, but then I do not wear a big watch . . .

[White Knight]

Well AA SLF, gotta say that though the pilots didn't follow correct procedures it's hardly THEIR fault that the engineer got too close. Insofar as the engineer died I'd have to say he should have known better. Engines are dangerous things!!!!

That the pilots got immunity for the mistakes they made is indeed questionable - but to blame them for the death of the engineer is out of order... (engineer getting too close to running engine is like a construction worker on a skyscraper not wearing safety harness - you have to BE RESPONSIBLE for YOUR OWN actions. I guess though you live in the litiguous USA where EVERYONE ELSE is to blame..)

[stevef]

If I remember rightly, the mechanic was wearing a cap, which either blew or was sucked off, tried to catch it and he was consequently ingested. It was a horrible incident of course, but he shouldn't have been wearing a cap (or any other loose article) on the apron in the first place.
He was largely responsible for his own death, no matter how callous that sounds.

[A4]

This was a terrible event and I'm sure the crew involved have been deeply affected by it. But, I do think that it was highly questionable of them to think it was ok to run an engine up to 70% N1 at the gate, whilst pax were boarding

Hindsight or not, that situation would have rung some major alarm bells in my head. 70%....at the gate......come on!

A4

[TheOddOne]

Hindsight or not, that situation would have rung some major alarm bells in my head. 70%....at the gate......come on!

Well, I've been there, safeguarding such a procedure. Nothing is impossible, these days we'd call it carrying out a 'dynamic risk assessment'. Lots to think about, brake failure, FOD, people, blast. Normally, it's actually quicker to reposition for a ground run but that just wasn't possible in my case - onset of night restrictions for ground runs. All worked out well but only by a lot of wise heads getting together beforehand and strictly following the plan.

Headgear on stands. Well, many companies are now issuing 'beanie caps' a sort of hardened baseball cap to protect workers from head injuries. I think it's pretty much standard amongst the fuelling companies at some UK airports. I don't like caps with a pronounced peak as they restrict the view and lead to a loss of situational awareness.

TheOddOne

[Mr.Brown]

Speaking from my own experience as an engineer, never in my right mind would I request an engine run at 70% on stand and never in my right mind would I go near an engine at 70% N1. There's not much of a safety zone at that power...
I'd also have the other engine at idle at least if I was bringing one engine up to 70% N1. So boarding a Passanger in a wheelchair?????
Also 70% N1 seems excessive for a leak check.
Something tells me that the whole story hasn't come out on this..
Cover up comes to mind

[glad rag]

Para 2 says it all.

"The mechanic inspecting the plane, Donald Gene Buchanan, 64, was killed. The Federal Aviation Administration's team that granted amnesty to the pilots was composed of people with ties to Continental Airlines."


RIP.


These dangers, and the ones YOU DON'T EXPECT, are something that you can NEVER become complacent with.

My own "near miss" happened some 20+ years ago during ground runs on a laarbruch based GR1 Tornado.

During the post servicing runs, as called up in the schedule, we were carrying out AC/DC checks.
With both gearboxes being driven by their respective ECU's and stabilized the test went according to plan.
However the operator decided "to move things along" and decided to do a MECU lanes test whilst the AC/DC checks were in progress to save some time later on.
Unfortunately the RH MECU lane that was selected was at fault and allowed the RH ECU to run away. Full bore.
At the time I was checking the GSP (ground service panel) under the right intake.
The memory of my (issue) cold weather jacket being sucked onto the face of the intake guard has remained with me ever since. It was left behind. The ecu was saved by the operators self preservation instinct of putting the switch back to the original (starting) position.

Bottom line I'm afraid is NEVER, NEVER trust an operator unless he knows EXACTLY what you want and understands that to deviate in these circumstances can have extreme consequences for all concerned never mind the physical violence that may descend upon them!!

(And no it wasn't me it was my old [mad dog] chiefy who did the sorting out behind the hangar!!!

rgds

Glad Rag.

I stand (partially) corrected and apologise for that.
From the transcripts the operator was cleared to and agreed the rampup. The correctness of this is to my mind "still open" however.

[Two's in]

The point being largely misssed here is that in order for the incident to be reported to the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), a certain level of amnesty was granted by the FAA to ensure the full details came out. I'm no fan of the FAA, but it requires a careful balance of judicial oversight and open reporting to make this program effective. If this had ended up as another 10 year lawsuit it is unlikely that anyone would have learned from this tragic, but preventable, accident. Now the details are out, perhaps we can all be reminded once again why someone goes to all the trouble to paint those pretty cross hatch lines on the stand.

[taubman]

NTSB Accident report

Here is the NTSB accident report, which goes into great detail on the events leading up to the accident. Tragic, but i'm not sure I can fault the pilots after reading it carefully.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...06FA056&akey=1

Jason

[Dream Land]

"It's beyond the pale of common sense to run an engine up to 70 percent of rated thrust with passengers on board and an unknown engine condition."

Have to agree 100% with this, pure stupidity.

[zalt]

Two's in

Once you dice up a human being and splatter them across the airport you are now in NTSB (or OSHA) territory not ASAP. This smacks of the same type illegal immunity-granting the State dept were gulity of in Iraq in some of the PMC shooting incidents.

I'm amazed that the NTSB probable cause mentions only the mechanics and the airport:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...31X00140&key=1

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
the mechanic's failure to maintain proper clearance with the engine intake during a jet engine run, and the failure of contract maintenance personnel to follow written procedures and directives contained in the airline's general maintenance manual. Factors contributing to the accident were the insufficient training provided to the contract mechanics by the airline, and the failure of the airport to disseminate a policy prohibiting ground engine runs above idle power in the terminal area.

[NigelOnDraft]

It's beyond the pale of common sense to run an engine up to 70 percent of rated thrust

I know it's a quote from a newspaper, but "70% rated thrust" is very different from 70% N1 / RPM.

Max derate of 25% thrust means "70% thrust" is about 90%+ N1 typically (?) So whilst I would agree in response to the quote above

Have to agree 100% with this, pure stupidity

I don't actually think they ever did set (and how would you?) 70% rated thrust

As an aside, it is a requirement on a CFM A320 to set 70% N1 for 30s for de-icing purposes. Whilst on the gate seems "unusual", let us not hang the guys without knowing the full facts... Similarly, it is permitted to use 75% N1 with the Park Brake on (of course obeying any other limits / airmanship considerations).

NoD

[A4]

@ NonD

I think "unusual" is putting it mildly. I've done 70% N1 for ice.... and it beggars belief that anyone would think it "ok" on stand let alone whilst boarding! The more I think about this, the more incredible (incredulous) the whole thing seems.

A4

[Smilin_Ed]

I don't understand why increasing power above idle would have any significant effect on an oil leak on a jet engine. For a recip, yes; for a jet, no.

[NigelOnDraft]

A4... Have a read of the NTSB report. They had completed boarding, bar 1 WCHR pax who was on a separate vehicle. The NTSB do not discuss or comment on whether this meant any doors were still open etc... and I am not sure it is relevant to the accident, even if it might strike one as "odd"

NoD

[BobT]

@WhiteKnight - I find it unfortunately humorous that we normally hear much blather here about captains being all-responsible and all-powerful. But in this incident, the captain who agreed to a risky procedure at a gate and was the one who moved the throttle lever is basically absolved with a comment that amounts to 'sucked to be that mechanic'.

Having read the material here, I agree the mechanic made a mistake. But the captain should have declined to participate in creating the circumstances for that mistake. I understand the point of these ASAP-type amnesties, but negligence, serious property damage or death should never be excused through these programs. Never.

[Golden Rivit]

A mechanic should have been running that aircraft,And an outside safety lookout should have been in radio contact with said mech! It all comes back to the empty suits upstairs, cutting resources on the line,in order to increase profit. just the reason I am now working on subway trains,With weekends off,and twice the pay

[NARVAL]

Strange procedure...if there is an oil leak at idle N1, you will learn nothing more at 70%N1. It is very difficult to locate a leak, you need to clean the engine thoroughly, to spray the part of the engine wher you suspect the leak with chalk dust may help a lot, and anyway, if there is such a leak that a puddle was found under the engine, you might consider the passengers not boarding the plane because a repair will have to be made anyway.And taking the time to have the correct procedure sent to you instead of doing your best with possible lacks of knowledge...
Speaking of leaks, and just to share an experience, when I was a flight engineer (young and not very experienced) on an Airbus 300, we landed in Djerba (Tunisia) to find during the turnaround a lot of hydraulic fluid under the right landing-gear door. I had the unfortunate idea (we had no assistant there) to go inside the gear compartment to locate the leak (there was hydraulic fluid everywhere) asking my pilots to run the engine for one minute at idle power. A few moments later I was back on the parking area (I was helped by the pilots), with the eyes severely burning from the hydraulic mist which developed and my jacket, shirt, and skin, cut as if by a razor by the leak at 3500 psi. Never, never stand in front of a serious hydraulic leak...Do things by the book. If you do not have the book, ask for a telex. Better late on departure than sorry...or dead.

[Airbubba]

According to one of the mechanics at ELP the deceased was trying to catch his ballcap which was being sucked into the engine. There was indeed some confusion over 70% N1, N2 (or perhaps N3, it's been years since I've flown with CFM's).

[airsupport]

A mechanic should have been running that aircraft,And an outside safety lookout should have been in radio contact with said mech! It all comes back to the empty suits upstairs, cutting resources on the line,in order to increase profit.

May he R.I.P, however that is exactly the problem.

IF this aircraft had a maintenance problem, it should have been fully in control of maintenance, not sitting at the gate with Flight Crew and pax on board.