Engineneer death in Tenerife South during engine test
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineneer death in Tenerife South during engine test
Unfortunateley he was ingested into one of the engines during an engine test.
I will try and find a link in english. airline was LTE , it ocurred last night at 22:00LT
I will try and find a link in english. airline was LTE , it ocurred last night at 22:00LT
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 24 year old mechanic died at Tenerife airport last night when he was sucked into the turbine of an Airbus A-320 during routine engine-testing before a flight to Warsaw.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i see these guys doing engine tests day in day out, im always amazed to see them lying directly under the engine when its at full throttle......
i dont doubt for one second that they know exactly what theyre doing, but it only take one wrong move....
G-STAW
i dont doubt for one second that they know exactly what theyre doing, but it only take one wrong move....
G-STAW
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an engineer myself, i would never ever be up to close when running an engine at any power setting above idle, and even at idle we'd be at nose of aircraft with headset contact with flightdeck.
The only reason we might have to be at engine is when manually opening the start valve, and extreme care should be taken when doing this procedure.
Ground staff i.e Loaders and catering etc need a crash course in engine safety. They have no idea what a CFM 56 can do even when its spooling down. I see in the not so distant future more deaths with unsafe work practices, stands closer together, and more and more passengers being badly marshalled into terminal or too aircraft.
If you operate in or out of Dublin you'll know what i mean.
The only reason we might have to be at engine is when manually opening the start valve, and extreme care should be taken when doing this procedure.
Ground staff i.e Loaders and catering etc need a crash course in engine safety. They have no idea what a CFM 56 can do even when its spooling down. I see in the not so distant future more deaths with unsafe work practices, stands closer together, and more and more passengers being badly marshalled into terminal or too aircraft.
If you operate in or out of Dublin you'll know what i mean.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a sad and terrible waste. This is the second one reported in R&N in just a few months is it not?
Something is very wrong in the industry if it permits such obvious risk to go unmanaged and inevitable accidents to occur.
Where is the master engineering oversight that might have prevented it?
If the operative controlling the engine was an engineer, see above. If the operative was a pilot, then where again was the necessary training, control procedure and oversight.
A poor 24 year old has died, not just because he was too close, but because nothing stopped him.
It's like working on a roof with no scaffolding or safety rails - how can it be permitted? If training, control procedures and master oversight are not the solution, why aren't such engineers forced to wear harnesses and short lanyards attached to their van or the undercarriage or something that prevents them going in?
Something is very wrong in the industry if it permits such obvious risk to go unmanaged and inevitable accidents to occur.
Where is the master engineering oversight that might have prevented it?
If the operative controlling the engine was an engineer, see above. If the operative was a pilot, then where again was the necessary training, control procedure and oversight.
A poor 24 year old has died, not just because he was too close, but because nothing stopped him.
It's like working on a roof with no scaffolding or safety rails - how can it be permitted? If training, control procedures and master oversight are not the solution, why aren't such engineers forced to wear harnesses and short lanyards attached to their van or the undercarriage or something that prevents them going in?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I witnessed this incident at Beauvais two years ago.
A Ryanair was on the ramp preparing for departure, the steps were still down and baggage was still being loaded. The red anti-collision lights came on and the ground crew chief evacuated all his staff away from the aircraft. A lot of verbal was exchanged between the cockpit window and the ground with the crew chief refusing to allow his guys near the aircraft until the lights were turned off. The captain even got out and came down the steps to continue their “discussion”. I took it that switching on the lights was a signal that the engines were about to be started and the crew chief was simply protecting his staff. The lights were eventually turned off, and normal service resumed.
A Ryanair was on the ramp preparing for departure, the steps were still down and baggage was still being loaded. The red anti-collision lights came on and the ground crew chief evacuated all his staff away from the aircraft. A lot of verbal was exchanged between the cockpit window and the ground with the crew chief refusing to allow his guys near the aircraft until the lights were turned off. The captain even got out and came down the steps to continue their “discussion”. I took it that switching on the lights was a signal that the engines were about to be started and the crew chief was simply protecting his staff. The lights were eventually turned off, and normal service resumed.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like working on a roof with no scaffolding or safety rails - how can it be permitted? If training, control procedures and master oversight are not the solution, why aren't such engineers forced to wear harnesses and short lanyards attached to their van or the undercarriage or something that prevents them going in?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Guppy, sadly I am not. You are perhaps unable to compare risks to employees in different industries as you have been dedicated to mainly the one I assume?
I know you may be thinking well what difference does a landyard make and if it is too long might it not get hung up and wind him in, but something has to be there to stop this happening.
You may even be thinking what is the difference between this and walking out into a road in front of a noisy bus - no landyards for pedestrians, eh? Well revving buses usually move and cannot cause harm in invisible ways when they are stationary.
It might surprise you that in the construction industry in London you will rarely see a ladder thesedays because workers are generally required to use safer means e.g. MEWP (...work platform) to access heights even though it costs ridiculous amounts in extra kit. I was surprised when I learned it. Once they are in said MEWP with rails around them they are still trained to wear short lanyards to harnesses in case something odd occurs and they might otherwise topple out.
I read that in London recently, the government Health & Safety Executive conducted lightning inspections on random sites and applied temporary closure orders on half of them. Perhaps a shot over the bows in the lead up to massive London 2012 construction which is about to go exponential.
Similarly, no risk such as the one we are discussing would be conducted without there being a proper written risk assessment by qualified persons, including the provision of a method statement and if it was seen as a risk of certain death like this if procedures were not followed closely, then I think it would requre a special written permit by a site safety chief for every occasion it was undertaken. Maybe the problem is that all these things are done but they are seen as obligatory aviation aircraft safety control documents like all the other aviation engineering documented systems and not as anything designed specifically to safeguard the workers.
I don't blame you for being surprised, but the world has moved on in some industries more than others. Trained individuals are responsible for their own safety of course but we are all responsible for each other's safety too. It's supposed to work like the security model (onion layer thing).
If we can't stop accidents like this by training and procedures then that's when authorities start insisting on physical restraints.
Expect changes.
I know you may be thinking well what difference does a landyard make and if it is too long might it not get hung up and wind him in, but something has to be there to stop this happening.
You may even be thinking what is the difference between this and walking out into a road in front of a noisy bus - no landyards for pedestrians, eh? Well revving buses usually move and cannot cause harm in invisible ways when they are stationary.
It might surprise you that in the construction industry in London you will rarely see a ladder thesedays because workers are generally required to use safer means e.g. MEWP (...work platform) to access heights even though it costs ridiculous amounts in extra kit. I was surprised when I learned it. Once they are in said MEWP with rails around them they are still trained to wear short lanyards to harnesses in case something odd occurs and they might otherwise topple out.
I read that in London recently, the government Health & Safety Executive conducted lightning inspections on random sites and applied temporary closure orders on half of them. Perhaps a shot over the bows in the lead up to massive London 2012 construction which is about to go exponential.
Similarly, no risk such as the one we are discussing would be conducted without there being a proper written risk assessment by qualified persons, including the provision of a method statement and if it was seen as a risk of certain death like this if procedures were not followed closely, then I think it would requre a special written permit by a site safety chief for every occasion it was undertaken. Maybe the problem is that all these things are done but they are seen as obligatory aviation aircraft safety control documents like all the other aviation engineering documented systems and not as anything designed specifically to safeguard the workers.
I don't blame you for being surprised, but the world has moved on in some industries more than others. Trained individuals are responsible for their own safety of course but we are all responsible for each other's safety too. It's supposed to work like the security model (onion layer thing).
If we can't stop accidents like this by training and procedures then that's when authorities start insisting on physical restraints.
Expect changes.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad indeed, Although safety has never being 'Al a carte' in spain IMHO.
The incident last summer in PMI with the FCA 757 was unbelievable also, That again was an example of no training - Fire service filled engine with water on stand - 2m engine gone
Visiting spain & the canaries regular it seemed that training & safety was taught more, But sadly there are some companies who are 'sailing' a tight ship & cut corners too far.
I do think the majority of companies in spain have all the safety procedures in place.
Condolences to the family & everyone else involved,
But It is just commonsense not to go 10 feet near a running Aircraft engine.
The incident last summer in PMI with the FCA 757 was unbelievable also, That again was an example of no training - Fire service filled engine with water on stand - 2m engine gone
Visiting spain & the canaries regular it seemed that training & safety was taught more, But sadly there are some companies who are 'sailing' a tight ship & cut corners too far.
I do think the majority of companies in spain have all the safety procedures in place.
Condolences to the family & everyone else involved,
But It is just commonsense not to go 10 feet near a running Aircraft engine.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But It is just commonsense not to go 10 feet near a running Aircraft engine.
I have seen an experienced dispatcher run out of the gate again when he realised he'd loaded an unaccompanied bag and run round to the captain's window in a blind panic during a four engine start up. Dumb? Yes, but no he wasn't. He was uncommonly smart. Happened? Yes. Was he hurt? Thank Goodness no, and he learned something afterwards.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Guppy, sadly I am not. You are perhaps unable to compare risks to employees in different industries as you have been dedicated to mainly the one I assume?
I certainly have. Being able to move about the aircraft to observe and in most cases make adjustments, make measurements, verify valve positioning, etc, is part of doing the engine run; particularly in the case of doing engine trims and measurements.
Mistakes happen. Tethers and protective harnesses are appropriate in certain areas, such as work from a scaffolding where one stays primarily upon the scaffolding. This is not at all the same as performing an engine run or maintenance during an engine run.
I am not aware of the circumstances regarding this mishap, and won't comment as to what was done properly or improperly. That would be speculation, and highly inappropriate. When facts are released regarding what occured, then a proper discussion may be had.
I have worked in various capacities in various industries, but what other industries do is hardly relevant to what we do in aviation. This is an aviation board, we work in aviation, and the practices, policies, and procedures we use are relevant here. You can certainly make a comparison when you find window washers and coal miners trimming a 60,000 lb thrust engine on the job.
There is no such thing as commonsense within 10 feet of a running aircraft engine.
It might surprise you that in the construction industry in London you will rarely see a ladder thesedays because workers are generally required to use safer means
I don't blame you for being surprised, but the world has moved on in some industries more than others.
If the operative controlling the engine was an engineer, see above. If the operative was a pilot, then where again was the necessary training, control procedure and oversight.
As far as the pilot goes, you believe that somehow more training or oversight would have prevented this by the pilot? The pilot often can't see the powerplant (engine, motor, whatever you wish to call it in the UK), let alone have any concept of who is by the engine when it's running during the test. Generally the test is prebriefed, everybody knows their assigment and what to do. From the cockpit, the pilot can do nothing but run the engine, and shut it down if required...certainly no way to do that in time once someone is headed for the intake.
Ground supervision; see someone being drawn into the intake, there just isn't time to shut that engine down no matter how one signals. It takes time. The solution? Don't be in front of that engine within the suck zone in the first place.
You seem to have a lot of suggestions, but absolutely no concept of how to apply them here or the experience to know what you're talking about. Perhaps you should stick to ladderless construction in London and leave ramp safety to others.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety harnesses are required under Irish law when working on an elevated platform or up at any height. The airport authority in Dublin is enforcing this due to large amount of building going on.
I have been made stop working on a Pylon even though i was on steps. With the enforcement a change in culture is slowly happening.
However wearing a lanyard or harness is not going to work in my opinion. It may work with running engine on stand, but while pushing and starting aircraft for departure, not a hope it would work.
My reasons for this are i'm not going to let anyone tell me that i should be attached to aircraft with harness for a departure, and also i'm not going to be attached to tug either. There is a lot of pro's for a harness however there are many more of negatives.
The Ramp is a dangerous place you need eyes in the back of your head sometimes. Sorry ALL OF THE TIME.
I have been made stop working on a Pylon even though i was on steps. With the enforcement a change in culture is slowly happening.
However wearing a lanyard or harness is not going to work in my opinion. It may work with running engine on stand, but while pushing and starting aircraft for departure, not a hope it would work.
My reasons for this are i'm not going to let anyone tell me that i should be attached to aircraft with harness for a departure, and also i'm not going to be attached to tug either. There is a lot of pro's for a harness however there are many more of negatives.
The Ramp is a dangerous place you need eyes in the back of your head sometimes. Sorry ALL OF THE TIME.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been to TFS this lunch time and can't believe the A/C is still sat on the apron near the threshold of rwy 08 with no cover over the affected area and in full view of the passengers and myself! 
Very sad in any case, as an ex A/C engineer i know all too well the dangers of being near an operating engine, at the end of the day though if you get to close you will get hurt.
Very sad in any case, as an ex A/C engineer i know all too well the dangers of being near an operating engine, at the end of the day though if you get to close you will get hurt.
I have just been to TFS this lunch time and can't believe the A/C is still sat on the apron near the threshold of rwy 08 with no cover over the affected area and in full view of the passengers and myself!
Hopefully is not all that visible to unknowing passengers.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid to say that ALL was visible and it wasn't nice to look at. I had no doubt what I was looking at.
I understand that an investigation needs to be done but it shouldn't be so visible.
Even just parking vehicles or something around the wing would go a long way.
I understand that an investigation needs to be done but it shouldn't be so visible.
Even just parking vehicles or something around the wing would go a long way.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thoughts with all involved.
Engines and/or Anti-Col Beacon Lights on, stay away unless trained.
Even if trained, an engine can accel to full power very quick for a variety of reasons (engine malfunction/person falls on the power lever).
RIP.
Engines and/or Anti-Col Beacon Lights on, stay away unless trained.
Even if trained, an engine can accel to full power very quick for a variety of reasons (engine malfunction/person falls on the power lever).
RIP.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid to say that ALL was visible and it wasn't nice to look at. I had no doubt what I was looking at.
I understand that an investigation needs to be done but it shouldn't be so visible.
Even just parking vehicles or something around the wing would go a long way.
Even today, in some countries life is cheap, taking responsibility for ensuring (some) dignity in death does not come easily...............want to argue about it? go look at the TACA accident videos on uTube...........dead flight crew videoed through windscreen............
I understand that an investigation needs to be done but it shouldn't be so visible.
Even just parking vehicles or something around the wing would go a long way.
Even today, in some countries life is cheap, taking responsibility for ensuring (some) dignity in death does not come easily...............want to argue about it? go look at the TACA accident videos on uTube...........dead flight crew videoed through windscreen............
Last edited by glad rag; 17th Jun 2008 at 21:29.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Aroundandabout
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad, this story. As are all work-related death accidents.
For engine testing, on a/c's with underwing engine pods, I got the idea of having some sort of cage to cover the air intake.
If it's a big enough one, it wouldn't disturb the airflow, but would stop ingestion of groundcrew.
They can easily be made mobile, with retractable wheels, so that they can be hauled around.
Of course, all this would mean extra costs and time being spent on other things than direct maintenance.
For engine testing, on a/c's with underwing engine pods, I got the idea of having some sort of cage to cover the air intake.
If it's a big enough one, it wouldn't disturb the airflow, but would stop ingestion of groundcrew.
They can easily be made mobile, with retractable wheels, so that they can be hauled around.
Of course, all this would mean extra costs and time being spent on other things than direct maintenance.
Last edited by An2; 18th Jun 2008 at 06:52.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4
this guy made it but just look at what a turbojet can do as against a fan.
RIP to that chap. I remember years ago luxair sucked an engineer into a 200 in Ibiza....grizzly stuff.
this guy made it but just look at what a turbojet can do as against a fan.
RIP to that chap. I remember years ago luxair sucked an engineer into a 200 in Ibiza....grizzly stuff.
