Air India engineer sucked into an aircraft engine at Mumbai
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work in India.
Standards here are awful.
I refer you to my post #42.
In the confused and confusing condition referred to by HJS Bhullar earlier, my advice is even more relevant.
You simply cannot see whether the ground crew are clear, from the cockpit.
You MUST wait for that 'thumbs up' from the pushback crew before doing the after start cx.
Then, and only then, Do the 'after start checks' and after that, call for taxi.
I know this from hard experience, and only good luck saved me when my FO, who was in a hurry, called for taxi early to try to beat someone to the hold.
It's insidious, but stick to these rules and you'll never have to explain why you ran a guy over, who was removing the chocks, or why that guy got sucked into your engine.
WAIT, for the clearance from the ground crew.
DO, the after starts.
Then, call for taxi.
That'll be 100 rupees from all who read this post- and a bloody bargain it is too!
Standards here are awful.
I refer you to my post #42.
In the confused and confusing condition referred to by HJS Bhullar earlier, my advice is even more relevant.
You simply cannot see whether the ground crew are clear, from the cockpit.
You MUST wait for that 'thumbs up' from the pushback crew before doing the after start cx.
Then, and only then, Do the 'after start checks' and after that, call for taxi.
I know this from hard experience, and only good luck saved me when my FO, who was in a hurry, called for taxi early to try to beat someone to the hold.
It's insidious, but stick to these rules and you'll never have to explain why you ran a guy over, who was removing the chocks, or why that guy got sucked into your engine.
WAIT, for the clearance from the ground crew.
DO, the after starts.
Then, call for taxi.
That'll be 100 rupees from all who read this post- and a bloody bargain it is too!
Last edited by AtomKraft; 27th Dec 2015 at 18:17.
Bhullars version is not correct. The captain was scheduled Mumbai/rajkot /Mumbai/Hyd. He was in a flaming hurry and as a result did not wait for ground waveoff,asked for taxi and asked f/o for right wing tip clearance and opened power resulting in the tragedy.The inexperience of the f/o was a contributory factor.
Atom you are right. Take care.
Atom you are right. Take care.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you all think of the policy in my company which dictates that - at a certain airport in China - we should not start the APU after landing, but taxi in and park on gate with both running (for noise and pollution reduction reasons), and wait for external power, which always takes several minutes to actually connect?
Personally I think it's an accident waiting to happen, and a self defeating policy anyhow. Two big engines running for two minutes versus an APU running for maybe 4 or 5 minutes!
Personally I think it's an accident waiting to happen, and a self defeating policy anyhow. Two big engines running for two minutes versus an APU running for maybe 4 or 5 minutes!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Algol
I gave up that practise at AGP when they initiated the APU ban on terminal stands. Lots of persons running around in front of two RB 211's IMHO only a matter of time before catastrophic accident. Ground personnel wearing ear defenders & being chased to get the turn around done crazy SOP.
I gave up that practise at AGP when they initiated the APU ban on terminal stands. Lots of persons running around in front of two RB 211's IMHO only a matter of time before catastrophic accident. Ground personnel wearing ear defenders & being chased to get the turn around done crazy SOP.
This might have already been suggested - I haven't the time right now to check the whole thread - but I had a thought today as I did my walkaround.
On the engines there is a pictogram showing the minimum safe distance from the (running) engine intake one should be. On the A321 with V2500 engines I flew today it says no closer than 15' or 5 meters with engine at idle. However, the warning is on the engine itself which is not much use to ramp workers, because if they are close enough to read the warning they are probably too close for safety.
What is needed is some sort of semi-circular marking on the underneath and sides of the fuselage behind the nose-wheel, aft of which one should never go if the engines are running. Pushback crew would be able to clearly see the line from the front and sides of the aircraft and be told never to go further backwards towards running engines than that line.
This might improve safety but would not prevent a problem if the aircraft moved forwards before the crews were clear. I can't remember which, but I have been to an airfield where the headset person places a chock in front of the nose wheel after pushback until they are fully disconnected, and as they are walking clear, they pull the chock with them, thus preventing the aircraft running forwards until they are safe.
On the engines there is a pictogram showing the minimum safe distance from the (running) engine intake one should be. On the A321 with V2500 engines I flew today it says no closer than 15' or 5 meters with engine at idle. However, the warning is on the engine itself which is not much use to ramp workers, because if they are close enough to read the warning they are probably too close for safety.
What is needed is some sort of semi-circular marking on the underneath and sides of the fuselage behind the nose-wheel, aft of which one should never go if the engines are running. Pushback crew would be able to clearly see the line from the front and sides of the aircraft and be told never to go further backwards towards running engines than that line.
This might improve safety but would not prevent a problem if the aircraft moved forwards before the crews were clear. I can't remember which, but I have been to an airfield where the headset person places a chock in front of the nose wheel after pushback until they are fully disconnected, and as they are walking clear, they pull the chock with them, thus preventing the aircraft running forwards until they are safe.
This might have already been suggested - I haven't the time right now to check the whole thread - but I had a thought today as I did my walkaround.
What is needed is some sort of semi-circular marking on the underneath and sides of the fuselage behind the nose-wheel, aft of which one should never go if the engines are running. Pushback crew would be able to clearly see the line from the front and sides of the aircraft and be told never to go further backwards towards running engines than that line.
This might improve safety but would not prevent a problem if the aircraft moved forwards before the crews were clear. I can't remember which, but I have been to an airfield where the headset person places a chock in front of the nose wheel after pushback until they are fully disconnected, and as they are walking clear, they pull the chock with them, thus preventing the aircraft running forwards until they are safe.
What is needed is some sort of semi-circular marking on the underneath and sides of the fuselage behind the nose-wheel, aft of which one should never go if the engines are running. Pushback crew would be able to clearly see the line from the front and sides of the aircraft and be told never to go further backwards towards running engines than that line.
This might improve safety but would not prevent a problem if the aircraft moved forwards before the crews were clear. I can't remember which, but I have been to an airfield where the headset person places a chock in front of the nose wheel after pushback until they are fully disconnected, and as they are walking clear, they pull the chock with them, thus preventing the aircraft running forwards until they are safe.
As for the chock. Swssport at MAN do that. Not sure I like it as it has been left behind and just become a FOD nuisance. (It's also against MAN Airport's standing instructions too but no one seems bothered)
Yeah, but both those problems are a minor risk and infinitely preferable to what happened to that poor sod in India.......
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if one engine had been started with the airstart unit due an inop APU why was eng #2 not started the same way
Very basic ! you can't start two engines because you wouldn't be able to disconnect airstart without going into danger zone of running engine to disconnect airstart.............
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you all think of the policy in my company which dictates that - at a certain airport in China - we should not start the APU after landing, but taxi in and park on gate with both running (for noise and pollution reduction reasons), and wait for external power,
(It's also against MAN Airport's standing instructions too but no one seems bothered)
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Coastal Georgia
Age: 71
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lapses By Pilots Led to Death of Air India Technician, Investigators Conclude
FYI,
I saw this article today from 08-24-16.
Lapses by pilots led to death of AI technician, investigators conclude
......
I saw this article today from 08-24-16.
Lapses by pilots led to death of AI technician, investigators conclude
......
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Flyin' low and feeling mean
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew took a jeep and rushed to bay V28L to operate AI 619 Mumbai-Hyderabad. Pilots reached cockpit at 8.38 pm. Pushback commenced at 8.45 pm
Non adherence to SoP (standard operating procedure)... resulted in the accident," according to the report
What a tragedy. Bottom line is nothing to be gained, ever, from rushing.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This part is rich. Can't make this stuff up!
Talk about CRM! On a serious note, if this report is in any way accurate, it only strengthens my resolve to not rush when at work. The risk isn't nearly worth the reward.
As the pilots were running late for the flight, an off-duty AI pilot travelling as a passenger to Hyderabad obtained air traffic control clearance.
What sort of Airline has the pilots who are ultimately responsible for the safety of those on and around the aircraft , running around like blue-arsed flies? If gate staff, operations staff, cabin crew, engineering.....anyone puts pressure on you to hurry up, just tell them that the more they hassle the slower you go. Airline management need to be careful when they create/support a culture of On time performance being king.
