Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air India engineer sucked into an aircraft engine at Mumbai

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air India engineer sucked into an aircraft engine at Mumbai

Old 27th Dec 2015, 18:06
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
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!

Last edited by AtomKraft; 27th Dec 2015 at 18:17.
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2015, 00:38
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: frying pan
Posts: 93
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.
hifly787 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2015, 01:56
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
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!
Algol is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2015, 02:56
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 913
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.
IcePack is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2016, 15:59
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,291
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.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2016, 16:20
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,701
Originally Posted by Uplinker View Post
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.
The old BA 737-300s used to have the fuselage red line I think.

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)
TURIN is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2016, 16:28
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,291
Yeah, but both those problems are a minor risk and infinitely preferable to what happened to that poor sod in India.......
Uplinker is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2016, 22:03
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,342
if one engine had been started with the airstart unit due an inop APU why was eng #2 not started the same way
I will only permit one engine start prior to push back, the stress on a tow bar can be excessive and I have seen shear pins do their job. Tow bar less tugs are programmed to the stresses exerted specific by aircraft at MTOW w/o engines running.
grounded27 is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2016, 00:25
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 447
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.............
bvcu is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2016, 09:23
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 70
Posts: 572
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,
This is also an airport regulation at ARN. We ignore it. Our system wide policy is that all ground staff stand behind the red line (on the ramp) until the anti-collision beacons are off. If the crew need ground power before this they must radio in to the handlers,

(It's also against MAN Airport's standing instructions too but no one seems bothered)
Why can't airports and airlines get together and agree some rules. Whatever the handlers do, one or the other will tell them off.
Swedish Steve is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2016, 22:15
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Coastal Georgia
Age: 67
Posts: 40
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
......
number0009 is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 01:39
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Flyin' low and feeling mean
Posts: 190
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
Ya think?? SOP's??We don't need no stinking SOP's....

What a tragedy. Bottom line is nothing to be gained, ever, from rushing.
Hogger60 is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 06:43
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,560
This part is rich. Can't make this stuff up!

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.
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.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 06:54
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,767
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.
framer is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.