Ryanair Incident in Beauvais?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair Incident in Beauvais?
Some French friends visiting me today were delayed ex Beauvais and FR said the reason was a pilot had 'lost his arm in an accident with an engine'. Details were sketchy and I'm wondering what really happened??
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hmm... pass me the high level....
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't posted in a while but just so you know, it was a french engineer that lost his arm, sympathies to him and family. Plane went tech, he got called, tried to fix it, did engine run, got too close........................ game over.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
similar accident
Sorry to hear that it happend again...
If I remember correct in 1999 it happend similar in DUB on a
B 737-200, got too close to the intake and sufferd severe injuries
and lost one arm and part of the shoulder as well. This happend
to an engineer who did a routine run-up.
If I remember correct in 1999 it happend similar in DUB on a
B 737-200, got too close to the intake and sufferd severe injuries
and lost one arm and part of the shoulder as well. This happend
to an engineer who did a routine run-up.
At least it was a -200 with a row of stators before the first stage of the compressor. Lost his arm, bad enough. 
If it was a -800, the guy would be deader than dead.
Always amazes me that more ground crew don't get chewed up by engines, the amount of times i've seen people approach the aircraft with engines on, beacons on. It only takes one small mistake, and they are toast.
EGGW.
If it was a -800, the guy would be deader than dead.
Always amazes me that more ground crew don't get chewed up by engines, the amount of times i've seen people approach the aircraft with engines on, beacons on. It only takes one small mistake, and they are toast.
EGGW.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Shannon
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real question is how come one operator is responsible for more limbs being lost than all the other operators in Europe put together?
Reading the AAIU website there are also cases of engineers being driven over by pushbach drivers and being blown away by the jet blast.
Anything to do with that airlines culture of 25 minute turnarounds?
Reading the AAIU website there are also cases of engineers being driven over by pushbach drivers and being blown away by the jet blast.
Anything to do with that airlines culture of 25 minute turnarounds?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Health and Safety issues such as these need robust investigations. The employer has a duty of care to protect the workforce. Likewise, the employee has an important part to play as well.
Why was "best practice" not followed?
Why was "best practice" not followed?
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its amazing the 200 seems to be the culpit for snatching limbs. I remember I think circa 13 years ago an engineer attending a Luxair 732 doing a similar eng run lost his arm. what is it with 200's? as against the bigger fans? maybe with the diameter of the pratt ones feels a certain comfort zone and then whoosh. my sincere sympathy to the engineer.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to do with the size of the intake, I think.
Recall many years ago with JT4 powered 707's (no fan, high velocity), it sucked up nearly everything like a big Hoover.
Not good...at all.
Recall many years ago with JT4 powered 707's (no fan, high velocity), it sucked up nearly everything like a big Hoover.
Not good...at all.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
engine run?
Ummm,
When I went to airplane mechanic school, engine runs were performed from the safe environs of the cockpit (unless, of course, the engine exploded, then, not so safe..).
I can only imagine a few scenarios where one would be aside the engine at power (with the cowling presumable open) to tweak something on the fuel control. Maybe. While the engine was running.
Certainly not on a hi-bypass fan. The JT8, maybe, but it's more run, shutdown, tweak and run again.
Maybe the guy was looking for a leak at power. Maybe it wasn't even an engineer, maybe a chock thrower got too close.
Somebody lost an arm, and that is way wrong. Shouldn't happen. Jets have been around way too long for these stupid accidents to continue. And yes, props have killed more ground/flight people than jets, on the ground.
PB
When I went to airplane mechanic school, engine runs were performed from the safe environs of the cockpit (unless, of course, the engine exploded, then, not so safe..).
I can only imagine a few scenarios where one would be aside the engine at power (with the cowling presumable open) to tweak something on the fuel control. Maybe. While the engine was running.
Certainly not on a hi-bypass fan. The JT8, maybe, but it's more run, shutdown, tweak and run again.
Maybe the guy was looking for a leak at power. Maybe it wasn't even an engineer, maybe a chock thrower got too close.
Somebody lost an arm, and that is way wrong. Shouldn't happen. Jets have been around way too long for these stupid accidents to continue. And yes, props have killed more ground/flight people than jets, on the ground.
PB
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another thread, there has been discussion about evacuating aircraft without reference to the cockpit crew (flight crew to the new world) meaning that the evacuation secure checks may not have been done.
This tragic happening should serve as a lesson as to what happens when people and running engines get close - and not just the hot end either.
This tragic happening should serve as a lesson as to what happens when people and running engines get close - and not just the hot end either.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may sound like a silly suggestion - but has nobody (manufacturers) ever considered putting some sort of mesh grill over engine intakes?
Surely if the mesh was of the right gap size there would be little
performance impact. It might even save a few engines from bird strike damage as an extra benefit.
If Braun/Phillips/Remmington can make a hair-dryer efficient and safe by putting a grill over the intake i'm sure CFM/RR/P&W could do the same on a larger scale!
G.
Surely if the mesh was of the right gap size there would be little
performance impact. It might even save a few engines from bird strike damage as an extra benefit.
If Braun/Phillips/Remmington can make a hair-dryer efficient and safe by putting a grill over the intake i'm sure CFM/RR/P&W could do the same on a larger scale!
G.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite apart from the loss of efficiency due to the disturbed airflow, the big problem with a safety screen would be it's susceptibility to icing- even relatively minor icing conditions could rapidly block it. However, it might be a usuable idea if it could be attached for use during ground runs.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: spain
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Braun/Remington screen idea is a very good idea (certainly for ground runs), and has been around for yonks. I've got photos of B58's in the 1950's with screens fitted in front of the intakes, although this was more of an anti-FOD measure, and I'm sure there was a photo in Uncle Roger's column in 'Flight' a few years ago showing an early jet (F86?) with a wire mesh contraption in front of the intake.
There was a tragic accident at Hatfield in the early 90's when an engineer was totally ingested into the No 2 engine of a 146 during a high power test run. The aerodynamicists said that it was theoretically impossible for someone to be lifted vertically off the ground - I think the bottom lip of No 2 must be about six feet off the ground. Wasn't long before the factory made up a set of moblle mesh cages which could be wheeled in front of engines on test.
If it can happen 'up and over' on a 146, then it's a wonder there aren't more accidents with the 'straight through' engine position on a 737. Just be vigilant, don't let familiarity breed contempt, and watch out for the insidious management pressure to cut costs, time and manpower. The ba****ds can kill you while sitting in their office!
There was a tragic accident at Hatfield in the early 90's when an engineer was totally ingested into the No 2 engine of a 146 during a high power test run. The aerodynamicists said that it was theoretically impossible for someone to be lifted vertically off the ground - I think the bottom lip of No 2 must be about six feet off the ground. Wasn't long before the factory made up a set of moblle mesh cages which could be wheeled in front of engines on test.
If it can happen 'up and over' on a 146, then it's a wonder there aren't more accidents with the 'straight through' engine position on a 737. Just be vigilant, don't let familiarity breed contempt, and watch out for the insidious management pressure to cut costs, time and manpower. The ba****ds can kill you while sitting in their office!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I sit here and read this thread I do so in the knowledge of knowing exactly what happened in Beavauis and can only offer my sympathies not just to the engineer whow was very badly injured but also the person running the engine at this unfortunate time.
All persons concerned will probably be affected by this accident for the rest of there lives and it is something they will have to learn to live with.
I also see the posts from persons such as Mach Buffet and others on a variety of threads who seem to think it is fashionable to continuously slag off the company I work for and I must confess after a while it grates on one a little.
I find that to ask a question when an incident such as this has happened as to imply our operation concerning turn round times is at fault to be somewhat dire to say the least.I suspect that Mach Buffet and his mates have probably only ever been near a live aeroplane except of course when they trot off on their yearly hols.The rest of the time of course they are all experts.
At what I will leave to the imagination.
Every day a lot of very professional and extremly able people work for Ryanair and operate the aircraft/airline safely and efficiently to allow the adoring travelling public to arrive at the desired destination both on time and in one piece.This doesn't happen on its own and takes an awful lot of hard work often unseen by the majority of people.
But as stated there are always people who no nothing about the operation or probably how a live aircraft is utilised who continually feel the need to snipe at Ryanair,quite why is beyond me but read the variety of other threads on this site and you will see what I mean.
To these people I can only say that if your all experts then "Hey why not come and work for us and show us how it should be done?"
At STN we have approx 275 rotations a day to look after,from the engineering side a large operation which needs a lot of understanding and a high degree of knowledge,skill and competance coupled with a good working relationship between all sides of the airline. Sometimes things do go wrong,in this incidence horribly so but, that does not give every so called expert the credence to pick over every situation that occurs and generally slate us off at any given opportunity.
Having worked for a number of companies over the years I can honestly say that Ryanair probably puts more into the wellbeing of the operation than the majority of others including at least 3 national airlines and 1 competitor in the UK low fares market.This is something that is reflected in our success over the years but this will not be good enough for the experts of this world.
To use an incident such as what has happened stinks and personally I find it offensive to say the least. As has often been said "if you dont know all the facts,then keep your mouth shut,Tight"
A worthy piece of advice for the number of people feel like joining the fashion and having a pop in ignorance don't you think?
All persons concerned will probably be affected by this accident for the rest of there lives and it is something they will have to learn to live with.
I also see the posts from persons such as Mach Buffet and others on a variety of threads who seem to think it is fashionable to continuously slag off the company I work for and I must confess after a while it grates on one a little.
I find that to ask a question when an incident such as this has happened as to imply our operation concerning turn round times is at fault to be somewhat dire to say the least.I suspect that Mach Buffet and his mates have probably only ever been near a live aeroplane except of course when they trot off on their yearly hols.The rest of the time of course they are all experts.
At what I will leave to the imagination.
Every day a lot of very professional and extremly able people work for Ryanair and operate the aircraft/airline safely and efficiently to allow the adoring travelling public to arrive at the desired destination both on time and in one piece.This doesn't happen on its own and takes an awful lot of hard work often unseen by the majority of people.
But as stated there are always people who no nothing about the operation or probably how a live aircraft is utilised who continually feel the need to snipe at Ryanair,quite why is beyond me but read the variety of other threads on this site and you will see what I mean.
To these people I can only say that if your all experts then "Hey why not come and work for us and show us how it should be done?"
At STN we have approx 275 rotations a day to look after,from the engineering side a large operation which needs a lot of understanding and a high degree of knowledge,skill and competance coupled with a good working relationship between all sides of the airline. Sometimes things do go wrong,in this incidence horribly so but, that does not give every so called expert the credence to pick over every situation that occurs and generally slate us off at any given opportunity.
Having worked for a number of companies over the years I can honestly say that Ryanair probably puts more into the wellbeing of the operation than the majority of others including at least 3 national airlines and 1 competitor in the UK low fares market.This is something that is reflected in our success over the years but this will not be good enough for the experts of this world.
To use an incident such as what has happened stinks and personally I find it offensive to say the least. As has often been said "if you dont know all the facts,then keep your mouth shut,Tight"
A worthy piece of advice for the number of people feel like joining the fashion and having a pop in ignorance don't you think?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not often I jump to Ryanair's defence, but must agree with asheng on this.
The continual attack on quick turnrounds per se (based solely on turnround time rather than amount of handling activity) becomes very wearing after a while.
Take a 'traditional' airline's 737 turnround, surrounded by catering vehicles, cleaners, freight (including animals, hazardous cargo), change of cabin config, and a cast of thousands, etc. etc. Now try and squeeze that down to 20 minutes and, yes, you have a dangerous situation.
However, strip out a lot of the unnecessary elements and simplify it to a 'passengers and baggage' only operation ("low cost"), with minimal ramp activity, and IF PROPERLY CONDUCTED this is no more dangerous, and probably in some cases inherantly safer, than the more complex and congested turnround.
I don't know the circumstances of this tragic accident, and my sympathies to all concerned. Let us all learn from it. However, let's not start another round of "quick turnround = unsafe" style discussions!
The continual attack on quick turnrounds per se (based solely on turnround time rather than amount of handling activity) becomes very wearing after a while.
Take a 'traditional' airline's 737 turnround, surrounded by catering vehicles, cleaners, freight (including animals, hazardous cargo), change of cabin config, and a cast of thousands, etc. etc. Now try and squeeze that down to 20 minutes and, yes, you have a dangerous situation.
However, strip out a lot of the unnecessary elements and simplify it to a 'passengers and baggage' only operation ("low cost"), with minimal ramp activity, and IF PROPERLY CONDUCTED this is no more dangerous, and probably in some cases inherantly safer, than the more complex and congested turnround.
I don't know the circumstances of this tragic accident, and my sympathies to all concerned. Let us all learn from it. However, let's not start another round of "quick turnround = unsafe" style discussions!