SQ B777 Engine destroyed during taxi
 

A costly little mistake.

Seems "all clear left" was missed or miscalculated :eek:

Video


News article

A little embarrassing, but please allow some curiosity from a non-aviation engineering person; who would be ultimately responsible for something like this? I assume the aircraft would be guided into the slot by somebody on the ground, or do the crew roll up to the point without guidance? (I'm not advocating either, I don't have the knowledge to make any judgements here).

SQ B777 Engine destroyed during taxi
 

I believe the receiving engineer (or ground handler in other airlines) does a walk around the gate area looking for FOD and I'm assuming ground equipment clearance.

But then again the PIC might be ultimately responsible since he's in command. It was on his side too!

if the gate has one of those automated taxi guidance indicators then I assumed it was up to the crew to check that the big area their aircraft is manoeuvring into was all clear? :confused:

Fortunately, it was at base hence the disruption could be kept at a minimum.

It was an empty ULD (Unit Load Device), basically an aluminium and/or plastic container used to transport luggage or freight on the aircraft.

Firstly, it shouldn't have been sitting where it was. The luggage dollies should have been cleared from the bay, for a start. So the baggage handlers are at fault.

Secondly, it should have been noted as a potential hazard before the aircraft arrived. The engineer receiving the aircraft should have carried out a FOD check of the bay, keeping in mind that even an item the size of a ULD is FOD is sucked into an engine or impacted by any other part of the aircraft. The engineer should then have ensured the aircraft didn't attempt to enter the bay until it was clear. I won't bore you, Heidhurtin, with details on how. Suffice to say there are various ways to warn incoming aircraft that the bay isn't clear. So the engineer is partly to blame.

Thirdly, the pilots themselves should make a visual assessment of the bay as they approach to ensure that it looks clear. So the pilots are partly to blame.

Who is ultimately to blame? My two cents is that, until the aircraft shuts down and the chocks are in, the aircraft is the responsibility of the pilot in command. Once its shut down and chocks are in, the engineer takes responsibility.

As we all learn in our human factors training, looks like the holes in James Reason's Swiss Cheese lined up that day.

Hyperboles"R"Us
 

Really? The bin would have bounced around the intake and against the spinner, possibly also against fan blades, but that's about it.

Every parkingspot on an international airport should have lines showing which area should be clear of obstacles (cars, pushback equipment, loading equipment.

It is up to the pilots to check if their parkingspot is clear of obstacles when taxiing in. But then again this is dependant on aircraft-size and how well-marked the parking spot is.

I fly the A319/A320 and on many international airports there are loading-cars parked on the area between the parking positions. Within the markings, but well clear of the engines and wing. But again, these are WITHIN the markings.

Once the cockpit has passed the gate, there is no visual anymore with that side of the aircraft. You have to have good judgement on how big your aircraft is, incl distance and power of your engines. The ULD may have been clear of the aircraft, but maybe due some extra power was still sucked into the engine....

At LHR are some fixed bridges that can only move in one direction towards the aircraft. That means that our engines come really close to this fixed structure (1,5 m) without us having visual with it. We have to trust the guide-in system.

Could it be that the guide-in system was programmed for the -300 instead of the shorter -200???

Could it be that the aircraft rolled to far, and thus sucking the ULD into it's engine?

Could it be that the aircraft slowed down to early and needed some extra power on the engines to roll forward, sucking in everything that would normally be no factor?

I would'nt start blaming anyone at all! No-one would like to make this mistake on purpose. First let's find out some facts before bashing anyone.

Just out of curiosity, should not the PF (or taxiing) or the Capt stopped the taxi, it isn't as if one of them is small and hard to see and is on the Capt's side so could (?) have been spotted (or is visibility that poor when on the ground)

Well hello, Sherlock! Is it monday morning there?

Commanders responsibility.

Simply staggering that anyone would continue to taxi onto stand with a box sitting right there.

OK, someone had left the offending article there so had a causal input, but responsibility for that incident?

100% the "captain".

I would have said joint responsibility between the flight crew and the ground staff.


I would suspect it was getting guided in by an electronic system. As such the pilot was probably focused on this rather than observing the area around the aircraft.
As such yes the commander is responsible and should have stopped the taxi. If in doubt, stop and think.


However you can't attribute their blame without accepting that someone left the ULD there (and it certainly wasn't the flight crew), in a area where it poses a threat and shouldn't be in the first place - both unsafe practises.


Working in a ramp maintenance environment my understanding / belief is that safety is everyone's business and as such, blame can't be shifted because 'I wasn't the last one to touch it' or 'someone else should have seen it'.

Normally on a stand like this you're following the guidance system. Whoever switched that on is responsible for clearance and should be in position to hit the stop button if something doesnt look right. Same if the guidance isnt working its the marshaller. Shouldnt be the crews fault as they dont have the visibility on most types to assure clearance on a stand with bridges.

Ultimately, it is the Captain's responsibility.

Whilst the company may delegate tasks to others, the Captain/flight crew are the only ones who can stop all the holes in the cheese lining up and causing the incident.

As a Captain, if I was unhappy about the positioning of items within the marked areas I would stop and question it, getting positive marshalling guidance if necessary.

On some occasions in a smaller aircraft (B737, A320) I would have been happy to continue with things in the marked area, but was forbidden by company/airport procedures - which I respected - albeit frustrated at times.

On other occasions, as a B744 Captain, I would insist that everything was clear, even if a random individual (ie not a qualified marshaller) told me it was ok.

It was my licence and livliehood at the end of the day.

Another possibility; is that, the container could have been blown into the Stand area just as the aircraft entered the stand.

If the empty container was not locked onto it's trailer properly, a gust of wind will easily dislodge it and it could go anywhere!

I didn't understand the language on the video.. But there was mention of
'engein' quite early on. So they must have spotted the danger but not been in a position to do anything about it.

They are not the first to do that.

Delta L1011 a few years back.

http://i25.tinypic.com/sf9u9k.jpg

It might have been nice if Mr Lian the videographer had tried doing a charade for "damn big box in the way" as the cockpit approached. Then again… said cockpit was clearly fitted with large windows.

I'm with One Outsider about "destroyed" - I'm sure it'll be very expensive, but even if the fan chipped off bits of box that flew through the fanciest bits of the engine, I'm sure there'll be plenty of bits and pieces that can be saved.

Heidhurtin

Parking at Aero Bridges can be done in various ways. Originally a marshaller would use little flags with recognised "International" signals, i.e. point at the left wheel if that was the one to be braked,(as in the days of tailwheel aircraft with no nosewheel steering i.e. brake the left wheel to turn left ) and eventually cross the arms over the head to indicate "Stop". In later years there was a system of marker boards, with vertical poles in the manner of "transit" lights that yachts can use to follow the centre line of a channel, were used, i.e. a pair of poles to keep on the centre line, and a pair at the side to indicate where stop, and these were occasionally lights showing through slots, these were on the co-pilot side of course, eventually lights were used, in the manner of traffic lights, and the pilot stopped when the red light showed.

Trouble was every Tom, Dick and Harry had invented their pet system, and so it was a lottery as to which system would be in use at ones' arrival airport - there were many variables. In my opinion the very best was used at Miami, it was just a large mirror positioned so that one could actually see ones' own nosewheel, and guide it easily along the centre line until reaching a stop line, which of course was at different distances in for different aircraft. The KISS method.(Keep It Simple, Stupid )

I imagine that Changi being a modern airport there would be a system that left the whole operation to the pilot, but there should still have been "someone" to leap out and manually stop the aircraft in case of failure of the "auto" system. Dunno.

Ironic that the SIA aircraft had come from Bombay, I recall taxying in at Bombay one night, the “stop markers” for the airbridge were the ones at the side, not directly in front. I eventually asked the co-pilot where the ‘stop’ sign was, and then – “Christ ! we’ve passed it” !!

No damage done, but nearly drove No. 2 engine into the bridge ! The first person on the flight deck was a uniformed “official”. who looked out the side and said - with accompanying head wobbling - “ The lights were on, it wasn’t our fault “ . I agreed, but also told him that there was a whole ground crew waiting around the area, and not one had the sense to step forward and wave his hands. They weren’t meant to of course, so probably wouldn’t have in case they were blamed !!

There is no doubt that the rogue container shouldn't have been where it was, but that's a different issue.

Many years ago at JFK, a Ransome Airlines Nord 262 was taxiing out one dark and windy night. A wheeled luggage cart suddenly surged out of another airline's ramp as they passed by, and struck the Nord behind the wing in the passenger area. I doubt the pilots could even see it. As I recall, there was lengthy litigation about who was responsible for the unsecured cart.
An "act of god?":sad:

Fault is a rather blunt instrument, even if you can bash a few people at once with it. Whilst it will satisfy the vigilante brigade, it's unlikely to prevent re-occurrence. To achieve that you have to understand what going through the minds of the parties involved. To get understanding, you have to speak with them. And who will speak if you might get blamed? It's like the half-witted public howling for a public inquiry to determine how Event XYZ occurred - so they can blame someone. Unfortunately, wherever and whenever there's blame there will be silence or subterfuge.

Emer000 has identified some of the players but there are bound to be more. If each and every one involved were granted freedom from disciplinary measures, which is does not mean no blame, the real reasons for the incident might be revealed.

That's got to suck :}

Another such incident was the JAL 747 at LAX which was taxiing and a baggage train went past a bit too close.

First hit I found was a Daily Mail story.

Always refused to park when there was any sort of item inside the "foul line"...

"Clear on the left everything's behind the line. " Guess this aviator has never flown freight, or looked out of the window to clear the area, with just lip service to calls and probably SOPs as well

Ouch. It's always the Captain's fault (unless he/she can prove otherwise).
As for the engine damage, I'd prefer it to be written off. I wouldn't want an engine on my wing that had history of converting a ULD to CHAFF. Birds do enough damage.
I liked the commentary around the 40 second mark. I only understood two words but I'm sure they were "engine" and "blender".

I couldn't understand most of the video commentary but two words stood out:

"container" and "blender"

Says it all really.

The ULD clearly moved toward the aircraft once the aircraft was parked and therefore was not situated a safe distance from the rotating engine. Ground crew were the first hole in the layer of swiss cheese, followed by flight crew being the next layer who may have thought the clearance was adequate but were unaware that the ULD was empty and would be sucked into the engine.

If the ULD had been loaded, it would no doubt have stayed put (assuming that it was parked where the groundcrew normally leave it) and we wouldn't be discussing it here.

Don't know why it was on the LHS though.

Assuming the captain was following the parking guidance, ignoring who was responsible and who would be responsible if it were to happen again, could the guidance system not scan the protected area to see if anything was there? I mean it is likely something big like a container or vehicle. The technology is surely available!

They put windows in these here flying machines for a reason!
This is twice in one week!

Really? I hope you don't fly planes for a living and are just one of the many uninformed people on this site who wrongly think they know something worth saying about aviation

Delta L1011
 

Oh no! The "I hope you're not a pilot" insult. I'm absolutely devastated now.

But anyway, being a pilot makes you an expert on ULD's in intakes does it? I guess it does since they seem to be the only ones who manages to put them there.
So as a member of the ULD sucking profession is it your expert opinion, based on your ULD sucking experience and a grainy video, that the engine is destroyed?

Then again most pilots know no more about engines than that they become noisier when the throttles go forward and that the little pretty dials then turn clockwise. And that they can be used to vacuum aprons, of course.

As an engineer, not even one with engines as a speciality, I'd want all the front fan blades checked for minute fractures, as well as the disc, plus a really good check of the rest of the blades for impact signs and a really good check on anything else with impact damage. Most of it will likely be intact, but the check and repair cost may well be rather large.

I might not be an engine expert, but I've read up and seen what can happen starting with the tiniest of cracks. If you're lucky you'll just have a blade come off, and it'll all stay in the casing. If you're unlucky, the disc will fracture and it's pot luck on which direction the high-energy debris will exit the side of the engine.

Then I'd let someone else be the first to run it up, both for the ground test and its first flight.

To do a 'Really Good Job' on the engine repair, there is a case to be made for changing BOTH engines...


It avoids any asymmetric thrust problems, and would synchronise the maintenance schedule for the engines.


The plane was most likely in need of an engine change anyway, so do the both whilst it is in the engineering bay. It's a quick fix and the plane is soon back in service.. Any re-usable bits can be held as spares.


Well it is Christmas after all...

I think changing both engines is a bit over the top. And this won't just be an engine change. The front cowling/s and inlet duct are unlikely to have escaped damage. I also thought it was "an engineering thing" to adjust engines, old, new or in-between, so that that they deliver EPR/N1 values which are not only symmetrical engine to engine but also proportional to thrust lever position, thus avoiding throttle stagger. And is it not a "good thing" that engine maintenance schedules are out of sync? This would mean that similar processes would not occur simultaneously, thus avoiding duplication errors. Also time related failures would be minimised and less likely to occur on the same flight. I also can't see how any parts from a broken engine can be re-released as spares without a manufacturer's approval. But there again, I'm not an engineer!

They WONT change both Engines for gods sake!!!

IF they placed a new/refurbished Engine on the Aircraft and the other is older it only means that the older Engine will suffer with regards to EGT margins. Therefore it will have higher fuel flow and EGT for the same EPR/N1.This will be trend monitored by Engineering data downlinks to stay within acceptable limits.

This happens quite a bit and is nothing we've not seen before on our A330's and 777's. :ok:

Engineering quite often place a notice in the front of the maintenance log for info.

If you're going to replace both jetmotors, replace both aviators as well. No sense taking chances. :rolleyes:

Once upon a time,
On a flight line long ago,
An ordnance man held up the safety pins he had just removed from the missile pylons,
And they were promptly sucked out of his hand and down the engine inlet
by the attached fabric streamers.

I had a chance to observe the resulting damage to the engine blading following engine removal.
By far the worst damage was done by the fabric streamers as they caused the blades to untwist as they interfered between rotor and stator blades.

A dissassembled container frequently will contain fabric components, and there is nothing to stop those fabric components from following the airflow.
All you can do is hope that it is only the secondary airflow components that catch the bulk of the FOD because if the core engine catches the FOD, there will be really big $$$$ to pay.

Nice windup, Father Christmas!