Thats probably the same attitude that cost that man his life. The 737 and 777 are exceptionally dangerous and require extra caution compared to other aircraft.
Man killed on ramp in ELP
- Thread starter allunionsdeceive
- Start date
Any aircraft with an engine hanging off the wing is exceptionally dangerous to be around during a maintaince run up. The 737 and the 777 are just two of many. Do you really think this mechanic just sluffed off that fact ? We all make mistakes and unfortunately this guy made a mistake that cost many people dearly.
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
At 64 years of age I would think that Mr. Buchanan had been in aviation for a while. Having an engine screaming at take-off power while standing next to it doesn't take a high degree of awareness of the dangers present. However, working for one of the "airline's suppliers" which is operating cheaper than CO would if they had their own AMTs a very common question to ask is if this AMT was being rushed, was he working safely, etc. I am not blaming anyone for this tragedy without knowing exactly what the scenario was. But these are questions that should be asked so the same loss of life does not repeat itself.
Those two are exceptionally dangerous compared to the others, all are dangerous but the zone from which you are at risk of being sucked in from in front of or even behind the leading edge of the inlet is larger with those two aircraft. So someone used to working on a 757, 767 or A-300 etc could get themselves into trouble if they act like its the same. That makes it exceptionally dangerous.
When I went to training on the 737 the instructor, who was teaching a class where the average experience was around 25 years said "if you learn nothing else from this class remember this, STAY AWAY FROM THOSE ENGINES when they are running, they are not the same as all the rest". But I suppose you know more than them.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
what makes the engines on the 777 and 737 different than from the 757/767? as well as the airbus models?
The danger zones are larger.
But why is that?
The 737 I can understand, as it's engines are closer to the ground than on probably any other jet aircraft. But why the 757? Aren't it's engines the exact (or nearly) same height above the ground as the engines on a 767?
corl737
Veteran
- Jun 13, 2005
- 565
- 6
Here is the link to the NTSB's preliminary report:
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060131X00140&key=1
Mr. Buchanan was a well respected mechanic in El Paso and performed contract maintenance for many of the airlines serving that airport. He was also the mechanic for a good friend of mine who runs a flight school in El Paso. She relays this additional information from eye witnesses:
While the 737's engine was running at 70% (not "takeoff power") the other mechanic's hat was pulled toward the engine inlet. Mr. Buchanan reached forward to try and prevent it from being sucked into the engine and, in the process, was pulled off balance and ingested.
-----------------
Personal comment:
While I accept and honor your right to ponder the "union" vs. "contractor" scenario, your expression of that thought without knowing Mr. Buchanan -- especially after admitting to not "knowing exactly what the scenario was" -- is a very distasteful exhibition. It is sad to think that a union may intend to use this tragedy as a tool to further their own agenda.
corl737
Veteran
- Jun 13, 2005
- 565
- 6
I had a nice message offline from Mr. MacTiernan. After hearing a rephrasing of his thoughts I accept that his focus was determining the cause of the tragedy in hopes that it would never be repeated again. His concern was genuine and has caused me to rescind my initial angst toward his comments.
Still, I do wish that everyone would get off the "union" vs. "outsourced" theme that immediately poisons nearly every message thread. The tone of these forums has been one of bashing anyone that didn't hold a union card thus I was led to interpret Ken's comments in this light. I apologize publicly to him - and the true union professionals - who know that safety knows no affiliation.
-- Corl
Still, I do wish that everyone would get off the "union" vs. "outsourced" theme that immediately poisons nearly every message thread. The tone of these forums has been one of bashing anyone that didn't hold a union card thus I was led to interpret Ken's comments in this light. I apologize publicly to him - and the true union professionals - who know that safety knows no affiliation.
-- Corl
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
Corl, thank you. Reading a post from someone it can be difficult to get an exact "feel" for that person. That is one reason I do not use an alias.
When the terrible accident happened to Mr. Buchanan not one person at work here thought about if he was unionized or not. Our initial thoughts were sadness and grief. We are all AMTs and can understand the possibilities of tragedy striking at any time. Our prayers do not stop after one week, or two or even three. Our profession is a tight family of professionals and the loss of one if felt throughout.
O.K...let's get the violins out. No really, I agree with both of these posters here. A total, undeniable tragedy.
Who said anything about "knowing more than them", although it appears you know my whole background. I seriously doubt this gentelman was "used" to working on a 757, 767 or A-300 as you put it. More like he was "used" to working on the 737 or maybe an MD-80.
I never said he was use to working on those other aircraft, my guess is that he was more experienced with smaller aircraft which would make it even more critical that he be trained on the hazards of the 737.
As stated in a previous post,Buchanan was reaching for a cap blown off another mech's hat.
That is instinctive, both to catch the darn thing and maybe to prevent FOD damage.
What should be stressed is not to wear caps around running engines, nor have loose stuff in your pocket, yeah those engines can be pickpockets too, and keep track of headsets, etc. My AF training still showing thru?
No one is immune to lapses of situational awareness, just try to remember where you are, and the engine is less important than a person.
What I would be asking.. Why were they doing a 70% engine run at the gate to begin with? A CFM-56 engine at idle will not have sucked that guy into it. Don't know if this part is true, but we heard from the FAA report, they were doing this engine turn, with passengers on board. What would have they done if the engine had a fire?
