Considering this Picture, do you guys wear full harness?

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:36 pm

When doing runups?

KISS_MY_TCAS · Post by **KISS_MY_TCAS** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:42 am

Interesting question. I started wearing full harness about a year ago after an aircraft broke free during a full power runup. Not because I thought I would be injured, but why not make it easier to grab the throttles and yank them back when something unexpected happens, a lot easier when you are restrained. Haven't hit the ditch or any other object yet, but I am getting ready for it, seems a likely possibility where I work due to aircraft vs. brakes vs. lazy airport staff in the winter. Oddly enough, this wreck occurred due to the oversight that the parking brake was not set, I have found myself in the same situation in the past, very surprising on a night shift when you snap the throttles open, the element of surprise magnifies the situation tenfold. Unfortunate for the crew in France, but I think they send a pretty strong message to the rest of us.

dashx · Post by **dashx** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:28 pm

Mon dieu.....

Better get ze plonck.

Hey didn't Airbus pull some of those photos? Claiming copyright something or other....

Oh wait.. tabernac....

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:41 pm

I do, and I'm usually in a floatplane...

jetdoc · Post by **jetdoc** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:14 pm

"Oddly enough, this wreck occurred due to the oversight that the parking brake was not set"

I would not jump to conclusions about the parking brake not being set, Airbus planes have a great feature, during a run up if you manage to pull the right breakers and put the aircraft in "flight mode" it doesnt matter what you do with the parking brake or thrust levers, the brakes are off and the power goes high. Just what happened to Canadian Airlines in YVR many years ago.

Makes a good case for full harness when pulling any kind of power!

The Other Kind · Post by **The Other Kind** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:34 pm

No time on a 'bus so forgive me, but you're saying that even if a certified glorified big bus 4-bar hot shot had been strapped into the seat and he retarded the throttles to idle and hit the brakes with a few specific breakers pulled, the airplane would/might/possibly have said......Uhhhmmmm, no - we're givin 'er?

Wow, we really are becoming monkeys...

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:18 am

Makes a good case for full harness when pulling any kind of power!

I think it makes a good case for how dumb it is to spool an airplane’s engines to full power in a confined area between blast fences unless you chain that mother down.

If I was these guys I definitely wouldn’t “firewall” the power levers with any obstacles in front of me. They should have conducted this test on a runway or a long taxiway.

carholme · Post by **carholme** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:36 am

CID:

Seems that Tolouse may not agree with you

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.p ... tcount=142

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:33 pm

carholme,

Your link shows a picture of an enclosed run-up area that is suitable for full engine run-ups. It says nothing about securing the airplane in place.

Confined run-up areas for large aircraft typically include tie-down provisions. When you're doing a brake check with no tie-downs you're just asking for trouble if you do it in a confined space.

All in all, "Tolouse" may not in fact agree with me, but I don't have a written off A340 either. THEY do and they could have avoided it if they did this check in an unconfined area or had some other sort of restraint.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:53 pm

CID wrote:
Makes a good case for full harness when pulling any kind of power!
I think it makes a good case for how dumb it is to spool an airplane’s engines to full power in a confined area between blast fences unless you chain that mother down.

If I was these guys I definitely wouldn’t “firewall” the power levers with any obstacles in front of me. They should have conducted this test on a runway or a long taxiway.

Just shows that you have never run an airplane.. People run airplanes safely every day without problems.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:17 am

Twotter,

You make no sense. But then again why start now huh? Anyone who thinks its OK to run a large aircraft at full power in a confined space without properly restraining it is a Moron. Oh wait. I forgot who I was discussing this with.

Remember way back when a similar thing happened when a Toronto maintenance crew ran up an A310? It mated with the hangar in front of it.

John Bull · Post by **John Bull** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:28 pm

Last time I saw anything tied down it was on floats.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:47 pm

Last time I saw anything tied down it was on floats.

I don't recall ever seeing any large airliners on floats.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:21 pm

CID wrote:Twotter,

You make no sense. But then again why start now huh? Anyone who thinks its OK to run a large aircraft at full power in a confined space without properly restraining it is a Moron. Oh wait. I forgot who I was discussing this with.

Remember way back when a similar thing happened when a Toronto maintenance crew ran up an A310? It mated with the hangar in front of it.

Actually CID,

The incident which you are refering to happened at the Canadian hangar at YVR. Nothing to do with being unrestrained, had a lot to do with avionics having brain farts.

As for running in a confined space, all run areas are confined by the edge of the pavement. Most aircraft will go to full power on at least 1 engine without sliding. I have on occasion many years ago run up Trent 772's to full 71,100 lbs thrust without doing any harm to the airplane or myself.

So, for anyone with any experience in running an airplane, they will quickly realize what little (none) experience you bring to the table of this discussion.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:58 pm

As for running in a confined space, all run areas are confined by the edge of the pavement. Most aircraft will go to full power on at least 1 engine without sliding. I have on occasion many years ago run up Trent 772's to full 71,100 lbs thrust without doing any harm to the airplane or myself.

That's not what happened in the incident in question. You can chirp all you want but I stand by what I said. I have plenty of experience in this matter. Of course that doesn't matter to you. You don't care much about logic and facts.

Whatever the cause, if they weren't in a confined space or if they were restrained, the outcome would have been much different. And with much less financial loss.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:04 pm

CID wrote:
As for running in a confined space, all run areas are confined by the edge of the pavement. Most aircraft will go to full power on at least 1 engine without sliding. I have on occasion many years ago run up Trent 772's to full 71,100 lbs thrust without doing any harm to the airplane or myself.
That's not what happened in the incident in question. You can chirp all you want but I stand by what I said. I have plenty of experience in this matter. Of course that doesn't matter to you. You don't care much about logic and facts.

Whatever the cause, if they weren't in a confined space or if they were restrained, the outcome would have been much different. And with much less financial loss.

OK now little boy, why don't you go back to playing with your Flight Sim program and reading your manuals. You leave the airplanes to the real men/women who know that they are doing..

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:34 pm

I don't mind it when you sling your bullshit on AvCanada twotter. At least its one of the few times you're on the computer with your pants on and more than one free hand.

shimmydampner · Post by **shimmydampner** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:30 pm

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:07 am

Aside from the razzing, appreciate the replies

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:38 am

CID wrote:I don't mind it when you sling your bullshit on AvCanada twotter. At least its one of the few times you're on the computer with your pants on and more than one free hand.

Now CID, even for you that's a little low. I would expect a little better from a legend in his own mind.

How do you know I had my pants on? Were you peeking?

Your juvenile banter is hillarious, you can't reply because you've never run an airplane. How can you come on here and preach like a fool if you have never done the job? Don't try to bullshit people because there are those of us out there that will catch you.

Like I said, go back to your books and your flight sim. Maybe mommy will bring you a nice cup of cocoa to your basement.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:49 am

Now CID, even for you that's a little low.

Yah, but not quite down to your level. In particular, making outlandish unsubstantiated claims.

I guess some will never learn.

kevin cantin · Post by **kevin cantin** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:02 am

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE
SUBJECT: A340-600 - MSN 856 - ACCIDENT IN PRODUCTION OUR REF.: F-WWCJ AIT 2 DATED 20th OF NOVEMBER 2007 PREVIOUS REF: F-WWCJ AIT 1 DATED 16th OF NOVEMBER 2007

THIS AIT IS AN UPDATE OF PREVIOUS AIT N°1 CONCERNING THE A340-600 PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT MSN 856 INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT IN AIRBUS PRODUCTION FACILITIES IN TOULOUSE ON THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2007 AT 17:00 LOCAL TIME.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS ACCORDING TO THE RECORDERS, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY THE FRENCH INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES (BEA).

FOR ABOUT 3 MINUTES BEFORE THE END OF THE EVENT, ALL FOUR ENGINES EPR WAS BETWEEN 1.24 AND 1.26 WITH PARKING BRAKE ON AND WITHOUT GROUND CHOCKS.
THE ALTERNATE BRAKE PRESSURE WAS NORMAL. (WITH PARKING BRAKE ON, BRAKE PRESSURE IS SUPPLIED BY ALTERNATE).

13 SECONDS BEFORE THE IMPACT THE AIRCRAFT STARTED TO MOVE. WITHIN 1 OR 2 SECONDS THE CREW APPLIED BRAKE PEDAL INPUTS AND SELECTED PARKING BRAKE OFF. THESE ACTIONS LED THE NORMAL BRAKE PRESSURE TO INCREASE TO ITS NORMAL VALUE.

2 SECONDS PRIOR BEFORE THE IMPACT, ALL 4 ENGINE THRUST LEVERS WERE SELECTED TO IDLE.
THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTED THE CONTAINMENT WALL AT A GROUND SPEED OF 30 KTS.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY AIRCRAFT SYSTEM OR ENGINE MALFUNCTION.
AIRBUS REMINDS ALL OPERATORS TO STRICTLY ADHERE TO AMM PROCEDURES WHEN PERFORMING ENGINE GROUND RUNS
ENGINE GROUND RUNS AT HIGH POWER ARE NORMALLY CONDUCTED ON A SINGLE ENGINE WITH THE ENGINE IN THE SAME POSITION ON THE OPPOSITE WING OPERATED AT A LIMITED THRUST SETTING TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE AIFRAME
WHEEL CHOCKS ARE TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE TEST.
YANNICK MALINGE
VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY
AIRBUS

normally you might not power up all four engines at once you usually test one engine at a time and like the report says bring up the opposite symmetrical engine. easy to second guess after

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:33 pm

Some poor bastard is out of a job for sure then if they didn't follow procedures.

ourkid2000 · Post by **ourkid2000** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:38 pm

I don't understand what happened here really. I'm not going to pretend I know what I'm talking about but I've seen tons of high powered run ups here in Halifax and never seen a problem.

Canjet is always doing runs in front of their hangar and all they use are steel wheel chocks all around with the brakes set.

Air Canada does theirs in front of their hangar with the same setup but they have a blast wall set up.

I've never seen any kind of restraints. One question though......how is it easier to grab the throttles if you are restrained? I'm not experience with this and i'm curious how having the belts done up will help you.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:30 pm

ourkid2000,

The main difference here is that they ran up all four engines to full power. The guys you see running up airplanes are very likely doing one (or two to balance) engines at a time.