Engine Run-up Accident

[pelmet]

Happens every once in a while. Remember when Canadian smashed an A-310 into a Hangar in YVR. Can't find any pics of it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comme ... ks_in_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviationmainte ... er_global/

[oldncold]

Prospective owner > could my company take the next one on the assembly line. Lol

That serial# going to need a big big discount

[Capt. Underpants]

Reminds me of the brand new Etihad A340-600 that jumped a blast fence barrier in Toulouse, France during an engine runup.

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a340-wr ... -delivery/

[pelmet]

Bombardier had another run-up accident a few years ago....

https://x.com/bizjets101/status/1791608265500975482

[Eric Janson]

I'm guessing all these accidents had Engineers at the controls - not Pilots.

At my company Engineers are not allowed to taxi or do run ups - has to be a Pilot in the seat.

I've been called out several times to do taxi tests/run ups over the years.

It's a smart policy imho.

[goingnowherefast]

Or train mechanics to properly do engine runs and taxi the plane?

I've been called out to run planes too, but it was because properly trained mechanics weren't available. Train mechanics to run the planes and that leaves pilots free to fly them.

[Eric Janson]

Or train mechanics to properly do engine runs and taxi the plane?

I've been called out to run planes too, but it was because properly trained mechanics weren't available. Train mechanics to run the planes and that leaves pilots free to fly them.

Engineers are equally busy repairing aircraft - there's also a shortage of them at the moment.

Probably varies from company to company but there is a lot of training required to certify a Engineer for this.

I know of companies that give Sim training to Engineers to enable them to taxi - it has to be re-validated periodically. Expensive and time consuming.

I'm smart enough to say "No" when asked to set high thrust on all 4 Engines simultaneously with the just the brakes set.

I also know to turn the parking brake selector "Off" to recover normal braking. That's an airbus 'gotcha'!

Any Engineers here? I'd like to hear your views.

[itsgrosswhatinet]

Your company sounds pretty wise, Eric. Think of the money Bombardier saved by not having to pay a pilot though! It's got to be more than the $100m they lost wrecking two of these things. The execs should give themselves another bonus.

[YYCAME]

At most companies the AME's do the maintenance ground runs, and is a pretty standard practice. Like anywhere though the quality of training and the amount of experience can vary greatly which can lead to dangerous situations. Accidents are more likely when someone who hasn't run an aircraft in a year is suddenly put in the situation at 4AM and needs to make all the correct choices when it comes fuel load, run up area contamination/ice etc and are being pressured to get it done quickly. When workers are empowered to err on the side of caution and given the requested training/tools you are just less likely to have these things happen. Pilots also have more legal protection in terms of demanding certain levels of training then AMEs or refusing work. In addition in the maintenance environment you are more likely experience unexpected scenarios since you are troubleshooting snags and verifying that work was done correctly. I'm sure it's similar to the increased rate of incidents when pilots are flying into new destinations and have increased workload due to multiple unexpected conditions that distract and take up crew attention. 99% of the time though it's not a big deal, and a normal part of our duties. Since you mention Airbus's Eric, on the A319-321 the park brake is never used for a high powered run since it isn't rated to hold the aircraft at those levels which can be very annoying when you have to stand on the pedals for 15 minutes while trying to do a balancing run at mid to high power settings. Your attention can easily be divided between monitoring the outside aircraft conditions and the instruments if you don't have a good division of responsibility or are discussing what certain numbers might indicate from a maintenance perspective.

In short, every night aircraft are being taxied and run by AMEs across the country and that has been a normal practice for decades with the usual amount of cautionary tales floating around. You would have to discuss specific scenarios to understand whether these accidents were preventable. For example, an aircraft coming out of a maintenance check jumped the chocks and destroyed a ground power cart and itself a number of years ago due to failure to bleed the brake systems and that accident would have occurred regardless of who was at the controls. Or another situation where the airport authority directed the run up to occur at a location where due to wind direction the aircraft tail was inadvertently positioned over softer asphalt of a runaway adjacent service road that ended up pulling up and destroying the horizontal stab when high levels of thrust were used.

[Daniel Cooper]

It's possible an pilot with experience on type could feel the difference in the brakes through pedal feel. It's possible a pilot that flew in developing areas could know high power settings over loose surface can cause aircraft damage.

I'm not questioning if AMEs are capable btw. In some instances you can get in an accident simply due to poor training.

Pilots have no special legal rights either, we all have the same. The right to know hazards, the right to participate, the right to refuse, and the right to protection against reprisal. We only ever remember the right to refuse though!

[goingnowherefast]

In the rare occasion I am asked to help with a maintenance run, I'm always very cautious because I know there's additional hazards. What does the AMM say we need to do? What does the airport authority say about it? What's behind the aircraft? What systems have been worked on and we should also be wary of?

Maybe it's because the mechanics are more comfortable in this sort of environment, I often feel the "what are you worrying about, let's get this done" sorta push from the AMEs. I'm not accustomed to reading and following AMM procedures. Give me a few minutes to read it thoroughly. My high power environment is the runway threshold and airborne. Once I'm away from there, I'm considering whats happening to all that wind behind the plane. A CRJ has destroyed a whole hangar in dramatic fashion. Maybe the surface is contaminated and I'm on edge to pull the levers to idle?

One of my pet peeves is "is it good enough? Does it meet your standard?" How about does it meet the AMM and 43.13 and other standards of airworthiness? Don't dump liability on me because "a pilot said it was okay".

I've never recieved pushback from a chief pilot or otherwise about being cautious over maintenence engine runs. I'd rather not do it than do it wrong and break something else.

[Eric Janson]

@YYCAME

Thanks for the feedback - some very valid points.