Sunday, June 16, 2013

VIDEO: Bombardier aircraft crashes into airport hangar during engine test

A Canadair Bombardier Challenger crashes into airport hangarEngine tests are usually considered non-eventful in the aviation industry – they’re basically a routine task that happens behind the scenes.

However, a recent engine test in California was far from non-eventful. In fact, it’s being covered by international media for all the wrong reasons.

During this particular engine test, a Canadair Bombardier Challenger aircraft was placed on a ramp at Chino Airport, with rubber stops in place to prevent the business jet from moving.

Unfortunately, it rolled over the rubber stops and eventually crashed into a hangar. The photo on this page shows the severity of the incident, and there’s video footage below too.

MORE VIDEOS: Unbelievable footage of China airport worker's terrible cargo handling

After the crash, there were obvious concerns about a fuel leak, which led to various evacuations in nearly structures and buildings. As a precaution, a team of fire-fighters and at least four ambulances rushed to the scene.

Thankfully there was no fuel leak and nobody was injured, not even the three mechanics who were onboard the aircraft at the time.

"The plane was chalked on the ramp area while undergoing an engine run-up test. At some point, the plane jumped the chalks and ran into the hangar,” commented Ian Gregor, spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration, in a statement. "The plane was not intended for flight."

What are your thoughts on the story? Leave your comments below and don’t forget to like The Aviation Writer’s Facebook page to keep updated on the latest aviation photos, videos and stories. Click here to visit.

MORE VIDEOS: Impact of severe turbulence filmed on Singapore Airlines flight

47 comments :

  1. Adulfo Cko GironJune 16, 2013 at 5:09 PM

    Looks like lots and lots of paper work..!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The pilot knew that us engineers are eager to work on aircraft, so he parked it directly into hangar but forgot to bring auto gate sensor! Haha!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oopss.....safety first......... Indeed :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. They could have left the landing gear prox sensor targets in, then the aircraft would behave like it's in flight - no brakes - no thrust reversers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Airbus completes test flight without any problems. Meanwhile, at Bombardier......

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder if the FAA must reconsider the minimum distance that the ground run parking must have from the hangars.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Juditha-Jade ParkinsonJune 16, 2013 at 8:16 PM

    I like the statement of Mr Ian Gregor, the spokesman for FAA "the plane was not intended for flight". So, why did the engine test if it was not intended for flight? 

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fail! This Is Why They Should Do An Engine Test Near The Runway!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Where was the testing tech? A test is always attended. Brakes could have been applied immediately when it ran over the rubber stops. They ran an engine test unattended and in front of the hanger. I think someone is out of a job.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That is why Airbus made chocks higher than mlg wheel hubs ... after a deadly event.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh my gosh!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Three mechanics on board and no one knows where the brakes are?

    I guess no one knows how to steer it either since it looks as though they could have avoided the hanger if they had steered left instead of right. Good help must be getting hard to find...

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is not an isolated incident. About 25 years ago an ATR42-300 on engine power run ups rolled and crashed into a B707-320. Investigations revealed that the air/ground switch was inadvertently selected to air thus aircraft brakes were OFF. An Airbus on run ups at Toulouse factory also rolled off blocks and crashed into the hangar. Answer: Strictly follow the check list.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nairobi Kenya, a Jetlink CRJ did the same thing a few years back! Separation of the thrust lever caused the engine to maintain max thrust. The Captain had no idea how to shut it down after hitting the hangar after landing and taxiing so he punched out the over head and left the first officer in the airplane until maintenance arrived to shut down the motor, as it still was running at max thrust!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Like a good horse, it could not wait to go back to the barn.

    ReplyDelete
  16. She wanted to go back to the hangar ... maybe she forget something from the last check... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Robeel, I've worked on Challengers many years and I can only assume that only the #1 engine was running.

    The tech failed to turn system two or three on to supply hydraulic pressure to the brakes and nose wheel steering.

    Engine # 1 does not provide hydraulics to brakes or steering.

    Engine #2 provide hydraulic power to outboard brakes.

    System #3 provides hydraulic power to both inboard brakes and steering. ( A/C motor driven pump)

    I hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just thought of one more scenario. If the WOW system is inhibited in "air-mode" then the anti-skid system would dump all hydraulic pressure to the brakes. But this means that all WOW switches would have to be manually inhibited. Human error.

      Delete
  18. William (Barry) HubbardJune 18, 2013 at 7:34 PM

    Isn't the first time its happened and probably won't be the last. High power runs need lots of space in front in case it jumps the chocks...

    ReplyDelete
  19. One would assume that the proper procedures were not followed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh Boy! That's a really bad day!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Khan Tariq MahmudJune 19, 2013 at 8:47 AM

    I have been working in one of the airline M.C.C. and what I know is that engine run are carried out in designated open areas,if proper procedures would have carried out that might have saved the loss of property. This incident may be a lesson for avoid future mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Happened with a Jetlink CRJ operating a flight for RwandAir in 2009....aircraft rammed into the presidential pavilion engine max thrust.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Precaution!, check list!, procedures!

    ReplyDelete
  24. These things happen, if we knew all the reasons / contributory factors we wouldn't be spending so much time on HF and SMS development.

    If anyone had all the answers they would be millionaires by now! We just need to keep moving forward with these issues....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joseph SakhariyaJune 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM

    Manufacturer or T.C. Holder might have issued certain procedures before engine test. It looks like the responsible person/ Engineer failed to follow in this case...............

    We will wait for the investigation to complete.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sounds as if the wheels weren't chocked properly, and the engines were wound up too fast and to too high a power setting. Only happened to me once, had the aircraft parked facing the airfield, and selected nozzles down on a Harrier with too many revs, went airborne just long enough to clear the chocks. Never did any more nozzle checks unless the aircraft was tied down correctly. There is no such thing as a short cut.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The comments on the article are pretty enlightening. Possibility of non-functional hydraulic systems could explain inoperative brakes and steering. It also highlights the importance of the correct type of chocks to be used during a ground run. The lightweight chocks one usually find in pilot shops are definitely not suitable for ground runs. These require solid rubber chocks of a specified dimension. Brings an incident to mind where a turboprop was run with hollow wooden chocks, which caved in at high power despite use of parking brakes during the run.

    ReplyDelete
  28. When did this happen? Trying to find the NTSB report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There probably isn't one - the NTSB doesn't investigate incidents where the aircraft is not planned to fly.

      Delete
  29. As a training Cadet for a Leading Corporate Aviation Company, I must say Paul is probably right so is Rick. If I personally owned a Jet of this type aircraft, I would prepare for short circuit flights with the Maintenance Engineering lot on board so as to demonstrate the correct procedures. These machines are Dynamic at capacity,thus you would not know all unless you take notes during flight mode.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I wonder if they had taped the targets or left the wow fake out clips in. That would disable the brake system. Or they could have been complacent and not had the parking brake on as a backup to the chocks. A hanger in Ohio was hit by an airlines EMB 145 when mechanics forgot to set the brakes and it jumped the chocks.

    Another slide for the Human Factors training class.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Luiz Carlos dos santosJune 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM

    This pilot have a licence?

    ReplyDelete
  32. A Challenger with both engines at power and light on fuel will jump chalks. I don't think an NTSB report will be issued because this was not a safety of flight incident or had human loss.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Looks more like pure jackassery. One would know to put the power lever in reverse to stop the aircraft from hitting the hanger. They must have been taking some good drugs LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  34. SMS as a one of business process tool; is related audit and improve procedures. In this case, is there any tasks following the Engine Run work order?

    I am not familiar with the aircraft, assume that the engine run not activate the hydraulic system, or hydraulic system fail, and the parking brake is only rely on system backup, only accumulator?, Unfortunately the pressure not enough to hold the brake system?, and the aircraft will jump as we saw in the picture.

    Remember, the incident or accident is only happened by two mistake consecutively!, The aircraft is fine, have anything fit docs; the problem is Human. To avoid the mistake than the company must employ SMS. the all fit certificates is a part of "The aircraft".

    Am I wrong comment?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I already see lot of technical comments are given by experts in the industry. Investigate whether the crash occurred due to human factor or otherwise. Take corrective action to prevent such occurrences in future.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anyone remember the challenger written off at KLGB during engine runs or the airbus that was totally destroyed prior to delivery during engine runs prior to delivery?

    ReplyDelete
  37. It is actually surprising how often similar happens. Many jets will actually slide on locked wheels (or jump chocks) during a two-engine run-up. During certification testing of Learjet 45, we had this happen several times (without the hangar in the way). The key is to make sure that the airplane is pointed in a safe direction during test, and this is why I can't think of any regular maintenance run-up that would require both engines to be run-up. Single engine run-ups should only be an issue if you've messed up other procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Running both engines at full power while facing the hangar or what???, as M.R. RAO says in his comment, we should advice our colleagues in our lovely field to always take corrective safety measures; and lets all ensure that this should be last incident in the history of aviation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If this was indeed a multiple-engine runup, was there no SOP for taxiing out of the line to conduct it? That both validates that taxi checks are complete (i.e. brake systems functioning) and removes the possibility of, well...this incident happening.

    ReplyDelete
  40. If you look in the video and put stop at 0:04 you can see the wheels rubber marks on the ramp, which means the wheels were locked by brakes and the hydraulics system was on.

    Also the wheel marks are straight pointing into the hangar which means both engines were running. Also the ramp's jet deflectors are positioned in such a manner that the standard engine run-up is performed facing the hangar, which this is itself is a procedural error.

    I've done numerous engine run-ups but never put both engines at take-off power, even if parking brakes and hydraulics were on. Always the testing should be done one engine at a time, one at full power the other at idle. And the ramps where we performed such tests had the jet deflectors towards an empty field and were positioned such that the nose of the aircraft was towards a taxi runway for preventing events such as this.

    ReplyDelete
  41. He must be playing a LOT OF GTA! :P

    ReplyDelete
  42. Pulled the circuit breaker? Owtch!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Most of the bigger jets I have ran, the maintenance manual has a warning or caution not to run the engines to power in together. It would seem if you have an engine run/taxi program part of your training should include an overview of the AMM and if possible the flight operations manual. Just an observation as I have no access to this particular companies SOP.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Engine pass, brake fail; elementary my dear Watson.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "chalks"? "nearly structures"? Can no one spell?

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...