Originally posted by Lipstick
We're shown a film of this happening in training. But the bloke survived!
Right, I read the thread about this on a.net... last time I looked, it was quite reverent and hadn't degenerated into A vs. B or anything like that.
As Lipstick says, the threat of ingestion into a running engine is made very clear during training.
The 737 is especially dangerous because it's engines are mounted so close to the ground, and on the shorter models, the -600 and -500, also very close to the nose gear.
Apparently, whether you can survive an ingestion or not depends on the engine type. Some engines, like the old Pratt JT8Ds on the 737-200, have a grid of guide vanes in front of the fan, which can stop something as big as a person being ingested.
Newer engines, like the CFMs on the later 737s, don't have the "grid" of fixed metalwork, so being sucked directly onto the spinning fan and through the engine is a real danger, as we saw demonstrated this week. Poor chap, at least it was quick.
It was also interesting to note differences in procedure between airlines and between the UK and US with respect to things like airstarts (being started using a compressed airhose, usually because your APU is inop). It seems that the UK airlines may have slightly safer procedures in place to protect their staff around running engines.
Finally, a pic which sums it up. While this is from a primarily GA airfield, so it's mostly prop aircraft, though there's about 4-5 737 movements a day now as well, this
sign (clicky) puts the dangers of an active apron forward in an unambiguous way.
(This sign is on the walkway between the grass parking for visiting light aircraft and the apron exit at Blackpool.)
Mike
P.S. There was some conjecture whether the EMB 170/190 will pose the same ingestion threat as the 737, as it is similarly low to the ground and has low-slung engines.
