Worker ingested into engine
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The air hookup is on lower left, reason for engine #1 being shutdown and #2 kept running till ground power was established.
Ramp worker got ingested by engine #2 in an attempt to open one of the cargo doors.
Like I stayed earlier the air hookup theory is why #1 would have been shutdown.
Ramp worker got ingested by engine #2 in an attempt to open one of the cargo doors.
Like I stayed earlier the air hookup theory is why #1 would have been shutdown.
We have no rules regarding which engine if any is shut down on taxi in, whether APU needs to be started before second engine is shut down or not. Normally we just shut down the one with the least fuel remaining, if they are equal then maybe the one that will assist turning onto stand.
On short taxi-ins (or we occasionally forget), neither engine is shut down before GPU is connected. This has led to rare occasions of the crew shutting down an engine thinking it was (erroneously) the last running engine and completing the shutdown procedure including turning off the anti-collision light. The mistake can take many seconds to notice, a fuel feed error message, or longer, the reading of the shutdown checklist. Also, if the thrust lever isn't fully in idle position, turning the start/stop selector to 'Stop' will not result in the engine shutting down, another potential cause of the anti-coll light being switched off with a still idling engine.
On short taxi-ins (or we occasionally forget), neither engine is shut down before GPU is connected. This has led to rare occasions of the crew shutting down an engine thinking it was (erroneously) the last running engine and completing the shutdown procedure including turning off the anti-collision light. The mistake can take many seconds to notice, a fuel feed error message, or longer, the reading of the shutdown checklist. Also, if the thrust lever isn't fully in idle position, turning the start/stop selector to 'Stop' will not result in the engine shutting down, another potential cause of the anti-coll light being switched off with a still idling engine.
Last edited by MerseyView; 7th Jan 2023 at 15:01.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more figures:
- The human eye does seem to have an angular resolution of 0.013 degrees.
- Bird eyes up to 5 times better, the top-end being the hawks and so. I assume regular birds don't go better than 2 times the human, Though. I'd rather say less, because regular birds do have pretty small eye diameters.
- A rotating engine cone, assume 50 cm diameter, at 200 m (less than 3 times a B777-300ER length) gives an angular resolution of 0.14 degrees.
- To see something "moving" the visible size at the viewer's position should be roughly 10 times higher than the angular resolution of the viewer (yes, it's a bit strange to compare sizes with angular, though one probably gets it).
- Or so to say, the human eye is "just" able to see something moving at that distance, birds may or may not have it a little easier.
- The bird's angular resolution only applies when the light goes straight into the bird's eye, so a head-on (birds have eyes on the side, though birds eyes rotate) can easily reduce the effective angular resolution 5-10 times.
Or so to say, I humbly think, the bird's chances to escape an aircraft on landing/approach, based on seeing the whirling engine cone pattern(s) might be pretty remote. Let alone, the bird needs to have a look somewhat in the direction of the airplane to "see" the whirling engine cone, whirling.
The engine noise and noise of the turbulent airflow around extended flaps/landing gear, as well the enormous statue of an aircraft, might be significantly more impressive than the miniscule whirling engine cone pattern(s), if visible at all due to light conditions.
Feel free to correct.
You really don’t get it do you?
The air hookup is on lower left, reason for engine #1 being shutdown and #2 kept running till ground power was established.
Ramp worker got ingested by engine #2 in an attempt to open one of the cargo doors.
Like I stayed earlier the air hookup theory is why #1 would have been shutdown.
I never stated that it was the case just one of the possibilities till someone said you don’t need air and that’s where the mudslinging started.
The air hookup is on lower left, reason for engine #1 being shutdown and #2 kept running till ground power was established.
Ramp worker got ingested by engine #2 in an attempt to open one of the cargo doors.
Like I stayed earlier the air hookup theory is why #1 would have been shutdown.
I never stated that it was the case just one of the possibilities till someone said you don’t need air and that’s where the mudslinging started.
"So no need for conditioned air? Warm or cold?
No air for ventilation, systems cooling or keeping potable water for the galley available?
Alrighty gotcha.
Well apparently they didn’t listen as that’s exactly what they did."
What I do when I arrive with an inop APU is the same shutdown procedure I use as if the APU gen is working, all that happens is it goes dark in the cabin for a bit. I can't think of anything on board I need to keep powered up which is worth the risk of running an engine with ramp personnel in the vicinity who often don't know we need the GPU prior to shutdown.
What I do when I arrive with an inop APU is the same shutdown procedure I use as if the APU gen is working, all that happens is it goes dark in the cabin for a bit. I can't think of anything on board I need to keep powered up which is worth the risk of running an engine with ramp personnel in the vicinity who often don't know we need the GPU prior to shutdown.
The station can be warned by telex, on the radio etc. in advance about an inop APU. In the 21st Century, plunging my customers into darkness seems a little antiquated, never mind the fact that doing so followed by a complete restart on an electronic aircraft, on a short turnaround, is asking for trouble.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly high levels of training and SOPs for ground handling isn’t universal. In my travels I have witnessed many occasions where ground staff have been stood on stand as an aircraft enters, usually holding chocks or cones. I have even seen an A320 having its MLG being chocked with engines running !!😮
With proper training, there's little risk, most countries in Europe don't even require an APU to be started for ground power to be attached. In fact, the UK is almost the exception and that isn't universal (Norwich).
The station can be warned by telex, on the radio etc. in advance about an inop APU. In the 21st Century, plunging my customers into darkness seems a little antiquated, never mind the fact that doing so followed by a complete restart on an electronic aircraft, on a short turnaround, is asking for trouble.
The station can be warned by telex, on the radio etc. in advance about an inop APU. In the 21st Century, plunging my customers into darkness seems a little antiquated, never mind the fact that doing so followed by a complete restart on an electronic aircraft, on a short turnaround, is asking for trouble.
Sorry but I've had an incident which could have endangered a ramp team member and I will never, ever run that risk again.
- Single engine taxi not authorized with APU inop
- Left engine shutdown at the gate while waiting for GPU (presumably to allow air hookup)
- Right side fatal accident.
I should have rephrased as that is “allegedly” what they did.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sand on the Rocks !
Age: 40
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the GPU attached to the aerobridge or was it an apron based unit. For us the procedure is to shut down #1 and wait for the aerobridge to attach before the engineer plugs in the GPU when the GPU is provided via the bridge
Because so far that has been my (unverified) information.
I should have rephrased as that is “allegedly” what they did.
- Single engine taxi not authorized with APU inop
- Left engine shutdown at the gate while waiting for GPU (presumably to allow air hookup)
- Right side fatal accident.
I should have rephrased as that is “allegedly” what they did.
Because so far that has been my (unverified) information.
I should have rephrased as that is “allegedly” what they did.
- Single engine taxi not authorized with APU inop
- Left engine shutdown at the gate while waiting for GPU (presumably to allow air hookup)
- Right side fatal accident.
I should have rephrased as that is “allegedly” what they did.
From the prelim report it appears:
Ramp worker ignored specific clearance instructions in pre-arrival safety briefing on engines running.
Ignored second 'safety huddle' instructions on remaining clear of ingestion zone.
Was almost blown over by placing cone behind running engine in violation of instructions and policy.
Ignore one or more shouted and physical hand signals to remain clear of the ingestion zone.
Ignored the rotating beacon on the aircraft, indicating 'engines live'.
Ignored the published corp ground operations manual on approaching aircraft with engines running or beacon on.
Ignored the loud noise from the turbine engine.
I'm not sure there is enough that can be done that someone can choose to ignore and violate SOP.
Ramp worker ignored specific clearance instructions in pre-arrival safety briefing on engines running.
Ignored second 'safety huddle' instructions on remaining clear of ingestion zone.
Was almost blown over by placing cone behind running engine in violation of instructions and policy.
Ignore one or more shouted and physical hand signals to remain clear of the ingestion zone.
Ignored the rotating beacon on the aircraft, indicating 'engines live'.
Ignored the published corp ground operations manual on approaching aircraft with engines running or beacon on.
Ignored the loud noise from the turbine engine.
I'm not sure there is enough that can be done that someone can choose to ignore and violate SOP.
Was this the first time this worker put a foot wrong? Perhaps unlikely, given the number of violations recorded in the report?
If he had shown signs of poor adherence to safety procedures, did management consider removing him from that role?
Mjb
I'm not sure there is enough that can be done that someone can choose to ignore and violate SOP.
Not only wasn't this person cut out for the job, neither was whoever was supervising them.
Yes, we all know that.
One action does not exclude the other.
Left engine shut down for air hookup with right engine running waiting for GPU as was originally suggested as a possibility with the APU inop.
Appears the actual situation was even worse.
The person involved was a mother of three children.
One action does not exclude the other.
Left engine shut down for air hookup with right engine running waiting for GPU as was originally suggested as a possibility with the APU inop.
Appears the actual situation was even worse.
The person involved was a mother of three children.
