Worker ingested into engine
 

UK news reporting a fatality on the ramp

Very sad, condolences to the family of the deceased.

https://news.sky.com/story/airport-w...abama-12778307

Airport worker dies after being 'ingested' into plane engine in Alabama
 

An airport worker has died after being "ingested" into a plane engine in the US state of Alabama.

The accident happened about 3pm on Saturday at Montgomery Regional Airport after American Airlines Flight 3408 had arrived from Dallas.

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said the ground crew worker was "ingested into the engine" of an aircraft while it was parked at the gate, CBS News reported.

The worker - who was an employee of Piedmont Airlines, a regional subsidiary of American Airlines - has not yet been named.

The Federal Aviation Administration and NTSB are investigating the incident.

(Source: Sky News)

Taxiied in?
 

I read somehwre else that the airplane had just taxiied in and the worker cut in front of it for some reason. Not a reliable source though. Terrible!

Reportedly an Envoy Air (American Eagle) Embraer 175 (CF34).

Anything to do with reduced turnround times/efficiency drives ? The chap obviously felt he could get across to the other side to get the holds open earlier or to be in position to refuel, ..... then cut it too fine.
The 737 has the same lowslung configuration and had a mandatory 10 metre arc (IIRC) exclusion zone until the engines were stopped. This aircraft was apparently taxying in and could well have increased engine speed again until on the gate. Interesting to hear what the enquiry has to say about company apron safety procedures.

Allegedly an Embraer 175 with an APU deferred so they kept #2 running till ground power connected as a ramp worker approached to open cargo door.
Probably heard #1 wind down.

We keep #1 running in that case. Don't like it, but better than #2. You would think that in that situation everyone on the ramp would be briefed, outside of the ingestion zone, and extra careful. My experience with the rampers is they are undertrained, underpaid, and overworked. Get asked if they can disconnect power&air every day without the APU running, so obviously they have no clue. Not their fault, no training, lots of new guys.

Hans
great post,
Two years ago, our crew were meeting an A330, our SOP is not to chock mains until beacon is turned off.Newbie wandered out with the chocks, we literally screamed at him, he turned around to face us and continued walking backwards to within feet of the engine as if mesmerised. So not to spook him I just gave him gentle hand gestures to return. which he did but it knocked me sick to the pit of my stomach for weeks,,, That said I’m forever getting the lads to ask for power disconnect to prompt you to start the APU,,, as another poster mentioned time is of the essence and nose lifters can be a pain to attach with FEP cables draped everywhere.

Definitely would be traumatic to see. I see the cargo doors being opened before I turn the beacon off..... But you are my new enemy! we aren't supposed to start the APU till ETD-10 so guys asking me to disconnect 30 minutes prior bug me 🤣

Similar thing happened at the regional I worked for in MEM. Female ramper decided to cut between the fuselage and the running in feather #2 engine (to disconnect the APU IIRC). It was very dark on that ramp at night. She was killed instantly according to coworkers who were there. She was super tired because she was working full time/going to college by day. Sad deal.............

A few months ago we were dispatched with APU inop. Called ahead to ops, briefed them APU inop, no one to approach the aircraft except for putting the bridge and then ground power on. Shut down #1, leave the beacon on, lead ramp agent is giving the big X to keep everyone in position, yelling, pointing at the beacon ... people running all over the place including towards the engine. We shut down #2 immediately and left the pax in the dark. Both legs. It seems ground staff are not being trained or reinforced that this is a dangerous job.

Very sad.

A horrible, unnecessary and preventable death. At my current location it is mandatory SOP that no one approaches the aircraft until the beacon is off. If we get a heads up that the APU is inop then ground power and nose gear chocks go in, preferably with a headset man plugged in too. But, yes, there's a lot of new, young and inexperienced people out there who have had very little training. Mind how you go.

Tragic. How easy it is to lose concentration when doing the same thing day after day.

I'm reminded of a Christmas Day evening trip to Xiamen, China, over 30 years ago in a 737-200. Unserviceable APU and no GPU or Air start units serviceable on the field. Only a glorified tin shed as a terminal in those days and very poorly lit apron. Shut down #1 and disembarked pax via aircraft's own stairs, let cleaners on, shut L1 door, restarted #1 , X bleed start, then shut down #2, bags off loaded, outbound bags loaded, cargo doors closed, X bleed to start # 2, shut down #1, let cleaners off, very careful walk around while new pax boarding. Funnily enough the ground crew had no problem with it all , they did it frequently apparently but were adamant we had to wait until pushback was completed before starting #1 again as they considered it was too dangerous with both running.

Makes you wonder whether a beacon light could be more prominently displayed adjacent to the engine intake(s)
.

Great suggestion.

For the 737NG for example, Boeing quotes a danger zone defined as a 10 foot arc centred on the CFM56 nose cone at ground idle and 14 feet at higher power settings.

There are few, if any points within those arcs where the existing beacons aren't visible.

A beacon/light on the engine intake might make the association of "This Engine is Engine Running" more obvious. The ground staff rushing to open cargo doors adjacent to a still running Engine #2 in a common scenario. Rush Rush is the culture of LoCost Travel and contracted airport providers.

It's also more polite than my first idea which was a neon light next to the aircraft cargo door flashing "F##k Off Suicidal Tw#t"!

I'm all in favour of safety and innovation (Thinks - did I really need to say that), but what we have at the moment is a situation where every certified commercial aircraft has one or more anti-collision beacons at prominent location(s) on the fuselage/empennage. Everyone, globally, who works airside in any capacity knows that if they are flashing then the aircraft is live, the engines could be running, and the aircraft can be expected to self-manoeuvre and to operate external control surfaces without further warning. If they don't know that then they are not properly trained or supervised, and additional lights are unlikely to change that. This situation has existed for decades. The only airframe I ever had trouble with was the Dash-8 which (in my experience) only had a fin-top beacon.

Just off the top of my head, aircraft currently operating with engine intakes at pedestrian level include all generations of 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, A300 series, A319/20/21, C series (by whatever name), Avro (by whatever name) E-170 (etc), CRJ-Series ........

Manufacturers of such aircraft include Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, Sukhoi, Mitsubishi, Antonov ........

National Airworthiness Agencies with primary responsibility for certifying these types include USA, UK, EASA, Brazil, Japan, Canada, Ukraine, Russia (yes Russia) ..........
And their military Airworthiness Agencies.

This proposal is only going to be worth spit if it is adopted universally, otherwise a complacency may arise that no nacelle-beacon means "safe". So all we have to do is to get all those manufacturers to agree a system of lighting, have it approved by their Airworthiness Agencies, and have all the customer airlines agree an implementation process (to including legacy airframes). And this thread is only looking at an engine incident; what about the hazard from an errant flap or aileron?

DD, couldn't have put it better. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) principle. However,, with the race to the bottom ongoing,I don't see things changing soon. Standardizing procedures worldwide is a no brainer, but with the presssure on turn around times, sadly people will die.
God bless. Matt..

I’ve never flown E175 but I’ve been told the air hookup under the fuselage requires moving in close proximity of engine #1, hence #1 being shut down and #2 running while waiting for GPU to be connected.