Worker ingested into engine

[drichard]

UK news reporting a fatality on the ramp

Very sad, condolences to the family of the deceased.

https://news.sky.com/story/airport-worker-dies-after-being-ingested-into-plane-engine-in-alabama-12778307

[ChicoG]

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)

[DDG-37]

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!

[DaveReidUK]

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

[Sleeve Wing]

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!
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.

[B2N2]

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.

[hans brinker]

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.

[Stockportcounty]

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.

[hans brinker]

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 🤣

[vegassun]

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.............

[ahramin]

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.

[HOVIS]

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.

[deja vu]

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.

[a5in_the_sim]

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

[Storm Girl]

Great suggestion.

[DaveReidUK]

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

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.

[a5in_the_sim]

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"!

[DuncanDoenitz]

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?

[zrx1200r]

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..

[B2N2]

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.

[NutLoose]

Too late now, but perhaps the air hook ups, external power etc should be designed to be away from the danger zone front of the engines, though in this day an age you would think an LED illuminated engine running sign could be incorporated in the fuselage or cowling sides adjacent to the intake.

[DaveReidUK]

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.

Correct.

Ground Air Con and Engine Air Start are 8 and 9 respectively:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/364x263/e175_ground_air_connections_d76c79c848d378026e6f6ed50d70b4cf bb4e305f.jpg

[The Bartender]

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.

So, pilots expect air-conditioning to be connected before engine shutdown now?

[Krystal n chips]

Too late now, but perhaps the air hook ups, external power etc should be designed to be away from the danger zone front of the engines, though in this day an age you would think an LED illuminated engine running sign could be incorporated in the fuselage or cowling sides adjacent to the intake.

With the best will in the world, this would involve a radical and impractical redesign of the air supply systems, and Ground Pwr panels are already a long way forward of the engines.

As others have said, no need for LED's showing an engine is running....because there's a much cheaper solution.

You know, as well as I do, the RAF went to great lengths to stress the dangers of jets, props and rotors, but even then incidents sadly occurred, however, the key point is, the dangers were constantly emphasised and displayed.....it's called training and education which, along with supervision, is a remarkably effective way of ensuring safety for all and everybody involved in ramp operations.

Live aircraft are a paradox....they are inherently safe....and also inherently lethal....if you become complacent or don't receive the appropriate level of training along with continuous awareness of the dangers.

I do accept however that, no matter how much emphasis is placed on safety, humans are remarkably adept at finding ways to kill or maim themselves.

I also accept, having seen it many times over the years, the same emphasis isn't going to feature with ramp service providers.

[rudestuff]

Macabre I know - but what exactly happens to a person in this case? Are we talking pink mist or McNugget mix?

[HOVIS]

If you search the Internet there are images available of previous incidents. My advice. Don't do it.

[B2N2]

So, pilots expect air-conditioning to be connected before engine shutdown now?

For passenger comfort yes, also for engine start during quick turnaround.
It’s simple really, shut down #1 get air hookup, get ground power and shut down #2.

[NutLoose]

With the best will in the world, this would involve a radical and impractical redesign of the air supply systems, and Ground Pwr panels are already a long way forward of the engines.

As others have said, no need for LED's showing an engine is running....because there's a much cheaper solution.

You know, as well as I do, the RAF went to great lengths to stress the dangers of jets, props and rotors, but even then incidents sadly occurred, however, the key point is, the dangers were constantly emphasised and displayed.....it's called training and education which, along with supervision, is a remarkably effective way of ensuring safety for all and everybody involved in ramp operations.

Live aircraft are a paradox....they are inherently safe....and also inherently lethal....if you become complacent or don't receive the appropriate level of training along with continuous awareness of the dangers.

I do accept however that, no matter how much emphasis is placed on safety, humans are remarkably adept at finding ways to kill or maim themselves.

I also accept, having seen it many times over the years, the same emphasis isn't going to feature with ramp service providers.

That is why I said too late now, the design is done and dusted and in production, one was thinking ahead for future aircraft.

Yes we did go to extremes in the RAF to prevent it, however it still did not prevent them all .

[hunbet]

So where should the LED illuminated engine running sign be located for the exhaust jet blast? There have been numerous injuries and deaths caused by jet blast.

[NutLoose]

You could have then installed in the outer and inner cowl? Just an idea.. rather like this electro illuminated panel

https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/228558866/light-up-racing-car-number-el-panel


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1588x867/il_1588xn_1308661950_3ofm_94139af2d993911a9b5991f48b277409bc 46c065.jpg

In fact you can now get Electro luminescent paint, so you could literally spray the cowlings and get the running engines cowls to light up!
Though it might not be as effective in daylight. I saw the stuff on Car SOS where they added a VW logo to a bonnet.

https://www.ellumiglow.com/electroluminescence/el-paint


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x402/image_8fe0e60a07843048f6b6266a0574b2dfffbbde61.jpeg

[B2N2]

Have you ever seen an airport at night? The ramp? It’s already a cacophony of flashing lights and rotating beacons and alarms and jet bridge beeps and sirens.
Lights on the engines won’t make a difference but be a feel good.
As stated before…in the rest of the world nobody approaches with a beacon flashing.
After a min or two you may get a polite reminder from the mechanic plugged into the nose gear.

[NutLoose]

Watch this and tell me you wouldn’t see it on a live engine, even if it saves one life it is worth it. And yes I have worked the ramp on airports for many years.

https://youtu.be/Y_OIK2IBqXE

[DaveReidUK]

Problem solved:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1217x1115/grille_1b3c23e5291f71ecd6ee2ab6c67700e13b43ecd6.jpg

[NutLoose]

Yep, those boards over the compressor should stop all suction problems ;)

[tdracer]

In the early days of pure jets and low bypass turbofans, ingestions were not particularly uncommon (although - thanks to inlet guide vanes - not automatically fatal). There is a pretty dramatic video on a US Navy carrier of a crewman getting ingested into (IIFC) an A-6 and surviving.
In the early days of the high bypass turbofans (where getting ingested is pretty much a guaranteed fatality), ingestions were almost non-existent. I suspect in part because the early widebodies put the inlets higher up, but mainly because people were justifiably scared of getting ingested and so were cautious.
As high bypass turbofans have come to dominate - and with much higher numbers of aircraft, many with the inlets at walking height - a combination of complacency and far more opportunities has combined to make ingestions more common.
Not much we can do about the increase in opportunities (SOP to protect from ingestions are already commonplace - if not always followed), but complacency can and should be addressed.

[HOVIS]

For passenger comfort yes, also for engine start during quick turnaround.
It’s simple really, shut down #1 get air hookup, get ground power and shut down #2.
Seriously? You need conditioned air on arrival before engine shutdown?
Nonsense.

[Chu Chu]

I was just reading that Stockholm experimented with projecting red traffic lights down onto sidewalks. Cell-phone zombies remained oblivious, as it turned out. But maybe it would work under a running engine?

[B2N2]

Watch this and tell me you wouldn’t see it on a live engine, even if it saves one life it is worth it. And yes I have worked the ramp on airports for many years.


Please explain to us how you survived all those years without it?
We’re all eager to learn.

[B2N2]

Seriously? You need conditioned air on arrival before engine shutdown?
Nonsense.

Well…your opinion is hardly relevant as this is what was apparently the procedure with an APU inop that’s why #1 was shut down.
How many times does it have to be repeated?
Whomever hooked up the air didn’t walk into a running engine so which part of that process is nonsense to you?
The deceased made a fatal mistake.
I feel for the other rampers that had to witness this and I feel for the children that lost a parent.

[NutLoose]

Please explain to us how you survived all those years without it?
We’re all eager to learn.

One word….. Training

[MerseyView]

Well…your opinion is hardly relevant as this is what was apparently the procedure with an APU inop that’s why #1 was shut down.


You don't need air on arrival before the second engine is shut down with APU u/s, just ground power.

[B2N2]

One word….. Training

So you suggest seizure inducing flicker paint is a substitute for training then?

[KikuAsus]

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"!


Why not just light up the spinner when the engine is turning?

[DuncanDoenitz]

With tongue firmly in cheek, and as an alternative to the various "lighting" proposals, I did consider posting whether it would be possible to install a noise generator, or a rotating indicator on the front of a turbofan, so that you could get visual or aural warning of its operation.

In all seriousness, we often see the rotating nose cone (often with an spiral motif) on some installed turbofans. However, whilst I am not familiar with the Embraer in question, photos on the web seem to show that the engine nose cone is positioned well down the nacelle intake, and by the time you saw it you would probably already be accelerating towards it.

[tdracer]

In all seriousness, we often see the rotating nose cone (often with an spiral motif) on some installed turbofans.

Those painted spinner cones are supposedly intended to help prevent bird strikes, not human ones.

[NutLoose]

So you suggest seizure inducing flicker paint is a substitute for training then?

It does not need to flicker, simply illuminate saying danger engine running or the like, heck you could add a proximity movement sensor to turn it on and off.

Recurrent training is the way forward, but time constraints can often make people take stupid shortcuts and complacent.

[DaveReidUK]

Those painted spinner cones are supposedly intended to help prevent bird strikes, not human ones.

According to Boeing's Aero, they don't.

Which makes sense - at takeoff N1. the markings are virtually invisible.

Common misconceptions about bird strikes
A number of widespread misconceptions about bird strikes may give pilots a false sense of security and prevent them from reacting appropriately to the threat of a bird strike or an actual event. These misconceptions include:
o Airplane colors and jet engine spinner markings help to repel birds.


Aero 2011 Q3 (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/pdfs/AERO_2011_Q3.pdf)

Conversely, on the ramp, if you can't see the spinner markings - beware.

[B2N2]

You don't need air on arrival before the second engine is shut down with APU u/s, just ground power.

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.

[ctacik]

At least this tragedy should trigger more training for ground crews

[tdracer]

According to Boeing's Aero, they don't.

Which makes sense - at takeoff N1. the markings are virtually invisible.


Well, according to several Boeing Propulsion types (and engine company types) I've talked to over the years, yes they do. Not so much at takeoff, but during approach/landing (the marks can be fairly dramatic at idle - especially the twirly ones)

[HOVIS]

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.
Ventilation is achieved by recirc fans powered by the electrical system from Ground Electrical Power.
Ditto systems cooling.
Potable water is not required during disembarkation or the few minutes preceding it after the engines are shut down. (Besides most modern jets have electrical compressors to pressurise the water tanks these days)

[NutLoose]

Well, according to several Boeing Propulsion types (and engine company types) I've talked to over the years, yes they do. Not so much at takeoff, but during approach/landing (the marks can be fairly dramatic at idle - especially the twirly ones)

Agreed, that what I was taught on my RAF engine courses, it is supposed to look like an eye when turning, and “mimics” nature where butterflies have large eye patterns on their wings to scare off predators such as birds, as well as indicating it is turning to warn Groundcrew, indeed that was also why the strobing prop design came out, though it had an hypnotic effect on some people.


​​​​​​…

[B2N2]

Ventilation is achieved by recirc fans powered by the electrical system from Ground Electrical Power.
Ditto systems cooling.
Potable water is not required during disembarkation or the few minutes preceding it after the engines are shut down. (Besides most modern jets have electrical compressors to pressurise the water tanks these days)

Surely you must be correct.
Now maybe put your money where you mouth is.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/courtney-edwards?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_content=undefined&utm_medium=copy_link_a

[aeromech3]

Sad event, hope Family taken care of.
During my ramp training 1968, we would have to duck under the fuselage of the Viscount to pull the GPU plug after engine starts, Dart noise was enough warning, but my colleague lost an eye from ducking into an antenna.
Doing my on job engine run F27, I asked where is the pre-start check for anti collision light, reply none fitted on this ship; as name states 'anti collision' Not anti ingestion.
1978 during an engine, B737-200, run the mechanic doing the trim adjustment got sucked in, engine surged and Engineer immediately shut it down, mechanic lost fingers on one hand, fixed inlet guide vanes saved him from more loss.
Noticed on recent flight on ATR72 the #2 engine was S/D first and prop brake assist, perhaps to allow GPU connect, the pax and bag loading was #1 side.

[DaveReidUK]

JT8D IGVs have reportedly saved a fair number of ground crew over the years.

[theFirstDave]

... you would think an LED illuminated engine running sign....

And when that is INOP ??????

[HOVIS]

Surely you must be correct.
Now maybe put your money where you mouth is.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/courtney-edwards?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_content=undefined&utm_medium=copy_link_a
In what way will me throwing a few quid at this fund prove my point?

I merely explained what happens in real life. I've never seen anyone try and hook up conditioned air while an engine is running. Electrical power, yes.

If you are saying that this incident was due to someone trying to connect conditioned air please could you let us all know where you got your information.
Is it common practice in some parts of the world?

[DuncanDoenitz]

And when that is INOP ??????

If we are going down the illuminated-indicator route, then "Green light = Safe" would be a better choice than "Red light = Danger". Bulb-/System-failure" (or indeed, not installed on this aircraft) defaults to "Unsafe" indication.

[Concours77]

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.
Chappesse....she had three children

[B2N2]

In what way will me throwing a few quid at this fund prove my point?

I merely explained what happens in real life. I've never seen anyone try and hook up conditioned air while an engine is running. Electrical power, yes.

If you are saying that this incident was due to someone trying to connect conditioned air please could you let us all know where you got your information.
Is it common practice in some parts of the world?

You really don’t get it do you?
The air hookup is on lower left, reason for engine #1 being shut down 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 stated earlier the air hookup theory is why #1 would have been shut down.
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.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/364x263/image_894d2627c5b1109872d67b5556ec96372b9aaa7d.jpeg

[Denti]

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.


There is the huge question though, why would any competent ramp worker even approach the holds while an engine is still running? That is a huge no-no. The only thing that is allowed, is to hook up the ground power, nothing else. No one except the person with the ground power lead is allowed to approach an aircraft with a running engine, and that only after the aircraft has stopped and the flight crew confirmed that the brake is set. The air hookup has no relevance at all during arrival, only during engine start on departure is it relevant.

[MerseyView]

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.

[WideScreen]

Well, according to several Boeing Propulsion types (and engine company types) I've talked to over the years, yes they do. Not so much at takeoff, but during approach/landing (the marks can be fairly dramatic at idle - especially the twirly ones)
Typical approach/landing speed is > 200 km/h, this is >50 m/s. This implies, the bird needs to have (more than ?) hawk eyes to recognize the moving pattern at >200 m and having 4 seconds to conclude an imminent danger, decide to "move in the correct direction" and move away. Birds fly up to around 70 km/h, IE 20 m/s, though also need time to accelerate.

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.

[HOVIS]

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.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/364x263/image_894d2627c5b1109872d67b5556ec96372b9aaa7d.jpeg
Then why did you say this?

"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."

[hec7or]

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.

[HOVIS]

Can you not call ahead to your handling agent?

[MerseyView]

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.

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.

[HOVIS]

They're not even allowed to put the chocks in until the beacon is off where I am.

[MAN777]

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 !!😮

[hec7or]

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.

While I agree with you, if you operate into the UK and have to rely on Swissport to plug in your GPU you could be waiting a while, the emergency lights will provide sufficient illumination and a PA to the pax will explain the problem, powering down then up doesn't hurt.
Sorry but I've had an incident which could have endangered a ramp team member and I will never, ever run that risk again.

[B2N2]

Then why did you say this?

"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."

Because so far that has been my (unverified) information.

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.

[iflytb20]

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

[BFSGrad]

N264NN returned to KDFW on 1/9/23 and appears to have returned to regular service.

[wrench1]

NTSB prelim report out.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106517/pdf

[HOVIS]

Because so far that has been my (unverified) information.

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.

A GPU supplies electrical power. Not air.

[DaveReidUK]

Because so far that has been my (unverified) information.

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.

To clarify, the unfortunate ramp agent was ingested by the left (No 1) engine.

[ethicalconundrum]

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.

[mickjoebill]

I'm not sure there is enough that can be done that someone can choose to ignore and violate SOP.

Some people are not "cut out' for a particular role.
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

[MechEngr]

I'm not sure there is enough that can be done that someone can choose to ignore and violate SOP.

Their supervisor and co-workers should have taken action as soon as the worker went behind the engine with the cones. Just one cone could be enough to do millions in damage if the running engine blew it into the path of another aircraft, to be inhaled as this person later was. That they were known to be knocked down as well is strike two. There should be no more chances after that.

Not only wasn't this person cut out for the job, neither was whoever was supervising them.

[B2N2]

A GPU supplies electrical power. Not air.

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.

[MerseyView]

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.

Yes, by you!

Now for the last time, an Embraer E jet does not need air connected before all engines are shut down on arrival, ever! It doesn't need it with APU working, with APU u/s, it doesn't need it if it is summer, winter, raining or windy. It doesn't need it!

[B2N2]

The day of the accident it was unclear if this was the RH or LH engine as different media including news outlets and aviation fora had conflicting information.
One reason for it being the RH engine would have been shutting down the LH as that side has the air hook up.
Conditioned or for starting.
Need it or not that was the working theory.
Question asked here was why would you keep one running and which one.
So that proves to be incorrect.
Was still a plausible explanation with the information available.
Then came the whole discussion if you needed air or not and everyone headed for the weeds.

There are more reasons why you’d shut down the left engine on different types of airplanes:

Fuel panel left wing
Jetway and access door
Air hookup

Its a useless discussion now though.

[NutLoose]

Another one in Alabama and the next big city along, different airports and dates. :sad:

https://www.airsideint.com/alabama-airline-worker-sucked-into-engine/

On January 25, 2023, a tragic incident occurred at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport in Alabama.

An airline worker was sucked into the engine of a plane while conducting maintenance on the aircraft. The individual, whose identity has not yet been released, was pronounced dead at the scene.

The incident occurred around 8:00 AM local time, and the airport was temporarily closed to allow for investigations to take place. The plane involved in the incident was a Boeing 737, and the airline has not yet been named.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are currently investigating the incident.

The FAA released a statement saying, “The FAA is investigating an incident involving a maintenance worker at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport.

“We will provide updates as more information becomes available.”

This is a tragic incident and our thoughts and condolences go out to the family and friends of the individual who lost their life. The investigation is ongoing, and more information will be released as it becomes available.

[HOVIS]

The day of the accident it was unclear if this was the RH or LH engine as different media including news outlets and aviation fora had conflicting information.
One reason for it being the RH engine would have been shutting down the LH as that side has the air hook up.
Conditioned or for starting.
Need it or not that was the working theory.
Question asked here was why would you keep one running and which one.
So that proves to be incorrect.
Was still a plausible explanation with the information available.
Then came the whole discussion if you needed air or not and everyone headed for the weeds.

There are more reasons why you’d shut down the left engine on different types of airplanes:

Fuel panel left wing
Jetway and access door
Air hookup

Its a useless discussion now though.
It was a useless discussion at the start. WTF are you on about? The position of the fuel panel, jetway or air hookup points have nothing to do with which engine you leave running.
We don't do 'hot refuelling'.
We don't attempt to hook up the air with engines running. Ever!
Only under extreme circumstances (EG war zone) would you leave an engine running while offloading/embarking passengers.

For the record. Again. With a duff APU, one or more engines will be left running until the electrical power is connected. It/they are then shut down. The beacon goes off and then and only then are chocks, other ground equipment, servicing vehicles and the airbridge/steps allowed to approach the aircraft.

[hunbet]

The Montgomery Airport has wheeled jetways. The jetway has to be positioned to the aircraft door before ground power is connected to prevent the cord from being run over.
When the power cord is lowered, there is a safety switch that shuts off power to the jetway preventing it from moving.

[NutLoose]

No response to a second ingestion in the same month a scant few miles between both incidents, you surprise me.

[hans brinker]

It was a useless discussion at the start. WTF are you on about? The position of the fuel panel, jetway or air hookup points have nothing to do with which engine you leave running.
We don't do 'hot refuelling'.
We don't attempt to hook up the air with engines running. Ever!
Only under extreme circumstances (EG war zone) would you leave an engine running while offloading/embarking passengers.

For the record. Again. With a duff APU, one or more engines will be left running until the electrical power is connected. It/they are then shut down. The beacon goes off and then and only then are chocks, other ground equipment, servicing vehicles and the airbridge/steps allowed to approach the aircraft.

Respectfully. Maybe you don't in blighty. I fly the A320 in/out of the US and we have procedures for (de)fueling, (un)loading and (dis)embarking with an engine running. Granted, most are for (un?)expected failures of ground services (fly to some dodgy places), but all are considered part of the Normal OPS. For years we would not start the APU on taxi in, but leave #1 running until we had ground power. This would normally be about 3 minutes after L1 had been opened, and pax had started to leave.
Absolutely agree with you on the principle. Our SOP only allows nose chocks and ext power with the beacon on. Plenty of times I have gone below the wing for a chat with the ramp sup because the cargo door was opened with the beacon on.

[HOVIS]

Hans Blinker.
That is quite astonishing. No wonder it's happened again. Why don't you start the APU? Cost?

[HOVIS]

No response to a second ingestion in the same month a scant few miles between both incidents, you surprise me.
You are quite right. Something is seriously wrong with ground ops procedures over there.

[hans brinker]

Hans Blinker.
That is quite astonishing. No wonder it's happened again. Why don't you start the APU? Cost?

Yes, until a recent cost benefit analysis after a AC hose got sucked in to a NEO revealed small cost savings don't offset huge incidentals..... we now are supposed to start the APU three airplane lengths from the gate. And minimum wage, overworked rampers trying to hustle.

[hans brinker]

Another one in Alabama and the next big city along, different airports and dates. :sad:

https://www.airsideint.com/alabama-airline-worker-sucked-into-engine/

So the only mention of that supposed accident is that news site. FAA has nothing, NTSB has nothing, avherald nothing, no other news outlets have anything. Are we sure this happened?

[FlightDetent]

considered part of the Normal OPS. For years we would not start the APU on taxi in, but leave #1 running until we had ground power. This would normally be about 3 minutes after L1 had been opened, and pax had started to leave.
Absolutely agree with you on the principle. Our SOP only allows nose chocks and ext power with the beacon on. Plenty of times I have gone below the wing for a chat with the ramp sup because the cargo door was opened with the beacon on.
My bolding, clearly. WTF could go wrong with that. I.e. establishing a routine-of-the-day procedure where A/C is being partially serviced and the beacon is ignored as an SOP. Just wow, heavy Dryden vibes.

Don't get me wrong, I flew with 2 operators who did the single-engine and non-apu arrivals (and much more hair-splitting) to save. But the line was clear: if ELEC cannot be attached stand-alone, the procedure is not allowed. No bridges, hoses, carts, or loaders, let alone personnel. 1 guy only with a cable in hand. If that is indicated but does not work then shut down #2 and deplane a cold aircraft.

Is it that bad with FAA oversight that the airline needs an post-accident COST analysis to see what was upside down with that procedure?

[FlightDetent]

A captain repeatedly needs to lecture ground staff about possibly fatal non-compliance with the SOPs.

-- Knock, knock?
-- ??
-- Honest, adequate SOP or HF risk management it isn't.
-- Alright, step in. Creating Excels and PowerPoints with cost saving is what we do here.

AC 120-71B - Standard Operating Procedures and Pilot Monitoring Duties for Flight Deck Crewmembers (faa.gov) (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1030486)

[DaveReidUK]

Another one in Alabama and the next big city along, different airports and dates.

https://www.airsideint.com/alabama-airline-worker-sucked-into-engine/
So the only mention of that supposed accident is that news site. FAA has nothing, NTSB has nothing, avherald nothing, no other news outlets have anything. Are we sure this happened?

Hmmm. Posting based on a single, unsubstantiated internet report or Tweet?

That has a familiar ring to it ...

[hans brinker]

My bolding, clearly. WTF could go wrong with that. I.e. establishing a routine-of-the-day procedure where A/C is being partially serviced and the beacon is ignored as an SOP. Just wow, heavy Dryden vibes.

Don't get me wrong, I flew with 2 operators who did the single-engine and non-apu arrivals (and much more hair-splitting) to save. But the line was clear: if ELEC cannot be attached stand-alone, the procedure is not allowed. No bridges, hoses, carts, or loaders, let alone personnel. 1 guy only with a cable in hand. If that is indicated but does not work then shut down #2 and deplane a cold aircraft.

Is it that bad with FAA oversight that the airline needs an post-accident COST analysis to see what was upside down with that procedure?

A captain repeatedly needs to lecture ground staff about possibly fatal non-compliance with the SOPs.

-- Knock, knock?
-- ??
-- Honest, adequate SOP or HF risk management it isn't.
-- Alright, step in. Creating Excels and PowerPoints with cost saving is what we do here.

AC 120-71B - Standard Operating Procedures and Pilot Monitoring Duties for Flight Deck Crewmembers (faa.gov) (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1030486)

Totally agree, and if I ran the place, that would be different. But I am just one of the monkeys. Our Ground power almost always comes of the jetway, so we can't get ground power until after the jetway has stopped moving. Hence the delay. The beacon isn't supposed to be ignored, like I said: nosewheel chocks and GPU only till the beacon is off, but not always followed..... Luckily we start the APU every time now. But we still have plenty of issues. MX is instructed to wake up the airplane, have ground power and air connected, with the APU running (!?!?) an hour before departure, and ramp is trained to ask to disconnect power and air half an hour before departure. As pilots we are supposed to shut the APU off when we get on the plane if GPU and air are available, and leave it off till ETD-10 minutes. Not safety related, but just to show it seems to be hard to get everyone on the same book, nevermind page.