Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
RogerMurdock
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:52 pm

Shout out to the flight attendant for making sure to not be a hole in the cheese.
 
User avatar
NWAESC
Posts: 1699
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:02 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:04 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
Holy cow. That quite literally could have resulted in the airplane crashing. If true, that almost requires some criminal charges to the deicing crew who released that airplane in that condition. That's not fudging the bag count by 1 bag, that is downright scary.


I'd say it definitely requires charges. If this played out as described, they acted intentionally.
"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
 
bigb
Posts: 1353
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:24 pm

Wow! That’s a lot of ice. 9 times out 10, this would have been a horrible ending. Kudos to the FA for catching that. I will be honest, I don’t have faith that any of my FA’s would have saw that on any of my flights where we have de-iced. Contamination checks are only required at my old and new shop of the HOTs have expired prior to takeoff along with a evaluation of weather and outside conditions.
 
ethernal
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:15 pm

bigb wrote:
Wow! That’s a lot of ice. 9 times out 10, this would have been a horrible ending. Kudos to the FA for catching that. I will be honest, I don’t have faith that any of my FA’s would have saw that on any of my flights where we have de-iced. Contamination checks are only required at my old and new shop of the HOTs have expired prior to takeoff along with a evaluation of weather and outside conditions.


It definitely could have been a flight attendant (in which case kudos to him/her) but my guess is that it was a passenger. I know many like to poke fun of F9 passengers here, but any one of the 50 passengers with a window seat could have noticed something was wrong and alerted the FA (who then confirmed and relayed to the captain). Even relatively non-frequent flyers probably know that icy-green liquid on a wing may be something to ask about.
 
ethernal
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:17 pm

ei146 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
But while I also agree that this is a completely inexcusable failure, and that F9 used up about three years of good luck that day, I do not believe that would automatically have caused a wreck. Certainly, we all remember this marvelous accomplishment...


Oh, it makes a lot of a difference what kind of stuff you have on your wings. In your Russian example it was the light and dry snow you get in really cold wheather at below freezing temperature. It does not stick and will be easiely blown away.
But when it is wet and freezes to the surfaces it will stick. The F9 wing looked more like the later kind.


Even if it was the soft fluffy kind, throwing a bunch of warm-ish Type IV fluid would cause it to slightly melt and then re-freeze. Literally doing nothing at all would have been better (still likely catastrophic) than what we see in the picture.
 
User avatar
LH748
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:44 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:23 pm

If you can't trust the deicing people they can't be allowed to operate on any airport anymore. That's attempted murder
306 310 318 319 320 321 333 343 388 ATR72 733 737 738 739 743 744 748 752 753 763 764 772 77W 788 CRJ7 CRJ9 E170 F100 MD11 RJ1H
AA AB AC AF AK AZ BA DE DL EW FD FR HF HG IB IR MF KU LH LT LX OD TG TK TP UA VJ VN WN W6 YP YW
 
AZORMP
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:08 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:24 pm

This is beyond gross negligence; this is almost criminal. Those agents could’ve killed everyone on the flight.

Swallow your pride and say you can’t do it.


OB1504 wrote:
Everyone from Trego Duran involved in making the decision to release the airplane like that should be behind bars.

We haven’t had a fatal US mainline crash in nearly 20 years and that record was almost marred because a vendor decided to cheap out.

If it’s a company culture thing, they shouldn’t be allowed to touch airplanes. MIA is kicking out a notorious ground handler for their awful working conditions and perhaps BNA should do the same.


Would this handler happen to have the initials EA? I’ve watched them work when I was in MIA. Wasn’t really impressed.
Kalamazoo’s Radio Man

The RJ2 sucks.
 
IFlyVeryLittle
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:31 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:52 pm

At a place like Nashville, how many vendors for de-icing are there to choose from? Can you simply fire one and link up with another that quickly?
 
ScottB
Posts: 7420
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:03 pm

wjcandee wrote:
Aviation safety ultimately falls squarely on the airline. The airline is ultimately responsible for monitoring, managing, and correcting any deficiencies in the performance of a vendor, just as it would be if it was doing the work itself. Frontier screwed this up royally by hiring a company which everybody in the industry apparently thought was a crap operation (assuming that's the case). Even if the company had a good reputation and paid its people well, if it didn't have proper procedures and training in place, and Frontier didn't sufficiently inquire, and something like this happened as a result with catastrophic consequences, it would be on Frontier. And if this gets any publicity outside of the enthusiast world, there will be some internal human sacrifices over it. If it doesn't turn into a PR disaster, there will still be consequences.

In short: It is legally the airline's responsibility to make sure the vendor does its job properly. Frontier's liability insurers are looking at this photo and crapping themselves. There will be changes as a result, regardless of the internal ass-covering and finger pointing that is doubtless rampant inside Frontier at the moment.


And no doubt you are aware of the most glaring example of this concept -- ValuJet 592. While direct responsibility for the crash was placed on SabreTech for improperly labeling and shipping chemical oxygen generators, the NTSB also blamed ValuJet for failing to properly supervise its vendor. Further, the reputational damage to ValuJet as a result of the crash was enormous.

And, of course, the families of the victims sued ValuJet -- and ended up recovering significant damages.
 
hamiltondaniel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:40 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:03 pm

Far be it from me to make light of a bad situation, but I'm gonna do so anyway:

Trego-Dugan's company slogan is...."Winging. It."

Really.

https://www.trego-dugan.com/services/airline_ground_handling
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15188
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:15 pm

nwadeicer wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

Pilots cant see much if any of the wings. Though the question should be whether one of the pilots should be required to walk back into cabin and look at the wings? This would make sense for situations like morning frost or light snow but with freezing rain, sleet, moderate-heavy snow or mixed precipitation and the restrictive holdover/allowance times in such conditions, the clock is ticking and going back to check each time would mean losing valuable time to get airborne before a second deicing/anti icing would be required.


There are scenarios where some operators require a visual confirmation by a pilot. I made friends with a DL f/o while sitting in an exit row in heavy snow at DTW a few years back when he was dispatched from the cockpit several times to have a look at the wings.


Delta does not require a visual inspection by the flight crew. They are more than welcome to inspect the wings from a window but again are not required.


All I can tell you is that the captain announced that it was policy and that we should not be alarmed. Whether that was true or not I obviously do not know. I believe the aircraft was an M88.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
nws2002
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:20 pm

AZORMP wrote:
This is beyond gross negligence; this is almost criminal. Those agents could’ve killed everyone on the flight.

Swallow your pride and say you can’t do it.


OB1504 wrote:
Everyone from Trego Duran involved in making the decision to release the airplane like that should be behind bars.

We haven’t had a fatal US mainline crash in nearly 20 years and that record was almost marred because a vendor decided to cheap out.

If it’s a company culture thing, they shouldn’t be allowed to touch airplanes. MIA is kicking out a notorious ground handler for their awful working conditions and perhaps BNA should do the same.


Would this handler happen to have the initials EA? I’ve watched them work when I was in MIA. Wasn’t really impressed.


Yes it is Eulen. I heard a rumour TPA was trying to do the same.
 
slider
Posts: 7735
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:23 pm

jreeves96 wrote:
Having worked for Trego Dugan, I'm not surprised at all. Trego Dugan is the most garbage company in the industry. Management lacks management skills because turn over is so high within the company. When you can't train your employees correctly on how to throw bags in the belly it's bound to end pretty badly. Trego is also on the bottom of pay scale on paying it's employees. If Frontier and Allegiant would both fire Trego that company would fall apart, and rightfully so.

Edit. I'll also say I hope Frontier sues Trego for criminal negligence.


I had some charter handling problems, to put it as politely as possible, with Trego Dugan in CVG. Promptly fired them. They are a total shitshow.
 
hoons90
Posts: 3843
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:28 pm

ethernal wrote:
bigb wrote:
Wow! That’s a lot of ice. 9 times out 10, this would have been a horrible ending. Kudos to the FA for catching that. I will be honest, I don’t have faith that any of my FA’s would have saw that on any of my flights where we have de-iced. Contamination checks are only required at my old and new shop of the HOTs have expired prior to takeoff along with a evaluation of weather and outside conditions.


It definitely could have been a flight attendant (in which case kudos to him/her) but my guess is that it was a passenger. I know many like to poke fun of F9 passengers here, but any one of the 50 passengers with a window seat could have noticed something was wrong and alerted the FA (who then confirmed and relayed to the captain). Even relatively non-frequent flyers probably know that icy-green liquid on a wing may be something to ask about.


It's a good thing that some of the window shades were open in the first place. I've been on several DL flights that had all of the window shades down at the time of boarding, and almost no one bothered to open them on takeoff. Never been on F9 so I'm not sure if they follow such a practice.
Flown: 2L 7C 9E 9L AA AB AC AF AY AZ BA BR BX B6 CA CO CP CX DL EK EY JL KE KL LA LH LX MQ NW OZ PD RW SQ TG TP TR TS US WG WN WS XE XJ
 
AZORMP
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:08 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:32 pm

hoons90 wrote:
ethernal wrote:
bigb wrote:
Wow! That’s a lot of ice. 9 times out 10, this would have been a horrible ending. Kudos to the FA for catching that. I will be honest, I don’t have faith that any of my FA’s would have saw that on any of my flights where we have de-iced. Contamination checks are only required at my old and new shop of the HOTs have expired prior to takeoff along with a evaluation of weather and outside conditions.


It definitely could have been a flight attendant (in which case kudos to him/her) but my guess is that it was a passenger. I know many like to poke fun of F9 passengers here, but any one of the 50 passengers with a window seat could have noticed something was wrong and alerted the FA (who then confirmed and relayed to the captain). Even relatively non-frequent flyers probably know that icy-green liquid on a wing may be something to ask about.


It's a good thing that some of the window shades were open in the first place. I've been on several DL flights that had all of the window shades down at the time of boarding, and almost no one bothered to open them on takeoff. Never been on F9 so I'm not sure if they follow such a practice.



Window shades are kept down on DL flights to help with climate control if the APU is either off/inop and/or pre-conditioned air is not available. With Covid, they also spray the window shades to ensure they’re sanitized for every flight.
Kalamazoo’s Radio Man

The RJ2 sucks.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:41 pm

Company should be out of business, disgraceful
 
astaz
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:41 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:48 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
nwadeicer wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

There are scenarios where some operators require a visual confirmation by a pilot. I made friends with a DL f/o while sitting in an exit row in heavy snow at DTW a few years back when he was dispatched from the cockpit several times to have a look at the wings.


Delta does not require a visual inspection by the flight crew. They are more than welcome to inspect the wings from a window but again are not required.


All I can tell you is that the captain announced that it was policy and that we should not be alarmed. Whether that was true or not I obviously do not know. I believe the aircraft was an M88.


Generally, these inspections are conducted if you have exceeded the hold over time, to ensure that fluid failure has not occurred prior to takeoff.
 
JFKIceman
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:00 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:53 pm

As a deicing manager, this is unacceptable at all levels. Looks like there was a lack of communication between, Airline Reps and the vendor explaining the situation before it happened. Im sure this will trigger alot of procedural changes in both deicing, and flight deck ops. I wouldn't be surprised if their operating licenses gets pulled. Kinda fitting if you go to their website under ground handling their slogan is "Winging it"
 
kalvado
Posts: 3162
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:58 pm

Is there any FAA involvment with those handling companies - licensing, certification or anything along those lines? Since their personnel has close access to aircraft, there should be at least some security supervision in place, but that is a different aspect of it..
 
ChrisPBacon
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:14 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:00 pm

skitchie wrote:
Iceman here (albeit not for F9). We usually give them gallon #s for both I and IV, but also (and more importantly), we verbally confirm with the crew that "the aircraft has been serviced and is free of all contamination".

This vendor's butt is already in the hot seat, even moreso if they have this in their SOPs, which I imagine they would at some point.


It's clear most posters on here have never deiced an aircraft. The A.net armchair is full. And vendors are always worse than mainline here.

Having been an iceman and a certified trainer, the vendor is using one of two protocols. Either they use F9's approved de/anti-ice program, or they use another carriers program (which F9 has told the vendor is an acceptable program.

My team was trained in the program of our biggest customer in the station. Then we did train to the program of other airlines we handled as well, but it was more of a "differences training". We kept laminated cards in the cab. The person doing the deicing turned to the page of the carrier, and followed the protocol. There was specific verbiage used for readback to each carrier, and a visual inspection by the vendor was required. This meant getting out of the cab (or the truck) and doing a walkaround with a flashlight as necessary.

I don't know who was responsible for fluid purchase in this particular station. Some airport use a consortium for Type I and IV. In other cases the airline purchases it for the vendor (so the vendor can't make it up). I managed a station where there was a consortium for Type I. The partner airline was responsible for providing Type IV, but would not purchase it because a previous years purchase had spoiled because it was a mild winter. So what did I have to do? Call dispatch on weather days and remind them we were a Type I only station. Then watch them cancel flights because they wouldn't buy Type IV.

I don't know that this is a corporate problem, but here on A.net its easy to paint the vendor with a broad brush. The local BNA manager for the vendor probably had a responsibility to say "we are out of Type I" before F9 sent a plane in. Did they walk over to F9 ops in BNA and tell them? We don't know. This vendor only handles deicing. Did the vendor tell the ground handler? If so, did the ground handler tell F9 dispatch? I never managed a station that didn't have a backup deicing provider in case my truck went down. I was the backup for other airlines and vendors as well. If this vendor was out of fluid, was there a backup? Why was the backup not used? Having been a iceman, trainer, and manager, my first thought is that this is a local problem. Not a systemic vendor problem. But A.netters like a broad brush.
 
theginge
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:53 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:38 pm

Outsourcing is very common for things like de icing, not many airlines actually do it themselves, and even if they did, at a smaller station its likely they will have contracted it out so the argument they should do it themselves isn't realistic in this situation.

The de icing company should not have released the aircraft in this state.
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:43 pm

ChrisPBacon wrote:
skitchie wrote:
Iceman here (albeit not for F9). We usually give them gallon #s for both I and IV, but also (and more importantly), we verbally confirm with the crew that "the aircraft has been serviced and is free of all contamination".

This vendor's butt is already in the hot seat, even moreso if they have this in their SOPs, which I imagine they would at some point.


It's clear most posters on here have never deiced an aircraft. The A.net armchair is full. And vendors are always worse than mainline here.

Having been an iceman and a certified trainer, the vendor is using one of two protocols. Either they use F9's approved de/anti-ice program, or they use another carriers program (which F9 has told the vendor is an acceptable program.

My team was trained in the program of our biggest customer in the station. Then we did train to the program of other airlines we handled as well, but it was more of a "differences training". We kept laminated cards in the cab. The person doing the deicing turned to the page of the carrier, and followed the protocol. There was specific verbiage used for readback to each carrier, and a visual inspection by the vendor was required. This meant getting out of the cab (or the truck) and doing a walkaround with a flashlight as necessary.

I don't know who was responsible for fluid purchase in this particular station. Some airport use a consortium for Type I and IV. In other cases the airline purchases it for the vendor (so the vendor can't make it up). I managed a station where there was a consortium for Type I. The partner airline was responsible for providing Type IV, but would not purchase it because a previous years purchase had spoiled because it was a mild winter. So what did I have to do? Call dispatch on weather days and remind them we were a Type I only station. Then watch them cancel flights because they wouldn't buy Type IV.

I don't know that this is a corporate problem, but here on A.net its easy to paint the vendor with a broad brush. The local BNA manager for the vendor probably had a responsibility to say "we are out of Type I" before F9 sent a plane in. Did they walk over to F9 ops in BNA and tell them? We don't know. This vendor only handles deicing. Did the vendor tell the ground handler? If so, did the ground handler tell F9 dispatch? I never managed a station that didn't have a backup deicing provider in case my truck went down. I was the backup for other airlines and vendors as well. If this vendor was out of fluid, was there a backup? Why was the backup not used? Having been a iceman, trainer, and manager, my first thought is that this is a local problem. Not a systemic vendor problem. But A.netters like a broad brush.



The real issue is that the vendor told the flight crew the plane was “free and clear of All contaminants.” If they don’t have type 1, it happens. If some one decided to approve the type 4 only application, that’s on them - and when it doesn’t work, they admit it. But reporting that the airplane was free and clear is absolutely false. Lying about completing a saftey critical job is not a “getting what you paid for issue”, it’s an integrity issue.

I wouldn’t paint the entire company in the BNA broad brush- but now the spotlight is on every saftey critical application they provide.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:55 pm

ChrisPBacon wrote:
skitchie wrote:
Iceman here (albeit not for F9). We usually give them gallon #s for both I and IV, but also (and more importantly), we verbally confirm with the crew that "the aircraft has been serviced and is free of all contamination".

This vendor's butt is already in the hot seat, even moreso if they have this in their SOPs, which I imagine they would at some point.


It's clear most posters on here have never deiced an aircraft. The A.net armchair is full. And vendors are always worse than mainline here.

Having been an iceman and a certified trainer, the vendor is using one of two protocols. Either they use F9's approved de/anti-ice program, or they use another carriers program (which F9 has told the vendor is an acceptable program.

My team was trained in the program of our biggest customer in the station. Then we did train to the program of other airlines we handled as well, but it was more of a "differences training". We kept laminated cards in the cab. The person doing the deicing turned to the page of the carrier, and followed the protocol. There was specific verbiage used for readback to each carrier, and a visual inspection by the vendor was required. This meant getting out of the cab (or the truck) and doing a walkaround with a flashlight as necessary.

I don't know who was responsible for fluid purchase in this particular station. Some airport use a consortium for Type I and IV. In other cases the airline purchases it for the vendor (so the vendor can't make it up). I managed a station where there was a consortium for Type I. The partner airline was responsible for providing Type IV, but would not purchase it because a previous years purchase had spoiled because it was a mild winter. So what did I have to do? Call dispatch on weather days and remind them we were a Type I only station. Then watch them cancel flights because they wouldn't buy Type IV.

I don't know that this is a corporate problem, but here on A.net its easy to paint the vendor with a broad brush. The local BNA manager for the vendor probably had a responsibility to say "we are out of Type I" before F9 sent a plane in. Did they walk over to F9 ops in BNA and tell them? We don't know. This vendor only handles deicing. Did the vendor tell the ground handler? If so, did the ground handler tell F9 dispatch? I never managed a station that didn't have a backup deicing provider in case my truck went down. I was the backup for other airlines and vendors as well. If this vendor was out of fluid, was there a backup? Why was the backup not used? Having been a iceman, trainer, and manager, my first thought is that this is a local problem. Not a systemic vendor problem. But A.netters like a broad brush.



You provided some good insight into the how and why they could have gotten to the point of running out of type I. Running out of type I isn’t a huge deal. There probably wouldn’t even be a thread about a station simply running out of type I in a huge, uncommon (for that airport) snowstorm. The issue, and the reason for the thread, isn’t that a BNA deice company ran out of type I. It’s the fact that the deice crew ran out of type I, decided to keep on “deicing” with type IV, and then told the flight crew the aircraft was free from contamination knowing that it looked like a snow cone.

The fact that that happened isn’t because some station manager failed to talk to dispatch, or because an airline didn’t buy enough fluid, or whatever else you are talking about. It doesn’t matter how they got to that situation, the fact that a jet with inches of snow on its wings left a deice pad and went to a runway is the problem. And that is solely the fault of the deice crew, and the leadership/management within that company that allowed that type of incident to occur. They either allowed inadequate training, or more likely, fostered an inadequate safety culture. It wasn’t an accidental slip up or something. It wasn’t some guy speeding on the ramp running a truck into a plane. It was negligence, deliberate false reporting of a clean aircraft, and a gross misjudgment to continue deicing when out of fluid (and not telling the flight crew), which is why there is now a criminal investigation ongoing.
 
DLASFlyer
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:06 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:36 pm

Is anyone really surprised that there are poorly trained and poorly paid employees at these bottom feeder ground handling contractors?
 
skitchie
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:44 pm

DLASFlyer wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that there are poorly trained and poorly paid employees at these bottom feeder ground handling contractors?
Having worked at a contractor and knowing many people at other contractors, this is definitely a hole in the swiss cheese. 99% of these ground service contractors are chronically understaffed, have a ton of busted GSE, have a poor relationship with upper management, and thusly have a poor safety culture.

Obviously I'm not taking blame away from this individual de ice crew for this specific case, but having been in their shoes this is definitely something that sprouted up at the systemic level.

Hopefully this will light a fire under the pants of the contractors' upper management that they need to improve something QOL-related otherwise this will continue to be the stigma around ground contractors.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:59 pm

skitchie wrote:
DLASFlyer wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that there are poorly trained and poorly paid employees at these bottom feeder ground handling contractors?
Having worked at a contractor and knowing many people at other contractors, this is definitely a hole in the swiss cheese. 99% of these ground service contractors are chronically understaffed, have a ton of busted GSE, have a poor relationship with upper management, and thusly have a poor safety culture.

Obviously I'm not taking blame away from this individual de ice crew for this specific case, but having been in their shoes this is definitely something that sprouted up at the systemic level.

Hopefully this will light a fire under the pants of the contractors' upper management that they need to improve something QOL-related otherwise this will continue to be the stigma around ground contractors.


Unfortunately, management at these companies are the bare minimum of what the company can afford. You have people who couldn't manage a McDonald's drive-through in charge of ground handling multi-million dollar airplanes. Anyone who has the talent and skills to be a good manager is often out the door at their first opportunity and able to get a higher-paying job with a mainline carrier, or other reputable company (large FBO, etc.). These companies are accidents waiting to happen.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:14 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
ChrisPBacon wrote:
skitchie wrote:
Iceman here (albeit not for F9). We usually give them gallon #s for both I and IV, but also (and more importantly), we verbally confirm with the crew that "the aircraft has been serviced and is free of all contamination".

This vendor's butt is already in the hot seat, even moreso if they have this in their SOPs, which I imagine they would at some point.


It's clear most posters on here have never deiced an aircraft. The A.net armchair is full. And vendors are always worse than mainline here.

Having been an iceman and a certified trainer, the vendor is using one of two protocols. Either they use F9's approved de/anti-ice program, or they use another carriers program (which F9 has told the vendor is an acceptable program.

My team was trained in the program of our biggest customer in the station. Then we did train to the program of other airlines we handled as well, but it was more of a "differences training". We kept laminated cards in the cab. The person doing the deicing turned to the page of the carrier, and followed the protocol. There was specific verbiage used for readback to each carrier, and a visual inspection by the vendor was required. This meant getting out of the cab (or the truck) and doing a walkaround with a flashlight as necessary.

I don't know who was responsible for fluid purchase in this particular station. Some airport use a consortium for Type I and IV. In other cases the airline purchases it for the vendor (so the vendor can't make it up). I managed a station where there was a consortium for Type I. The partner airline was responsible for providing Type IV, but would not purchase it because a previous years purchase had spoiled because it was a mild winter. So what did I have to do? Call dispatch on weather days and remind them we were a Type I only station. Then watch them cancel flights because they wouldn't buy Type IV.

I don't know that this is a corporate problem, but here on A.net its easy to paint the vendor with a broad brush. The local BNA manager for the vendor probably had a responsibility to say "we are out of Type I" before F9 sent a plane in. Did they walk over to F9 ops in BNA and tell them? We don't know. This vendor only handles deicing. Did the vendor tell the ground handler? If so, did the ground handler tell F9 dispatch? I never managed a station that didn't have a backup deicing provider in case my truck went down. I was the backup for other airlines and vendors as well. If this vendor was out of fluid, was there a backup? Why was the backup not used? Having been a iceman, trainer, and manager, my first thought is that this is a local problem. Not a systemic vendor problem. But A.netters like a broad brush.



You provided some good insight into the how and why they could have gotten to the point of running out of type I. Running out of type I isn’t a huge deal. There probably wouldn’t even be a thread about a station simply running out of type I in a huge, uncommon (for that airport) snowstorm. The issue, and the reason for the thread, isn’t that a BNA deice company ran out of type I. It’s the fact that the deice crew ran out of type I, decided to keep on “deicing” with type IV, and then told the flight crew the aircraft was free from contamination knowing that it looked like a snow cone.

The fact that that happened isn’t because some station manager failed to talk to dispatch, or because an airline didn’t buy enough fluid, or whatever else you are talking about. It doesn’t matter how they got to that situation, the fact that a jet with inches of snow on its wings left a deice pad and went to a runway is the problem. And that is solely the fault of the deice crew, and the leadership/management within that company that allowed that type of incident to occur. They either allowed inadequate training, or more likely, fostered an inadequate safety culture. It wasn’t an accidental slip up or something. It wasn’t some guy speeding on the ramp running a truck into a plane. It was negligence, deliberate false reporting of a clean aircraft, and a gross misjudgment to continue deicing when out of fluid (and not telling the flight crew), which is why there is now a criminal investigation ongoing.


This.

It's not the fact that something happened such as running out of type I. It's the failure in process that led to the sign off of this as acceptable and the lack of procedural oversight to stop this.

This not being a fatal incident is a function of luck.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:27 pm

ChrisPBacon wrote:
... I don't know who was responsible for fluid purchase in this particular station. Some airport use a consortium for Type I and IV. In other cases the airline purchases it for the vendor (so the vendor can't make it up). I managed a station where there was a consortium for Type I. The partner airline was responsible for providing Type IV, but would not purchase it because a previous years purchase had spoiled because it was a mild winter. So what did I have to do? Call dispatch on weather days and remind them we were a Type I only station. Then watch them cancel flights because they wouldn't buy Type IV.


I'm sure it must have been frustrating to read all the "vendors suck" posts above, and I appreciate that you nevertheless provided thoughtful analysis and helpful detailed info about the job.

I have been in a variety of businesses where the screwup of one person could kill someone or put us out of business, if not caught by a supervisor accustomed to the job always having been done right. And having run businesses in which work is done by humans, I am painfully-aware that individual humans can do the most boneheaded things, even when happy, well-paid and well-trained. This not-infrequently happens when they use their own judgment in a pinch, so I always tried to draw clear lines where the person should feel comfortable enlisting the guidance of a superior, even if it meant calling me.

But even with that perspective, two aspects of the story here are concerning. First, the idea that Type IV would be good for anything in this circumstance reflects a lack of knowledge and probably training by the iceperson, or truly-malicious behavior. Second, the idea that the vendor would report the aircraft serviced and clear of contamination when it wasn't is Very Bad. That points to a more-systemic problem somewhere in the chain of command. It doesn't (necessarily) reach to the board room, but of course it falls on the folks in the board room.

I do notice that in the last several years, this company has expanded very-rapidly in the ground-handling space. And that the guy in charge of ground handling died of cancer like 4 years ago. One wonders how his replacement was selected and what got changed, if anything. It could be as simple as the company's internal processes and management couldn't keep up with the expansion. Or it could be that they are all idiots, I guess. I usually leave space for the event to have happened despite there being well-meaning people at the top, but it's their responsibility to have deep enough management, training and procedures to prevent something this-incredibly-dumb.
 
skitchie
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:46 pm

wjcandee wrote:
ChrisPBacon wrote:
... I don't know who was responsible for fluid purchase in this particular station. Some airport use a consortium for Type I and IV. In other cases the airline purchases it for the vendor (so the vendor can't make it up). I managed a station where there was a consortium for Type I. The partner airline was responsible for providing Type IV, but would not purchase it because a previous years purchase had spoiled because it was a mild winter. So what did I have to do? Call dispatch on weather days and remind them we were a Type I only station. Then watch them cancel flights because they wouldn't buy Type IV.


I'm sure it must have been frustrating to read all the "vendors suck" posts above, and I appreciate that you nevertheless provided thoughtful analysis and helpful detailed info about the job.

I have been in a variety of businesses where the screwup of one person could kill someone or put us out of business, if not caught by a supervisor accustomed to the job always having been done right. And having run businesses in which work is done by humans, I am painfully-aware that individual humans can do the most boneheaded things, even when happy, well-paid and well-trained. This not-infrequently happens when they use their own judgment in a pinch, so I always tried to draw clear lines where the person should feel comfortable enlisting the guidance of a superior, even if it meant calling me.

But even with that perspective, two aspects of the story here are concerning. First, the idea that Type IV would be good for anything in this circumstance reflects a lack of knowledge and probably training by the iceperson, or truly-malicious behavior. Second, the idea that the vendor would report the aircraft serviced and clear of contamination when it wasn't is Very Bad. That points to a more-systemic problem somewhere in the chain of command. It doesn't (necessarily) reach to the board room, but of course it falls on the folks in the board room.

I do notice that in the last several years, this company has expanded very-rapidly in the ground-handling space. And that the guy in charge of ground handling died of cancer like 4 years ago. One wonders how his replacement was selected and what got changed, if anything. It could be as simple as the company's internal processes and management couldn't keep up with the expansion. Or it could be that they are all idiots, I guess. I usually leave space for the event to have happened despite there being well-meaning people at the top, but it's their responsibility to have deep enough management, training and procedures to prevent something this-incredibly-dumb.
Having been a contractor/iceman myself I think I have some perspective that is fairly common among other contractors when these sort of things happen.

What most likely happened is they were in fact trained and certified, but this training was done back in September or October. Knowing BNA, this was probably only the first or second time this season that they actually de iced. Meaning all that training sat idly and gradually became less and less relevant to them.

These guys were contractors which means they do marshalling, pushing, offloading, onloading, lav/water servicing, bag room stuff, the whole 9 yards. Doing all that and no deicing up till this day probably helped lead to what happened.

What probably could have saved this from happening was just a quick rebrief on spraying SOPs beforehand. You would think that when the driver confirmed with the crew verbally that the aircraft was clean that that should have set some alarm bells off.

Did the crew purposefully send the plane out like that? That's what I'm curious to hear. Trego Dugan has a history at BNA for bone headed moves, but I never really thought they would do something this borderline malicious.
 
User avatar
jscottwomack
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:44 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:49 pm

I checked out the Trego Dugan website and the page for Airline Ground Handling has at the top "Winging It" as a title. Can't make this stuff up if I tried. Check it out. https://www.trego-dugan.com/services/ai ... d_handling
TWA, Ozark, Braniff, Piedmont, USAir, American, Delta, Frontier, Midwest Express, Western, Eastern, Southwest, Northwest, PanAm, United, Mississippi Valley, Britt, Continental, Trans America, Midway, America West, National, American Trans Air, Sun Country
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:51 pm

skitchie wrote:
Having been a contractor/iceman myself I think I have some perspective that is fairly common among other contractors when these sort of things happen.


Very-thoughtful analysis. And you're right: any smart manager, or supervisor, or shift lead, would have called the crew together and spent 30 minutes going over the basics and making themselves available to answer questions, and encourage the asking of questions. And that's why one can/should point the finger up the chain of command.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3240
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:05 pm

Web500sjc wrote:
The real issue is that the vendor told the flight crew the plane was “free and clear of All contaminants.”


Do we know that? The poster upthread said that is in his company's SOP, but I haven't seen anything so far that details what was said by whom in this incident.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
skitchie
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:13 pm

Moose135 wrote:
Web500sjc wrote:
The real issue is that the vendor told the flight crew the plane was “free and clear of All contaminants.”


Do we know that? The poster upthread said that is in his company's SOP, but I haven't seen anything so far that details what was said by whom in this incident.
The F9 ALPA email is linked in the article and says "the Vendor (Trego Dugan aviation) stated to our flight deck crew that the aircraft was deiced and clear of contaminants"
 
ethernal
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:16 pm

Moose135 wrote:
Web500sjc wrote:
The real issue is that the vendor told the flight crew the plane was “free and clear of All contaminants.”


Do we know that? The poster upthread said that is in his company's SOP, but I haven't seen anything so far that details what was said by whom in this incident.


I'd be shocked if that wasn't universal. But it sounds like this is a place that regulators need to examine closely and there will likely be real changes coming out of this.

Regardless of the comms, this is something that has to be a four-eye check (whether by the vendor or with the second set of eyes being the FA/pilots) on this and unambiguous communication on what has been done. For example, "de-icing is done" is not unambiguous communication. It is a statement of action, not a statement of outcome.

I'm assuming there will definitely be a series of regulatory recommendations and/or changes coming out of this given how serious this incident is. While things like the recent engine issues on the United flight get the press and news, this was fundamentally closer to a major loss of life disaster than the risk of even a dozen UA329-style fan blade failures. I'd be curious to know what current regs exist for process operations for de-icers.
 
OB1504
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:30 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
This is where company directors need to be made personally liable. Decisions like that are almost never the case of someone on the front line acting alone. That happens because the entire company culture is rotten and that behavior is accepted by management so becomes accepted by the line worker.

Do you know for a fact that the company directors were fully aware of this practice and directly ordered the ground employee to act as such? If not, they employees (including company directors) cannot be made personally liable.


I’ve worked for vendors like this in the past. The conversation probably went something like:

Supervisor: We’re out of Type I fluid. We can’t deice airplanes until we get more.

Manager: No excuses. Make it happen. You will be disciplined/fired if performance is affected.

Then a plane goes down and the manager claims to be completely unaware, that he never said to deice aircraft improperly, and that it was the supervisor’s fault for cutting corners, even though he clearly should’ve been able to put 2 and 2 together and realize that if airplanes were still departing when they’re out of fluid, they’re obviously not being deiced properly.

Given what working at some of these bottom feeder vendors is like, it’s only a matter of time until it causes an accident and only then will regulators care.

nws2002 wrote:
AZORMP wrote:
This is beyond gross negligence; this is almost criminal. Those agents could’ve killed everyone on the flight.

Swallow your pride and say you can’t do it.


OB1504 wrote:
Everyone from Trego Duran involved in making the decision to release the airplane like that should be behind bars.

We haven’t had a fatal US mainline crash in nearly 20 years and that record was almost marred because a vendor decided to cheap out.

If it’s a company culture thing, they shouldn’t be allowed to touch airplanes. MIA is kicking out a notorious ground handler for their awful working conditions and perhaps BNA should do the same.


Would this handler happen to have the initials EA? I’ve watched them work when I was in MIA. Wasn’t really impressed.


Yes it is Eulen. I heard a rumour TPA was trying to do the same.


Ironically, what set this in motion was their employees’ efforts to unionize. The union drew attention to the working conditions and a local news station did a big exposé. Given that Eulen has had some very high profile issues in the past (such as how they lost the AA skycap contract after Miami-Dade Police busted a bunch of skycaps taking cash bribes for accepting excess luggage), this was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back and resulted in their expulsion.
Last edited by OB1504 on Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:35 pm

skitchie wrote:
CrimsonNL wrote:
Does anyone have a link that includes the pictures? They don't seem to be in the link in the OP. Thanks!
It's in there about halfway down, but here.Image


I am speechless :o :shock: ....if this was at night, we could very well be talking about something completely different
 
rexchase12
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:38 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:32 pm

ei146 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
But while I also agree that this is a completely inexcusable failure, and that F9 used up about three years of good luck that day, I do not believe that would automatically have caused a wreck. Certainly, we all remember this marvelous accomplishment...


Oh, it makes a lot of a difference what kind of stuff you have on your wings. In your Russian example it was the light and dry snow you get in really cold wheather at below freezing temperature. It does not stick and will be easiely blown away.
But when it is wet and freezes to the surfaces it will stick. The F9 wing looked more like the later kind.


In the photo, the white you see on the ground was primarily sleet, not snow. We had about an inch of sleet with a little snow on top.
 
MSJYOP28Apilot
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:09 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:20 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
nwadeicer wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

There are scenarios where some operators require a visual confirmation by a pilot. I made friends with a DL f/o while sitting in an exit row in heavy snow at DTW a few years back when he was dispatched from the cockpit several times to have a look at the wings.


Delta does not require a visual inspection by the flight crew. They are more than welcome to inspect the wings from a window but again are not required.


All I can tell you is that the captain announced that it was policy and that we should not be alarmed. Whether that was true or not I obviously do not know. I believe the aircraft was an M88.


Usually, the cockpit crews inspect the wings from the cabin after deicing/anti-icing during conditions such as heavy snow where there are no holdover times applicable for that condition.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7824
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:36 am

Would the accident report say, “PIC failed to verify the wing was clear of contamination” OR, post-fire analysis showed no wing contamination”? Not airline, but I’ve gotten very wet, cold feet and ruined shoes checking the de-icing procedures from KTEB to UHPP and a hundred places in between. Get out and look.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2293
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:06 am

OB1504 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
This is where company directors need to be made personally liable. Decisions like that are almost never the case of someone on the front line acting alone. That happens because the entire company culture is rotten and that behavior is accepted by management so becomes accepted by the line worker.

Do you know for a fact that the company directors were fully aware of this practice and directly ordered the ground employee to act as such? If not, they employees (including company directors) cannot be made personally liable.


I’ve worked for vendors like this in the past. The conversation probably went something like:

Supervisor: We’re out of Type I fluid. We can’t deice airplanes until we get more.

Manager: No excuses. Make it happen. You will be disciplined/fired if performance is affected.

Then a plane goes down and the manager claims to be completely unaware, that he never said to deice aircraft improperly, and that it was the supervisor’s fault for cutting corners, even though he clearly should’ve been able to put 2 and 2 together and realize that if airplanes were still departing when they’re out of fluid, they’re obviously not being deiced properly.

Given what working at some of these bottom feeder vendors is like, it’s only a matter of time until it causes an accident and only then will regulators care.

Well, you don't know for a fact and makes guesses; it could be an isolated case (i.e. the individual worker decided to use his own procedure, and HE should be held liable), or it could be a general case (i.e. it's the company policy, and managers will have to be held liable).
But, until someone can prove it's a general thing happening at that company and/or location, managers cannot be personally held liable.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1436
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:37 am

[twoid][/twoid]
tb727 wrote:
I saw pictures of the wing a couple weeks ago when it happened and you can tell they for sure just sprayed Type IV on it without deicing first with Type I. Criminal.

Who was the moron supervisor that made THAT call? McDonald’s wages get McDonald’s level employees and sups.
I’ll bet they would still billed them for it, though.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:01 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Would the accident report say, “PIC failed to verify the wing was clear of contamination” OR, post-fire analysis showed no wing contamination”? Not airline, but I’ve gotten very wet, cold feet and ruined shoes checking the de-icing procedures from KTEB to UHPP and a hundred places in between. Get out and look.

Are you suggesting airline pilots hook up a set of stairs, deplane, go get a ladder to climb up and look on top of the wings after being deiced? All while off the gate, where most 121 deice operations happen?
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1436
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:29 am

skitchie wrote:
DLASFlyer wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that there are poorly trained and poorly paid employees at these bottom feeder ground handling contractors?
Having worked at a contractor and knowing many people at other contractors, this is definitely a hole in the swiss cheese. 99% of these ground service contractors are chronically understaffed, have a ton of busted GSE, have a poor relationship with upper management, and thusly have a poor safety culture.

Obviously I'm not taking blame away from this individual de ice crew for this specific case, but having been in their shoes this is definitely something that sprouted up at the systemic level.

Hopefully this will light a fire under the pants of the contractors' upper management that they need to improve something QOL-related otherwise this will continue to be the stigma around ground contractors.

This isn’t just a contractor only issue. It happens anywhere that the 100% safety at all times mentality becomes an “Meh, it’s good enough!” Culture, and that includes Company Union Ramp, where I saw it happen many times.

Bottom line, this is a failure of local management. Not just the immediate supervisor it happened under, but the Station management running the show, and the upper management charged with oversight. Somewhere along the line, someone thought this was acceptable. How many times before did they say, “ That’s good ENOUGH!” at this station? Normalcy bias is a real safety issue, and must constantly be guarded against and reinforced.
 
User avatar
Acey559
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:09 am

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:
Nomadd wrote:
So, is it normal to not even glance at the wings after deicing? I'm having a little trouble believing the crew could have considered taking off without looking at the wings, especially when a known crap outfit handled the deicing call.


Pilots cant see much if any of the wings. Though the question should be whether one of the pilots should be required to walk back into cabin and look at the wings? This would make sense for situations like morning frost or light snow but with freezing rain, sleet, moderate-heavy snow or mixed precipitation and the restrictive holdover/allowance times in such conditions, the clock is ticking and going back to check each time would mean losing valuable time to get airborne before a second deicing/anti icing would be required.


At my airline, we are approved to perform a nose check if we exceed our holdover time and still legally depart. If the nose check is inconclusive, we must walk to the back and perform a wing check. If the fluid is still intact, we are allowed to depart. However, that’s very rare. We typically receive our holdover times through ACARS and we have an iPad app that we use as a backup if ACARS isn’t available.

In fact, I just performed my first wing check on my last trip. It was incredibly cold in COS and the Type IV holdover was only 9 minutes. The wing check is required to be performed within 5 minutes of departure, so we held short of the runway while I went in the back. All was well so we took off and landed in DEN safely.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4571
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:30 am

Anyone else wondering how many other planes took off that day with the same issue?!!! I am mortified that the individuals doing the job would even consider saying they did the job properly! This alone explains the integrity of the company responsible for the contract!

I have said it before, and I will say it again. When F9 decided to outsource their ramp and customer service, nobody should be shocked at this outcome here. Cheap and airplanes are a horrible mix.

Thank God for the flight attendant! That plane could have easily gone down with that much contamination on the wings. I also hope this alone brings a needed change in confirming the work was done properly in ice and snow situations.

If the ground crew responsible for this reads this, please.... Do us a huge favor. Don't even apply for a job anywhere near an airport ever again. I hope they are charged criminally for this!
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4571
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:36 am

jetmatt777 wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
Everyone from Trego Duran involved in making the decision to release the airplane like that should be behind bars.

We haven’t had a fatal US mainline crash in nearly 20 years and that record was almost marred because an airline decided to cheap out.

If it’s a company culture thing, they shouldn’t be allowed to touch airplanes. MIA is kicking out a notorious ground handler for their awful working conditions and perhaps BNA should do the same.


Fixed it for you. The decision to outsource to a vendor was 100% the airline's fault. The decision to take the lowest bidder, was also Frontier's. When you pay for crap, you get crap. I remember when my company (not F9) had a town hall meeting in my station to discuss the company's recent decision to outsource our work to a vendor: "I am going to be honest here. You guys do a great job, and put out a great product for our customer. However, this company does an okay product for half the price. We are okay with "okay" for these savings".

I have no sympathy for a company that chooses to go for the lowest bidder, and I have no sympathy for these contract companies going broke for their negligence. You get what you pay for. Blame the vendor, but also look at who decided to go with such a poor company. When Frontier would have had to pay the burial costs and lawsuits for 150 dead people, would saving that $45,000 a year to go with the cheapest company have been worth it?


To this very day, I am still steaming pissed about Frontier outsourcing both ramp and customer service to the cheapest vendor. Unfortunately, Frontier and other airlines will not learn lessons from this. The only time they will wake up is when a tragedy strikes, and people are hurt or killed. This event does not shock me in any way. I am actually surprised we haven't seen a tragedy from going to the cheapest vendors possible. Of course I thought Valujet would have been a wake-up call.

And I find it absolutely ironic that a uniformed crew member employed for the actual airline was the one that was observant enough to know there was a serious problem. This solidifies my belief that actual employees care more about their job than a $7 an hour no benefits subcontractor.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:01 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Do you know for a fact that the company directors were fully aware of this practice and directly ordered the ground employee to act as such? If not, they employees (including company directors) cannot be made personally liable.


I’ve worked for vendors like this in the past. The conversation probably went something like:

Supervisor: We’re out of Type I fluid. We can’t deice airplanes until we get more.

Manager: No excuses. Make it happen. You will be disciplined/fired if performance is affected.

Then a plane goes down and the manager claims to be completely unaware, that he never said to deice aircraft improperly, and that it was the supervisor’s fault for cutting corners, even though he clearly should’ve been able to put 2 and 2 together and realize that if airplanes were still departing when they’re out of fluid, they’re obviously not being deiced properly.

Given what working at some of these bottom feeder vendors is like, it’s only a matter of time until it causes an accident and only then will regulators care.

Well, you don't know for a fact and makes guesses; it could be an isolated case (i.e. the individual worker decided to use his own procedure, and HE should be held liable), or it could be a general case (i.e. it's the company policy, and managers will have to be held liable).
But, until someone can prove it's a general thing happening at that company and/or location, managers cannot be personally held liable.


Aviation is not a single redundancy industry. So even if some individual decided to do this, there should be a process in place of other individuals or supervisors who verify and stop unsafe practices.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
Wacker1000
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:36 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:34 pm

jreeves96 wrote:
Management lacks management skills because turn over is so high within the company. When you can't train your employees correctly on how to throw bags in the belly it's bound to end pretty badly. Trego is also on the bottom of pay scale on paying it's employees.


This isn't a F9 specific issue. The flying public wanted cheap tickets and this is what the flying public gets. Airlines outsource jobs to the cheapest vendor to keep costs low. That vendor in turn keeps their prices low by paying nothing. Most people that takes jobs at these vendors are only doing it for the short term (it is amazing half of them actually passed a background check or drug test). This is pretty much SOP with every third party ground service vendor whether it be tossing bags, cleaning the cabin, fueling, etc. You have to police them like they are little kids or they will screw you over by doing something stupid.
 
User avatar
Nomadd
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:42 pm

Lots of calm professional answers in here, but sorry, the idea of having a foot of ice and snow on the wings and not looking at them to be sure it's gone before you fly may be the single most mind boggling stupid thing I've ever heard. Something is really, really wrong when anyone can even try to justify that as normal or acceptable.
 
mjgbtv
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:45 pm

F9Animal wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
Everyone from Trego Duran involved in making the decision to release the airplane like that should be behind bars.

We haven’t had a fatal US mainline crash in nearly 20 years and that record was almost marred because an airline decided to cheap out.

If it’s a company culture thing, they shouldn’t be allowed to touch airplanes. MIA is kicking out a notorious ground handler for their awful working conditions and perhaps BNA should do the same.


Fixed it for you. The decision to outsource to a vendor was 100% the airline's fault. The decision to take the lowest bidder, was also Frontier's. When you pay for crap, you get crap. I remember when my company (not F9) had a town hall meeting in my station to discuss the company's recent decision to outsource our work to a vendor: "I am going to be honest here. You guys do a great job, and put out a great product for our customer. However, this company does an okay product for half the price. We are okay with "okay" for these savings".

I have no sympathy for a company that chooses to go for the lowest bidder, and I have no sympathy for these contract companies going broke for their negligence. You get what you pay for. Blame the vendor, but also look at who decided to go with such a poor company. When Frontier would have had to pay the burial costs and lawsuits for 150 dead people, would saving that $45,000 a year to go with the cheapest company have been worth it?


To this very day, I am still steaming pissed about Frontier outsourcing both ramp and customer service to the cheapest vendor. Unfortunately, Frontier and other airlines will not learn lessons from this. The only time they will wake up is when a tragedy strikes, and people are hurt or killed. This event does not shock me in any way. I am actually surprised we haven't seen a tragedy from going to the cheapest vendors possible. Of course I thought Valujet would have been a wake-up call.

And I find it absolutely ironic that a uniformed crew member employed for the actual airline was the one that was observant enough to know there was a serious problem. This solidifies my belief that actual employees care more about their job than a $7 an hour no benefits subcontractor.


Just wondering - what other options did F9 have? How many de-icing vendors are there are BNA? How many stations could F9 realistically afford to have in-house ground staff at? Sure, they could raise prices but 'our own ground staff' isn't exactly a market differentiator...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos