An investigation being detailed and conclusive are mutually exclusive...

Sure, they'll dig into training and records and processes. But that still speculative information.

How much forensic evidence is there going to be to draw conclusions?

Most airports with cameras have them on the other side of the aircraft from the accident.

Eyewitnesses? Again, more likely on the other side.

The preliminary will answer the forensic questions in a couple weeks.

Eolesen wrote:

An investigation being detailed and conclusive are mutually exclusive...

Sure, they'll dig into training and records and processes. But that still speculative information.

How much forensic evidence is there going to be to draw conclusions?

Most airports with cameras have them on the other side of the aircraft from the accident.

Eyewitnesses? Again, more likely on the other side.

The preliminary will answer the forensic questions in a couple weeks.

You make a few good point, but we are not talking about 19th century tabloid journalism here where they make stuff up. Plus, as my background is also public safety, every court case that doesn't have a true confession is also speculation, especially cases involved a decedent. All the evidence you gather, all the witnesses you interview, in most cases, while not circumstantial in the context of legalese, everything that convicts a person is generally intelligent speculation in that sense and based on conclusions. That said...

The agencies that will be investigating this have decades of experience in, as you state, forensically, digging through accident after accident, crash after crash, incident after incident...with and without witnesses, with and without black boxes and complete structures, etc...as well as the human component and all that entails.

Digging through station norms, the unique station operational environment, all company documentation, in-depth interviews with employees and witnesses, flight and cabin crew for that flight as well as company maintenance records on the airplane and engine itself and all human factors. They will also find out what occupants of the plane and the terminal observed the incident and will also interview them. And even further, they will even interview, and as I pointed out in a previous post, employees that work with other companies to see what they have observed with how the company and its employees conduct themselves, how they work, etc. I know when I worked the ramp, we watched WN and I know they have watched us as we were right next to each other and comments have been mentioned. So others have observed work habits of other work groups.

When they have gathered all that information, combined with their eons of experience, the final outcome will be as complete as one can be with the most important missing component...the decedent who is the only one who truly knows exactly what happened.

Some say there is a video and its already leaked to the internet. I suspect that isn't the case, but a separate incident being passed off for viewer clicks.

Regardless, it is tragic, mistakes were clearly made. The investigation is there for the purpose of finding the systemic mistakes as no incident is a single source failure. And the entire industry will learn from this and, hopefully, change their training/oversight programs accordingly so her death is not in vain. I posted early on what my experiential trainer and investigator (airline and public safety) initial suspicions on the events and outcome of the investigation will be. And with aviation, in this case, my track record of "initial hunch" if you will is rather high. So we'll see.

But, your point is not lost. Stay well.

And if the reports recommend that the FAA take a more active role in ensuring safety on the ramp. Especially with the regionals and contractors as that is where these incidents continue to occur.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

And if the reports recommend that the FAA take a more active role in ensuring safety on the ramp. Especially with the regionals and contractors as that is where these incidents continue to occur.

I'd be very surprised if the report included any additional oversight recommendations for the FAA.

For one, most of the ramp work is considered industrial work and is governed by OSHA. For two, the rate of accidents that result in death or severe disfigurement (loss of limb, loss of eye, severe paralysis, etc.) is extremely low and likely within the same range that OSHA observes in other similar heavy machinery industries.

As far as it being mostly regionals and contractors, that isn't really the case. UPS and DL have had several incidents as well recently (UPS had a tug flip and kill an employee, DL had an employee get run over by a tug in JFK and then the lav truck incident in ATL a few weeks back) and I'm sure there are plenty more out there. The ratio might be slightly lower when looking at number of hours worked but in recent times I'm not sure there is any sort of overwhelming connection between lack of ground safety and the company's status as a contractor or not.

I believe it depends what the NTSB and OSHA finds in their investigation.

I was unable to figure out the rate of accidents for the industry - their website exceeded my technical abilities. Perhaps some one else can figure it out.

The most recent fatalities that I'm aware of :
Montgomery (1/23) (Piedmont)
Ontario CA (11/19) (2 UPS employees killed by tug)
JFK (8/19) (Delta employee killed by a tug)
Newark (9/17) (Commutair employee contractor for United killed by propeller strike)

Is anyone aware of any fatalities I may have missed since say 2017?

Ironically when I was searching the web for information, this link came up -
"Ramp Agents BEWARE"
viewtopic.php?t=1379581
Airliners.net discussion of this very same issue. Thread was started in 2017.

And found this -
OSHA and the Airlines had a Airline Ground Safety Panel (AGSP)
(signed May 20, 2008; renewed October 10, 2012; renewed April 08, 2015; concluded April 24, 2018).
Can't find out if a new panel was created or what their recommendations/findings were.

How does the U.S. compare to rest of the world when it comes to ramp accidents and fatalities?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

And if the reports recommend that the FAA take a more active role in ensuring safety on the ramp. Especially with the regionals and contractors as that is where these incidents continue to occur.

I'm not being critical of you, nor your stance. It is just you have so adamantly stuck to and posted this comment endlessly and have never articulated your reasons for this as your only acceptable solution. If you will provide that, it will help the rest of us understand the point you are coming from and can thus, with more understanding, interact with you on the subject more intelligently as we discuss the merits of your stance.

That said... As having been explained, to ad nauseum, the FAA is already involved in the process. Several of us have explained how and why the system currently is structured and works with oversight. What is your position/experience within the aviation world, if I may ask? With this stance being such an, pardon this term but it seems appropriate, obsession with this insistence, that information would be helpful.

I'm fine that you think this is the answer, none of us have an exclusive view with respect to the only acceptable answer. Please, I'd love to have you articulate why you think that only through having the FAA intimately and immediately involved in the lives of every single ramp worker directly is THE ONLY ANSWER to work place human factors failures. Why you believe that the system as it is currently structured is so fundamentally flawed that, in your mind; more government, more government red tape and more career government employees will solve anything? Government is most often the problem, never the solution in most things.

As a summary of what we have all said previously for you to address if you choose to respond with more detail:
- Many of us have already demonstrated that each company must have their training programs approved by the governance of both the alphabet agencies of the federal government AND the respective airline partners they service.

- We have all already pointed out that the FAA actively reviews and audits these programs, training records and such and the ability to remain in the business hangs on compliance. The company and mainline airlines both audit the training programs, training records and physically audit the stations and their employees and the results are documented for review of all oversight entities.

- When failures present themselves, internal and external investigations and audits are conducted. If severe enough, the alphabet agencies of the overlord get involved, as they should. This will be true to form in this case as well. The NTSB, the FAA, OSHA (federal and state) will ALL be on scene and will investigate on their own, independent of all other agencies, as will local law enforcement searching for any potential criminal activity.

Each of these agencies will produce a report of their respective findings, as it applies to their specific area of expertise, covering all aspects of the station operations, all of its discovered common conduct, bias', attitudes, adherences and deviations from established protocols of the company AND the industry as a whole. They will identify, within their area of expertise, the chain of events that led to this tragic outcome and any recommendations for the prevention of future events/incidents/accidents going forward. They will also include their intended path of oversight and intervention for both this event and going forward until a pattern of compliance is established and documented. Licenses pulled, fines and penalties accessed as a result of this incident, causation of liability and even finger pointing to responsible parties if necessary. Local law enforcement may even issue criminal charges if it is determine that criminal negligence is identified.

The end result will be a complete picture of events: pre incident, at the time of the incident and a recommended plan of action for moving forward with the intended result the mitigation of conditions that led up to this result and improving safety across the industry as a whole, and this station/company and its work force in particular.

So PLEASE, with your endless insistence on the FAA intimately involved in every single employees life...explain to us how you see that your stance is the ONLY satisfactory outcome so we can understand it. It will help all of us better interact and move the conversation forward in a productive way. As I said, none of us have "THE ONLY" right answer...so your expansion on your thoughts only adds to the overall merits of this conversation and are most welcome. Stay well and hope you respond as such.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I believe it depends what the NTSB and OSHA finds in their investigation.

I was unable to figure out the rate of accidents for the industry - their website exceeded my technical abilities. Perhaps some one else can figure it out.

The most recent fatalities that I'm aware of :
Montgomery (1/23) (Piedmont)
Ontario CA (11/19) (2 UPS employees killed by tug)
JFK (8/19) (Delta employee killed by a tug)
Newark (9/17) (Commutair employee contractor for United killed by propeller strike)

Is anyone aware of any fatalities I may have missed since say 2017?

Ironically when I was searching the web for information, this link came up -
"Ramp Agents BEWARE"
viewtopic.php?t=1379581
Airliners.net discussion of this very same issue. Thread was started in 2017.

And found this -
OSHA and the Airlines had a Airline Ground Safety Panel (AGSP)
(signed May 20, 2008; renewed October 10, 2012; renewed April 08, 2015; concluded April 24, 2018).
Can't find out if a new panel was created or what their recommendations/findings were.

Piedmont had another ramp agent die 8/19 at CLT

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/a ... 995168001/

When accidents like this happen are things like training records seized by authorities quickly so they can't be altered or destroyed?

Just a little perspective, I work on a cargo ramp for 23 years, these are the only incidents I know about,

1. Person fell off a main deck k-loader. Injuries unknown.
2. Person fell off a lower deck k-loader. Injuries unknown.
3. Person indirectly hit by lightning on a lower deck loader. Injuries unknown.
4. Person hit by a tug. Fatality
5. Loss off a couple of toes in a dolly/tug interaction.

As you can see not much information was given to the companies working the ramp. None of the information was first hand. Don't even know if any investigations were done. There were probably more but not much talk about it.

I know more about aircraft damage accidents on our ramp than people accidents.

Pay is not very good. The GHAs get the type of employee they pay for. Training is not that much. I think it is a week of class training, then you are on the ramp on your own. I rarely seen anyone training on the ramp. Occasionally some is training on the k loader.

My training was about the same. My first airline job, was a week of classroom. Then about 2 weeks in the bag room. 1 day with a supervisor of OJT on a tug. Then about a day ramping in/ramping out planes, load/unloading planes, paperwork, directing passengers with a supervisor. Then on my own. Trail by far. Mainly due to the lack of manpower on the ramp. No one at the time was designated to be trainers on the ramp

My next 2 jobs was out on the ramp with another employee to learn the ropes. Only formal training I got was load master and dangerous goods certification.

N757KW

n757kw wrote:

Just a little perspective, I work on a cargo ramp for 23 years, these are the only incidents I know about,

1. Person fell off a main deck k-loader. Injuries unknown.
2. Person fell off a lower deck k-loader. Injuries unknown.
3. Person indirectly hit by lightning on a lower deck loader. Injuries unknown.
4. Person hit by a tug. Fatality
5. Loss off a couple of toes in a dolly/tug interaction.

As you can see not much information was given to the companies working the ramp. None of the information was first hand. Don't even know if any investigations were done. There were probably more but not much talk about it.

I know more about aircraft damage accidents on our ramp than people accidents.

Pay is not very good. The GHAs get the type of employee they pay for. Training is not that much. I think it is a week of class training, then you are on the ramp on your own. I rarely seen anyone training on the ramp. Occasionally some is training on the k loader.

My training was about the same. My first airline job, was a week of classroom. Then about 2 weeks in the bag room. 1 day with a supervisor of OJT on a tug. Then about a day ramping in/ramping out planes, load/unloading planes, paperwork, directing passengers with a supervisor. Then on my own. Trail by far. Mainly due to the lack of manpower on the ramp. No one at the time was designated to be trainers on the ramp

My next 2 jobs was out on the ramp with another employee to learn the ropes. Only formal training I got was load master and dangerous goods certification.

N757KW

Didn't FEDEX lose a ramp employee to a lightning strike at IND not too long ago?

n757kw wrote:

My next 2 jobs was out on the ramp with another employee to learn the ropes. Only formal training I got was load master and dangerous goods certification.

N757KW

This speaks volumes and absolutely matches my experience. If the training didn’t require an actual certification or license, it was a few days classroom followed by on the job. Funny enough, the most training I received was to deice. And that was also the lowest paying.

For some comparison, almost a month of training was required to become certified to drive on an airfield. (Movement area) It took 5 days to become qualified as a loadmaster on every type that the airline I worked for operated.

Canuck600 wrote:

When accidents like this happen are things like training records seized by authorities quickly so they can't be altered or destroyed?

Records are largely electronic and the FAA typically signs off on the audit capabilities which prevent altering or pencil-whipping to fake compliance... hardly foolproof but a sure way to get shut down if you do try to tamper with..... DBA's aren't risking going to jail to cover up for someone else....

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

FGITD wrote:

n757kw wrote:

My next 2 jobs was out on the ramp with another employee to learn the ropes. Only formal training I got was load master and dangerous goods certification.

N757KW

This speaks volumes and absolutely matches my experience. If the training didn’t require an actual certification or license, it was a few days classroom followed by on the job. Funny enough, the most training I received was to deice. And that was also the lowest paying.

For some comparison, almost a month of training was required to become certified to drive on an airfield. (Movement area) It took 5 days to become qualified as a loadmaster on every type that the airline I worked for operated.

Huh. My ramp DL was five minutes standing in line at the DOA office to get it approved without anything more than a trainer's sign-off. But we couldn't drive beyond the lease line or service roads...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Eolesen wrote:

FGITD wrote:

n757kw wrote:

My next 2 jobs was out on the ramp with another employee to learn the ropes. Only formal training I got was load master and dangerous goods certification.

N757KW

This speaks volumes and absolutely matches my experience. If the training didn’t require an actual certification or license, it was a few days classroom followed by on the job. Funny enough, the most training I received was to deice. And that was also the lowest paying.

For some comparison, almost a month of training was required to become certified to drive on an airfield. (Movement area) It took 5 days to become qualified as a loadmaster on every type that the airline I worked for operated.

Huh. My ramp DL was five minutes standing in line at the DOA office to get it approved without anything more than a trainer's sign-off. But we couldn't drive beyond the lease line or service roads...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

That’s the difference. My ramp driving permit took 5 minutes as well. The movement area (runways, taxiways) took a month

FGITD wrote:

Eolesen wrote:

FGITD wrote:

This speaks volumes and absolutely matches my experience. If the training didn’t require an actual certification or license, it was a few days classroom followed by on the job. Funny enough, the most training I received was to deice. And that was also the lowest paying.

For some comparison, almost a month of training was required to become certified to drive on an airfield. (Movement area) It took 5 days to become qualified as a loadmaster on every type that the airline I worked for operated.

Huh. My ramp DL was five minutes standing in line at the DOA office to get it approved without anything more than a trainer's sign-off. But we couldn't drive beyond the lease line or service roads...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

That’s the difference. My ramp driving permit took 5 minutes as well. The movement area (runways, taxiways) took a month

Ramp driving doesn't require much. Learn the no-go zone markings, rules of the road on the ramp with respect to speed, who has right of way, distances to maintain. Not very complex. Being given access to the movement area for towing/transit to and from various airfield locations where high speed aircraft operate is a much different ball game as well as having to know proper ATC communications, etc. that isn't a requirement when operating a bag tug or belt loader on the ramp.

Plus, at least in the two airports I worked at, that training was the domain of airfield operations/police and the airport operator itself, not the airline or ground handler as they are the one who controls and polices the airport property itself. Thus, in the context of training/FAA, etc. in relation to being a ramp rat, coupled with the primary topic of this thread, its not a directly related issue in that sense.

DPeter27 wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

You wait, you watch until the engine is, at the bare minimum, turning slowly enough you can count each fan blade...but that is still complacency and unsafe as you should wait for a complete full stop of the fan disk.

Sure, but if it's windy enough that the engine keeps windmilling, the fan would never stop, and you would just be waiting until the cows come home.

Heinkel wrote:

Did anyone check, if the deceased ramper wore noise cancelling headphones and listened to loud music?

is I am a trainer, a mentor, an educator, a safety guy. I've always had multiple jobs at one time. Regardless of what job I had, I ended up being the trainer at it.

How would one check at this point. Presumably, the headphones and the device in question would be in very small pieces at that point.

Windmilling is a totally neutral event, has absolutely nothing to do with the engine producing any kind of power, nor capable of doing so.

And any ramper that cannot decern a windmilling engine and one that is on needs one of two things, termination or retraining. Plus, windmilling happens in the manner that the fan disk spins in the opposite direction of normal rotation...for the reason that they don't want the engine internals rotating without lubrication, so same rule applies with an employee that cannot tell the difference.

Correct, windmilling is a slow speed. Depending the fan diameter and weight, coupled with the wind speed and direction it is hitting the opening...you only have a rotation of from less than 1 to about 5 rpm.

You are giving out some incorrect info. They will windmill turn either direction and can reach much faster RPMs than 1-5.

A windmilling engine is dangerous, it will mess you up or you will mess it up. You might not get sucked in, but it will take pieces off. Seen too many rampers near the inlet when the engine is first shut down and still has some speed to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH2xTrTRgt0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lAFmvSjjo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sxxrZQZwtw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4N_UqfSvsY

Meat Grinder, Bird Killer, Suckside, Death End, Pilot Air Conditioner(If it stops, watch 'em sweat)

Indeed. A windmilling engine can certainly take off a finger or cause serious damage to a hand/arm, but it's not going to kill you.

Mistaking a windmilling engine for one that's still running? Totally different situation, and one that you are not going to make if you're actually listening to the sound of the engine versus your iTunes playlist....

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Given the safety hazards, operational complications, and passenger comfort problems, I am of the mind that APU inop MELs should be one leg only MELs to get a plane to a maintenance station or hub to be fixed. No APU MELs leaving a hub or maintenance base. APU MELs always cause problems especially in summer heat. They also eliminate a source of electrical power should an engine or both engines fail in flight. At some point if it hasnt happened already, passengers or crew will die on a hot weather day from heat stroke sitting on an overheated APU inop aircraft during some kind of ground delay or weather diversion.

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

Given the safety hazards, operational complications, and passenger comfort problems, I am of the mind that APU inop MELs should be one leg only MELs to get a plane to a maintenance station or hub to be fixed. No APU MELs leaving a hub or maintenance base.

We should be so lucky!

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

Given the safety hazards, operational complications, and passenger comfort problems, I am of the mind that APU inop MELs should be one leg only MELs to get a plane to a maintenance station or hub to be fixed. No APU MELs leaving a hub or maintenance base. APU MELs always cause problems especially in summer heat. They also eliminate a source of electrical power should an engine or both engines fail in flight. At some point if it hasnt happened already, passengers or crew will die on a hot weather day from heat stroke sitting on an overheated APU inop aircraft during some kind of ground delay or weather diversion.

A little dramatic.
Since the dawn of aviation some 85 years ago, please do share with us where an in-op APU has caused a single death.

A windmilling engine will cause injury if you reach in and touch the spinning blades but windmilling creates no suction power so standing in front of it isn’t a problem. An engine’s suction drops exponentially the moment it’s shut down. Since at my airline we have an engine cut/clear to approach signal we routinely approach (737s) within seconds of shutdown while the blades are still winding down. At that point if you put your hand at the edge of the inlet you might feel air moving but nothing strong enough to pull you in.

Eolesen wrote:

Indeed. A windmilling engine can certainly take off a finger or cause serious damage to a hand/arm, but it's not going to kill you.

Mistaking a windmilling engine for one that's still running? Totally different situation, and one that you are not going to make if you're actually listening to the sound of the engine versus your iTunes playlist....

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Exactly...well unless something vital is hit, but generally your statement is accurate.

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

Given the safety hazards, operational complications, and passenger comfort problems, I am of the mind that APU inop MELs should be one leg only MELs to get a plane to a maintenance station or hub to be fixed. No APU MELs leaving a hub or maintenance base. APU MELs always cause problems especially in summer heat. They also eliminate a source of electrical power should an engine or both engines fail in flight. At some point if it hasnt happened already, passengers or crew will die on a hot weather day from heat stroke sitting on an overheated APU inop aircraft during some kind of ground delay or weather diversion.

All valid points and ones that I agree with to a point. I recall a rather unbearable CRJ on the summer time ramp at MEM one day as I was traveling back home from training. They didn't have any additional air units to hook up as the one that was deployed was having mechanical issues. Even once airborne, the flight was not long enough for the climate control system to truly make the interior a comfortable setting. I really felt bad for the crew operating that ship that day. Pax were only on for one leg. They were stuck for the entire day on that wounded piece of metal.

Ground power from carts or the jet bridge, climate control from air/heat carts or jet bridge attached units handle ground situations if said equipment plentiful and operational.

However, the ultimate back up for electrical power is not the APU, but the RAM air generator that will deploy automatically if there is such a catastrophic failure to require it is the final failsafe if all other electrical power sources have been rendered INOP.

Silver1SWA wrote:

A windmilling engine will cause injury if you reach in and touch the spinning blades but windmilling creates no suction power so standing in front of it isn’t a problem. An engine’s suction drops exponentially the moment it’s shut down. Since at my airline we have an engine cut/clear to approach signal we routinely approach (737s) within seconds of shutdown while the blades are still winding down. At that point if you put your hand at the edge of the inlet you might feel air moving but nothing strong enough to pull you in.

Having worked gates next to your crews at my one airport, you do engage the a/c much earlier than I have ever trained anyone to approach. You are correct in your statement and I have witnessed your staff and beltloaders perform said action countless times.

However, as I've pointed out in a previous post, human nature will always "dumb down" work habits through routine/complacency and just cutting corners so one must train to a 100% standard to allow for that planned drop off in attention and performance. Thus the standard of holding off. We still turned RJs in 24 minutes and mainline in 34 with only crews of 4 ramp rats all multi-tasking on the hustle. So that extra 15 seconds it takes to wait out the spool down rotation isn't that consequential to the overall risk that is encountered through lowered workplace safety practices...as this thread is a clear demonstration of the unfavorable outcome such mindset and work habits foster.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I believe it depends what the NTSB and OSHA finds in their investigation.

I was unable to figure out the rate of accidents for the industry - their website exceeded my technical abilities. Perhaps some one else can figure it out.

The most recent fatalities that I'm aware of :
Montgomery (1/23) (Piedmont)
Ontario CA (11/19) (2 UPS employees killed by tug)
JFK (8/19) (Delta employee killed by a tug)
Newark (9/17) (Commutair employee contractor for United killed by propeller strike)

Is anyone aware of any fatalities I may have missed since say 2017?

Ironically when I was searching the web for information, this link came up -
"Ramp Agents BEWARE"
viewtopic.php?t=1379581
Airliners.net discussion of this very same issue. Thread was started in 2017.

And found this -
OSHA and the Airlines had a Airline Ground Safety Panel (AGSP)
(signed May 20, 2008; renewed October 10, 2012; renewed April 08, 2015; concluded April 24, 2018).
Can't find out if a new panel was created or what their recommendations/findings were.

In the past five years FedEx has had I believe three ramp fatalities at the MEM hub and at least one at the IND hub. All tug-related, in one way or another. UPS also had a fall from upper-deck loader fatality at BFI somewhere in there, but interestingly I cannot find it anywhere online now. Good hush job.

DPeter27 wrote:

Silver1SWA wrote:

A windmilling engine will cause injury if you reach in and touch the spinning blades but windmilling creates no suction power so standing in front of it isn’t a problem. An engine’s suction drops exponentially the moment it’s shut down. Since at my airline we have an engine cut/clear to approach signal we routinely approach (737s) within seconds of shutdown while the blades are still winding down. At that point if you put your hand at the edge of the inlet you might feel air moving but nothing strong enough to pull you in.

Having worked gates next to your crews at my one airport, you do engage the a/c much earlier than I have ever trained anyone to approach. You are correct in your statement and I have witnessed your staff and beltloaders perform said action countless times.

Your observation echoes my own experience. WN definitely approaches very quickly, and it seems to work for them, but it can be a bit uncomfortable to watch.

I worked pretty much exclusively on widebodies after my first few months, where the status of the engines was usually much easier to determine, but still ran into a few careless rampers who were getting too comfortable. I was trained on and had worked narrowbodies a bit, and I'll always maintain that the smaller engines are much more dangerous. There's no doubt if that GE90 is running; it'll literally shake the ground and even with the best ear protection, you'll hear it. A "little" CFM on the wing of a 737 looks, sounds, ands feels much more innocuous

Unfortunately it is the type of thing where one mistake is all that's needed.

FGITD wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

Silver1SWA wrote:

A windmilling engine will cause injury if you reach in and touch the spinning blades but windmilling creates no suction power so standing in front of it isn’t a problem. An engine’s suction drops exponentially the moment it’s shut down. Since at my airline we have an engine cut/clear to approach signal we routinely approach (737s) within seconds of shutdown while the blades are still winding down. At that point if you put your hand at the edge of the inlet you might feel air moving but nothing strong enough to pull you in.

Having worked gates next to your crews at my one airport, you do engage the a/c much earlier than I have ever trained anyone to approach. You are correct in your statement and I have witnessed your staff and beltloaders perform said action countless times.

Your observation echoes my own experience. WN definitely approaches very quickly, and it seems to work for them, but it can be a bit uncomfortable to watch.

I worked pretty much exclusively on widebodies after my first few months, where the status of the engines was usually much easier to determine, but still ran into a few careless rampers who were getting too comfortable. I was trained on and had worked narrowbodies a bit, and I'll always maintain that the smaller engines are much more dangerous. There's no doubt if that GE90 is running; it'll literally shake the ground and even with the best ear protection, you'll hear it. A "little" CFM on the wing of a 737 looks, sounds, ands feels much more innocuous

Unfortunately it is the type of thing where one mistake is all that's needed.

Yes they do and yes, it is a bit disconcerting to watch. They also push at rather high rates of speed and sometimes for a sizable distance. Plus, rarely do wing walkers truly pay that close attention, at least from what I've witnessed. WN is a different beast in so many aspects.

My experience has been with narrow body, regional pax jets and narrowbody and prop cargo planes.

Airbus A320 family including; A319/320/321 series.
Boeing 737 family including; -300/-500/-700/-800/-900 series.
Bombardier Canadair Regional Jets including; CRJ100/200/700/900 series.
Cessna 208 Grand Caravan/Super Cargomaster freighter.
Douglas DC-9, various series as freighter aircraft.
Douglas/McDonnell Douglas family including; DC9-50/MD88/MD90 passenger aircraft.
Embraer Regional Jets including; ERJ135/140/145, EMB170/175.
Shorts 360 freighter.

While having been on the inside a limited number of wide bodies, I have never had the pleasure of working any. I miss the industry and wish I was able to get back in, but at 57 this year, age discrimination is alive and well and it doesn't matter what skills and experience you have that can benefit the operation (in my case in the training department, safety department, investigations and audits.) And add in the refusal to get the Fauci-ouchie...even more so as personal medical treatment is no longer the purview of the individual.

Stay well.

DPeter27 wrote:

Yes they do and yes, it is a bit disconcerting to watch. They also push at rather high rates of speed and sometimes for a sizable distance. Plus, rarely do wing walkers truly pay that close attention, at least from what I've witnessed. WN is a different beast in so many aspects.

My experience has been with narrow body, regional pax jets and narrowbody and prop cargo planes.

Airbus A320 family including; A319/320/321 series.
Boeing 737 family including; -300/-500/-700/-800/-900 series.
Bombardier Canadair Regional Jets including; CRJ100/200/700/900 series.
Cessna 208 Grand Caravan/Super Cargomaster freighter.
Douglas DC-9, various series as freighter aircraft.
Douglas/McDonnell Douglas family including; DC9-50/MD88/MD90 passenger aircraft.
Embraer Regional Jets including; ERJ135/140/145, EMB170/175.
Shorts 360 freighter.

While having been on the inside a limited number of wide bodies, I have never had the pleasure of working any. I miss the industry and wish I was able to get back in, but at 57 this year, age discrimination is alive and well and it doesn't matter what skills and experience you have that can benefit the operation (in my case in the training department, safety department, investigations and audits.) And add in the refusal to get the Fauci-ouchie...even more so as personal medical treatment is no longer the purview of the individual.

Stay well.

Very impressive and unique list.

I've got:
A320 series, 318-321
A330, 340, 350, 380
Boeings, 744/8-787 (including the F variants, and also the 747 combis)

Add in the odd business jet, and a few military flights (A400s, usually) and that about rounds it out.

I'm out of the airline side of operations and as much as I loved it, I hope to never go back to it. I love what I do, its taken me around the world, despite working on the ground. But my advice to anyone wanting to follow in my steps is...don't do it. It takes a certain type to do it, and if you want to move up, get ready to drop your personal life. I've spent years of my life thousands of miles from friends and family, holidays alone, and even once celebrated new years on a 777F loading pallets. It's been fun and rewarding, but it takes it's toll.

DPeter27 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

Having worked gates next to your crews at my one airport, you do engage the a/c much earlier than I have ever trained anyone to approach. You are correct in your statement and I have witnessed your staff and beltloaders perform said action countless times.

Your observation echoes my own experience. WN definitely approaches very quickly, and it seems to work for them, but it can be a bit uncomfortable to watch.

I worked pretty much exclusively on widebodies after my first few months, where the status of the engines was usually much easier to determine, but still ran into a few careless rampers who were getting too comfortable. I was trained on and had worked narrowbodies a bit, and I'll always maintain that the smaller engines are much more dangerous. There's no doubt if that GE90 is running; it'll literally shake the ground and even with the best ear protection, you'll hear it. A "little" CFM on the wing of a 737 looks, sounds, ands feels much more innocuous

Unfortunately it is the type of thing where one mistake is all that's needed.

WN is a different beast in so many aspects.

And yet they‘re the only ones who only approach the aircraft after the pilot has signaled deliberately that he has cut the engines. WN has spent a lot of effort in recent years catching up to safety procedures that have been industry standard for years. Maybe this is one unique WN procedure that should be universal.

FGITD wrote:

the most training I received was to deice. And that was also the lowest paying.

That is an accident waiting to happen.

DL_Mech wrote:

FGITD wrote:

the most training I received was to deice. And that was also the lowest paying.

That is an accident waiting to happen.

Absolutely. Deicing was one of the more fun but concerning positions I’ve worked at any airport. Most of the deicers were seasonal, with no other airport job or experience. And they’re driving one of the biggest, most unstable vehicles on the ramp, and in the closest positions to aircraft. With the least visibility.

Users need to stick to the discussion rather than making posts personal. Debate the topic, not the user.

Again, please show respect for the purpose of this thread. Users are going to be warned or banned from this point forward.

✈️ atcsundevil

Silver1SWA wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Your observation echoes my own experience. WN definitely approaches very quickly, and it seems to work for them, but it can be a bit uncomfortable to watch.

I worked pretty much exclusively on widebodies after my first few months, where the status of the engines was usually much easier to determine, but still ran into a few careless rampers who were getting too comfortable. I was trained on and had worked narrowbodies a bit, and I'll always maintain that the smaller engines are much more dangerous. There's no doubt if that GE90 is running; it'll literally shake the ground and even with the best ear protection, you'll hear it. A "little" CFM on the wing of a 737 looks, sounds, ands feels much more innocuous

Unfortunately it is the type of thing where one mistake is all that's needed.

WN is a different beast in so many aspects.

And yet they‘re the only ones who only approach the aircraft after the pilot has signaled deliberately that he has cut the engines. WN has spent a lot of effort in recent years catching up to safety procedures that have been industry standard for years. Maybe this is one unique WN procedure that should be universal.

I’d urge caution here in case there’s a 737-specific reason that this works or some other aircraft where it wouldn’t work.

I do post-incident investigation and don’t work on the ramp, so I’m not sure whether or not there’s anything about this procedure that fits that definition.

Does anyone know if Envoy procedures call for an APU to be started after landing? If they don't, then the fact that the APU was INOP is irrelevant as the #1 engine would have been running anyhow until the jetway was up.

Several E175 carriers follow this procedure to save fuel and wear and tear on the APU.

Cubsrule wrote:

Silver1SWA wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

WN is a different beast in so many aspects.

And yet they‘re the only ones who only approach the aircraft after the pilot has signaled deliberately that he has cut the engines. WN has spent a lot of effort in recent years catching up to safety procedures that have been industry standard for years. Maybe this is one unique WN procedure that should be universal.

I’d urge caution here in case there’s a 737-specific reason that this works or some other aircraft where it wouldn’t work.

I do post-incident investigation and don’t work on the ramp, so I’m not sure whether or not there’s anything about this procedure that fits that definition.

I did specify above that my familiarity was with the 737. But if you’re talking about immediately rushing the plane, that wasn’t what I meant to say should be universal. I simply meant having a signal from the cockpit to the marshaller to everyone standing by to approach the aircraft seems smarter than leaving it up to everyone to use their eyes and ears to make their own judgement that it’s safe to approach. It seems like a no-brainer to me but that’s just my opinion.

Cubsrule wrote:

Silver1SWA wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

WN is a different beast in so many aspects.

And yet they‘re the only ones who only approach the aircraft after the pilot has signaled deliberately that he has cut the engines. WN has spent a lot of effort in recent years catching up to safety procedures that have been industry standard for years. Maybe this is one unique WN procedure that should be universal.

I’d urge caution here in case there’s a 737-specific reason that this works or some other aircraft where it wouldn’t work.

I do post-incident investigation and don’t work on the ramp, so I’m not sure whether or not there’s anything about this procedure that fits that definition.

Oh, absolutely...I don't work for WN, but I'm uncomfortable seeing them doing that even at a distance. Clearly their company culture and safety department not only allow, but intends for it to be that way. Somewhat like you, I was always the one who was the local investigator for any incidents/accidents involving equipment and employees (both aircraft/ground equipment related as well as work place injuries in general.) What you do is one avenue I was working toward, but life made me move back home for family issues and the job didn't go with me. And well, the door has not reopened as much as I wish it would have.

This also applies to your position...there is an old saying from long before even I put my time in public safety/LE and my brother was a fireman. It is a good day when we are bored, when we have nothing to do. It means no one's life or property is at risk.

Stay well and hopefully, your work load stays slow.

alasizon wrote:

Does anyone know if Envoy procedures call for an APU to be started after landing? If they don't, then the fact that the APU was INOP is irrelevant as the #1 engine would have been running anyhow until the jetway was up.

Several E175 carriers follow this procedure to save fuel and wear and tear on the APU.

Exactly...why run the 3rd fuel draining jet engine if it isn't needed to sustain electrical power at the gate. In almost every instance, ground power is available via the jet bridge or a mobile power cart. Even at our remote gates, we had a power cart. In today's asinine fuel market pricing, every drop counts. APUs are awesome, but they come with a big cost...fuel.

Not scientific, but observational. I learned it can be an unspoken language between the captain and the ground crew, too. I found that some captains that we had come through even after hooking up the ground power, they'd leave the APU running. It was their way of telling us on the ground that they wanted a faster turn and get it done so they could get out faster. They never complained if it didn't happen, but I came to learn over time and occurrence that this was their message to us from what they would say/how they would respond on the headset as we prepared to push back. Happy/happier than normal Captains when we got done quick with the umbilical attached...and they never switched over from APU they left running. These were the same guys who would always ask for an extra few hundred pounds from the fueler, too.

DPeter27 wrote:

Oh, absolutely...I don't work for WN, but I'm uncomfortable seeing them doing that even at a distance. Clearly their company culture and safety department not only allow, but intends for it to be that way.

I really wasn't commenting one way or another on WN's safety culture. Probably like all of the competition, there are some things they do that are safer than the others, some things that are as safe, and some things that are less safe.

My point was simply that WN has a different operation than just about anyone else and so policies and procedures that work for them won't necessarily work for an airline that is different operationally. Take fall protection for rampers. WN doesn't need a program that ensures that rampers are safe when entering and exiting the bins of taller types (757, 32X) because WN doesn't operate those aircraft. It's a risk that WN doesn't have to manage. Or taking an example that goes the other way, WN uses a tail stand every time a 738 is loading or unloading. B6 doesn't have and doesn't need a tail stand program because it doesn't operate any aircraft that need them.

Cubsrule wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

Oh, absolutely...I don't work for WN, but I'm uncomfortable seeing them doing that even at a distance. Clearly their company culture and safety department not only allow, but intends for it to be that way.

I really wasn't commenting one way or another on WN's safety culture. Probably like all of the competition, there are some things they do that are safer than the others, some things that are as safe, and some things that are less safe.

My point was simply that WN has a different operation than just about anyone else and so policies and procedures that work for them won't necessarily work for an airline that is different operationally. Take fall protection for rampers. WN doesn't need a program that ensures that rampers are safe when entering and exiting the bins of taller types (757, 32X) because WN doesn't operate those aircraft. It's a risk that WN doesn't have to manage. Or taking an example that goes the other way, WN uses a tail stand every time a 738 is loading or unloading. B6 doesn't have and doesn't need a tail stand program because it doesn't operate any aircraft that need them.

Oh, no...I totally get that. Being as it is a system wide process, in opposition to a station norm or human factors issue, clearly their safety department has signed off on the process after whatever due diligence they have done to determine it is within their comfort zone of operational safety practice. Likewise, another company, through a combination of executive decisions, operational history, legal team involvement and compliance with regulatory requirements, create their own version of safety protocols and such. Yeah, there are standards industry wide, but there then are nuances within each company's processes as well.

I didn't mean to sound as if I was implying anything greater. I'm sorry if it came across that way, it wasn't my purpose.

Let me offer up three personal examples of how people disregarding safety and policy/procedure rules have impacted me, coupled with being a trainer in public safety and the airline world, I take safety procedure more seriously and recognize how the shortcuts result in bad things happening.

I already mentioned in a post above about how on the Airborne Express/DHL ramp, while closing up the 3/4 bin on a DC-9, the engine was started while I was still buttoning up the inside curtain and had to run for safety of the infield grass as they taxied out for departure...everyone from the ground crew and the flight deck totally clueless to what had just taken place.

But, in another instance, anyone who has worked a CRJ 700 or 900 is familiar with the forward cargo bin/bins and the curtains that have to be in place before closing them up. Now mind you, from the seat of the pushback to the cargo bin just aft of the passenger door is not more than 25 feet or so (estimated.) You can clearly see the lower body of the person standing there and, again, seems that with a cargo door unsecured, a light on the flight deck would alert to the condition. But NOPE! A seasoned ramper and trainer just hopped into the pushback and started shoving because the captain was motioning to hurry it up. I barely got my head clear of the fuselage when I very angrily signed emergency stop! Oh, and not only those two fails, but since I was also supposed to be the port side wing walker...who clearly was NOT in position...there were plenty of ignored situational and operational failures that turn.

This time with a bag cart. I'm pulling bags off of the back of the bottom shelf of the cart and I hear the tug start up...and just got my head clear, with my hat being knocked off my head as the cart passed me with the another seasoned employee's foot all the way to the floor of that tug...absolutely no clue that I was there loading the plane, that bags for that flight were still on the carts...

And finally, as it totally applies to the topic of this thread and the most important point being made last...

There was a new hire into about week 8 of their employment with us who was to chock the wheels of a Airbus 319. The a/c taxied into the gate and without noticing that the beacons were still activated and the engine running...this person just started to stride right in. Only because of my grabbing them by the shirt collar and safety vest arresting their forward movement, did they actually take stock of the environment and immediately turned white as a sheet when they saw the engine was still sucking and blowing they way it is designed to do. Had I not been at arms length, only by the grace of God, we didn't make the evening news cycle that night with our own horror story to tell.

So yeah, I take safety personally. I take safety seriously. I take training properly seriously. I take the lives of my crew and myself seriously. And yes, workplace complacency can and will both hurt and kill...and for that, there is no defense. ONLY "YOU" can apply that training and make those good safety habits personal and a part of your daily routine. I cannot do it for you, all I can do is speak up, audit and document. And, in all of those instances, all but the newbie, were all more seasoned employees than myself.

DPeter27 wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

Ground staff complete computer based training that can take between 40 and 80 hours, depending on the pace of learning of the person before they even make it out of the office. Some have a large collective new hire in-person training, but I never had in-person training like that until it was the more "advanced" disciplines like GCS, ALIS (weight and balance,) cargo, CRO, etc.

Once the newbie completes the CBT, they are then assigned a trainer for the ramp. This is a process that, I suspect, can vary from station to station a little, but in our case, where the newbie didn't do a thing but observe and shadow the trainer for a full week, followed by the newbie getting their hands wet for a week under the immediate supervision of the trainer, next another week of "arms distance" working "from the trainer" where by then, they have generally demonstrated the skills needed and learned...but are, while not immediately in reach of the trainer are watched by the entire crew. That's continues until you reach 6 week date where the REAL danger starts...they have gotten comfortable, all that gobbledygook from the computer is making total sense...and they THINK they now know it all, and they don't. I would intentionally train (harp on/warn) from the day they were handed to me about the weeks 6 thorough 12 being the danger zone where they will feel like they have and have the confidence and comfort, but not quite have it all together and that is the time they will get hurt/get someone else hurt or damage something. After 12 weeks of constant work on the ramp, they have generally gotten it all put together in both the head and the body and are a true confident (as in all the other team members can trust you to do everything correctly) coworker.

All along the way, the trainers are documenting your progress creating your training record. And then the point to your reply. Annually, we must each repeat the RECURRING ANNUAL training modules to retain our qualification to continue working on the ramp. This can take upwards of 8 to 24 hours, depending on the person and you are given the notice of when you have your recurrent training due by so you can fit it into the gaps during the weeks leading up to that due date. So we ARE qualified, we are certified (in many disciplines I was assigned to) and all of that is documented in your training jacket. Then there are the add on modules, new procedures, new policies, getting new type of aircraft or ground equipment that has to be learned, etc. that are always coming up to have to do training on.

We aren't just thrown out there on the ramp on day one and never given any formal training, nor oversight. We aren't simply bagging groceries out there.

In my case, the list of assigned disciplines and such take up 2/3rd of a page of paper in outline form that I was expected to perform on a daily basis, so I spent something like 120-160 hours every year doing/going to training/doing annual recurrents for everything I was expected to do.

Training varies between airlines and ground handling contracts. I can tell you that some companies training programs are dismal. I do know of a few contractors so desperate for new hires, they literally have them out on the flight line on day #1.

If that is the case, then they need to be reported to the FAA so that they are pulled from operations. Whoever they are contracted to do the ground service work with needs to intercede because it is their metal, their flight and cabin crews and more importantly their passengers as risk of a catastrophic failure that can result in anything from minor to major incidents all the way to complete loss of life in a crash.

And to be honest, if I knew that information and did nothing about it, my conscience wouldn't allow me to sleep know what I just said in the paragraph above. But, that's just me.

Your last paragraph was me! I won't go into deep details, but the company I was working for was doing this. I literally waved red flags and pleaded with management to stop sending new hires to the ramp on day #1. I contacted the FAA and never got a response. So.... I did what I thought was the only option left for me to try. I contacted the media. The news story took a few weeks to make, and the night it was released.... An MD-80 took off and blew a 1 foot by 1 foot hole in it at 35,000 feet. Plane made an emergency landing. The cause? A ramper bumped his beltloader into the fuselage and never reported it. Apparently the small dent was his excuse as not to report it. Thankful it all worked out the way it did, because the contractor was suddenly under the microscope, and the airline was as well.

I literally lost sleep at night worrying about it. It was agonizing! That was 20 years ago, and I hope things have dramatically changed in terms of being able to blow the whistle.

There are just so many possibilities that could have led to the tragedy. I will be curious to know what the final word is regarding it.

DPeter27 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Silver1SWA wrote:

And yet they‘re the only ones who only approach the aircraft after the pilot has signaled deliberately that he has cut the engines. WN has spent a lot of effort in recent years catching up to safety procedures that have been industry standard for years. Maybe this is one unique WN procedure that should be universal.

I’d urge caution here in case there’s a 737-specific reason that this works or some other aircraft where it wouldn’t work.

I do post-incident investigation and don’t work on the ramp, so I’m not sure whether or not there’s anything about this procedure that fits that definition.

Oh, absolutely...I don't work for WN, but I'm uncomfortable seeing them doing that even at a distance.

Let’s stop being dramatic. My airport has mechanics approaching aircraft of all airlines and aircraft types immediately upon shutdown for ETOPS checks just as quickly as what you might witness on an average WN turn. Once the engines are cut it’s game on. It’s just making sure the engines are indeed cut before you enter that’s most important.

DPeter27 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

Having worked gates next to your crews at my one airport, you do engage the a/c much earlier than I have ever trained anyone to approach. You are correct in your statement and I have witnessed your staff and beltloaders perform said action countless times.

Your observation echoes my own experience. WN definitely approaches very quickly, and it seems to work for them, but it can be a bit uncomfortable to watch.

I worked pretty much exclusively on widebodies after my first few months, where the status of the engines was usually much easier to determine, but still ran into a few careless rampers who were getting too comfortable. I was trained on and had worked narrowbodies a bit, and I'll always maintain that the smaller engines are much more dangerous. There's no doubt if that GE90 is running; it'll literally shake the ground and even with the best ear protection, you'll hear it. A "little" CFM on the wing of a 737 looks, sounds, ands feels much more innocuous

Unfortunately it is the type of thing where one mistake is all that's needed.

Yes they do and yes, it is a bit disconcerting to watch. They also push at rather high rates of speed and sometimes for a sizable distance. Plus, rarely do wing walkers truly pay that close attention, at least from what I've witnessed. WN is a different beast in so many aspects.

My experience has been with narrow body, regional pax jets and narrowbody and prop cargo planes.

Airbus A320 family including; A319/320/321 series.
Boeing 737 family including; -300/-500/-700/-800/-900 series.
Bombardier Canadair Regional Jets including; CRJ100/200/700/900 series.
Cessna 208 Grand Caravan/Super Cargomaster freighter.
Douglas DC-9, various series as freighter aircraft.
Douglas/McDonnell Douglas family including; DC9-50/MD88/MD90 passenger aircraft.
Embraer Regional Jets including; ERJ135/140/145, EMB170/175.
Shorts 360 freighter.

While having been on the inside a limited number of wide bodies, I have never had the pleasure of working any. I miss the industry and wish I was able to get back in, but at 57 this year, age discrimination is alive and well and it doesn't matter what skills and experience you have that can benefit the operation (in my case in the training department, safety department, investigations and audits.) And add in the refusal to get the Fauci-ouchie...even more so as personal medical treatment is no longer the purview of the individual.

Stay well.

Well, since we are rolling out the resume list, from my time groundside:

BE-99 (This is where I got my early life lesson about spinning props and paying attention on the ramp, while loading a late bag into the belly bay.)
SWM
SF340
F-27
ATR
E-145
727-200ADV
717-200
737 (Various)

Silver1SWA wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I’d urge caution here in case there’s a 737-specific reason that this works or some other aircraft where it wouldn’t work.

I do post-incident investigation and don’t work on the ramp, so I’m not sure whether or not there’s anything about this procedure that fits that definition.

Oh, absolutely...I don't work for WN, but I'm uncomfortable seeing them doing that even at a distance.

Let’s stop being dramatic. My airport has mechanics approaching aircraft of all airlines and aircraft types immediately upon shutdown for ETOPS checks just as quickly as what you might witness on an average WN turn. Once the engines are cut it’s game on. It’s just making sure the engines are indeed cut before you enter that’s most important.

It doesn't matter if it is "Universal" or not, if the rule is not being enforced by the Sups with the support of station management, for one reason or another.

Complacency kills in any Industry, not just the airlines.

Silver1SWA wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I’d urge caution here in case there’s a 737-specific reason that this works or some other aircraft where it wouldn’t work.

I do post-incident investigation and don’t work on the ramp, so I’m not sure whether or not there’s anything about this procedure that fits that definition.

Oh, absolutely...I don't work for WN, but I'm uncomfortable seeing them doing that even at a distance.

Let’s stop being dramatic. My airport has mechanics approaching aircraft of all airlines and aircraft types immediately upon shutdown for ETOPS checks just as quickly as what you might witness on an average WN turn. Once the engines are cut it’s game on. It’s just making sure the engines are indeed cut before you enter that’s most important.

Dramatic? Huh. Red confetti out the tail pipe of a airplane engine is dramatic not to mention traumatic. Proper safety habits, that's just common sense. But all know that is something that has quite a variability in its application in today's world.

Read my post of the examples from just my life where others have made the choices that, had I not been of the proper mindset and alert, would have resulted in ME been the one paying the price for their carelessness. Clearly, while I am not making any comments personal, seems how they are being received just may be in some cases. And if that's the case, so be it, I'm only accountable for what I actually say, not how its received. And if this thread, its discussion about safety and taking it seriously prevents just one injury, or fatality, then it has served its purpose.

The there was when I worked for a different company for a short time where upon marshalling in the a/c, I did the required post arrival walk around. I found arrival damage. BUT...I was prevented from alerting the crew. In fact, I was dressed down by the ramp lead agent who demanded to know why I even noticed any arrival damage. That is not our job, that is the job of the pilots, I was told, not us. He then shifted my assigned task from what the marshaller generally did to placing me in the bin to handle the offload/upload of baggage instructing me that I was NOT to not to interact with the flight crew in any way. If they find the damage, fine. If not, not our problem. The entire time on the ground, I was kept away from the jet bridge and non ground personnel. The plane left. I have no idea of the pilots observed the damage or not, whether they did and it was able to be deferred...which was not an issue of mine to determine, just that I discovered it on the post arrival walk around and thus my responsibility to report the finding and let the pilots (and maintenance if called) make that action call.

When I brought the issue up with the station manager, he supported his tenured ramp lead. 53 lives were on the line and the official station attitude was, not our problem. It sure would have been if that plane didn't make it to its destination. So how does one justify that unsafe complacent and indifferent mindset? In my other profession, we had a term called criminal negligence that fits. Just another reason why, being an observant person with my background, I preach the safety and proper training mantra. Or in my case, I know what I look like in the mirror and that's a big enough burden to shoulder in life, I don't need other things I can control and mitigate on my conscience. LOL.

DPeter27 wrote:

Silver1SWA wrote:

DPeter27 wrote:

Oh, absolutely...I don't work for WN, but I'm uncomfortable seeing them doing that even at a distance.

Let’s stop being dramatic. My airport has mechanics approaching aircraft of all airlines and aircraft types immediately upon shutdown for ETOPS checks just as quickly as what you might witness on an average WN turn. Once the engines are cut it’s game on. It’s just making sure the engines are indeed cut before you enter that’s most important.

Dramatic? Huh. Red confetti out the tail pipe of a airplane engine is dramatic not to mention traumatic. Proper safety habits, that's just common sense. But all know that is something that has quite a variability in its application in today's world.

Read my post of the examples from just my life where others have made the choices that, had I not been of the proper mindset and alert, would have resulted in ME been the one paying the price for their carelessness. Clearly, while I am not making any comments personal, seems how they are being received just may be in some cases. And if that's the case, so be it, I'm only accountable for what I actually say, not how its received. And if this thread, its discussion about safety and taking it seriously prevents just one injury, or fatality, then it has served its purpose.

I’m not talking about violating procedures whether out of complacency or training etc. I was talking about the published procedures at different airlines, one of which makes you uneasy to watch. Regardless how it looks to you that airline’s procedure is safe as long as it is properly followed. Any rule can be violated. You handle that through proper training, oversight and accountability. But sometimes the procedures need to be revisited to further limit areas where complacency can sneak in. I proposed earlier that perhaps a red light green light approach to entering like at WN might be more effective than the 4-way stop sign approach to entering that’s more common.

alasizon wrote:

Does anyone know if Envoy procedures call for an APU to be started after landing? If they don't, then the fact that the APU was INOP is irrelevant as the #1 engine would have been running anyhow until the jetway was up.

Several E175 carriers follow this procedure to save fuel and wear and tear on the APU.

Dont know about Envoy, but I know that Republic E170/75 (with UA), they will wait until power is plugged up before shutting down. That means, once the Lead Marshaller chocks the nose gear, the jetway moves into position, and plugs up power after the jetway is attached. Having a portable GPU on hand makes things moot as you can immediately put power on after chocking nosegear. But still I insist that the second wing walker should be giving the "Engines Running Signal" until the engines spool down and it is safe to approach. This practice serves multiple purposes: For starters, it keeps the wing walker attentive to the situation at hand in case some body on the ramp wants to drive or even walk past a running engine. In other words, you are not standing around looking like you are in a daze (which I've seem wingwalkers be in) while the aircraft is coming into the gate. In normal practice, the wingwalkers pretty much knows that once an aircraft is parked, you can see the beacon goes out and the engines are shut down and the "All Clear" signal is given. Two, this practice has to be use for every aircraft with a INOP APU, even if the regional aircraft has less powerful engines, one day you might be working a 320 or a 737 series, which have more powerful engines, so this repetitive practice will keep you safe. Your arm may get tired while doing this, but this procedure one day might save your life.