RIP. Piedmont worker killed at Montgomery, Ala. MGM tonight, article states the person was involved in accident with Envoy E175's engines which was running.

AA3408 DFW-MGM, N264NN

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/worker ... 023-01-01/

Unconfirmed reports that he was sucked into one of the engines. A very horrifying accident. RIP to the worker.

Article from more local news.

https://www.al.com/news/2023/01/america ... rport.html

B717fan wrote:

Unconfirmed reports that he was sucked into one of the engines. A very horrifying accident. RIP to the worker.

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

Scoots71 wrote:

Article from more local news.

https://www.al.com/news/2023/01/america ... rport.html

Video from the aftermath…
In the last video, I don’t want to know what the fireman is picking up from the ground to put in the plastic baggie.

https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1 ... 3508112385

That’s horrible. I hope it was so quick the person didn’t realize what was happening. I’m afraid that it probably wasn’t though. Stay safe out there guys.

Did they have to start one of the engines at the gate?

*edit: Disregard. Seem like the plane was arriving at the gate, not departing.

Horrible

Oh man, that’s horrible

FlyingElvii wrote:

B717fan wrote:

Unconfirmed reports that he was sucked into one of the engines. A very horrifying accident. RIP to the worker.

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

I don't think you can ever be too hard drilling safety in a dangerous work environment. One mistake can lead to tragedy in an instant. R.I.P.

RIP, absolutely horrific. I remember during training for a ramp job they showed us pictures of the aftermath of a Continental AME going through a 737 engine and, while it was quite gruesome, it was a stark reminder of how dangerous of a working environment it can be. Not that it is much consolation, but it was likely quick and painless.

Eurgh. That’s an awful way to go. RIP.

FlyingElvii wrote:

B717fan wrote:

Unconfirmed reports that he was sucked into one of the engines. A very horrifying accident. RIP to the worker.

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

Speaking of training at MGM, the E175 would be the largest aircraft they see at that airport. Typically it only sees CRJs or E145s. There probably was not adequate training (or at least routine exposure to ended training) for the ground crew with that aircraft. Also considering it was a Piedmont ground crew working and Envoy flight.

Scoots71 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

B717fan wrote:

Unconfirmed reports that he was sucked into one of the engines. A very horrifying accident. RIP to the worker.

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

Speaking of training at MGM, the E175 would be the largest aircraft they see at that airport. Typically it only sees CRJs or E145s. There probably was not adequate training (or at least routine exposure to ended training) for the ground crew with that aircraft. Also considering it was a Piedmont ground crew working and Envoy flight.

At least get your facts straight, MGM saw daily E175s for 10 out of the past 12 months (most of the time at least twice a day).

Not sure what you're trying to get at with it being a Piedmont employee handling an Envoy plane. That is pretty normal and Piedmont and Envoy share the same training program.

Scoots71 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

B717fan wrote:

Unconfirmed reports that he was sucked into one of the engines. A very horrifying accident. RIP to the worker.

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

Speaking of training at MGM, the E175 would be the largest aircraft they see at that airport. Typically it only sees CRJs or E145s. There probably was not adequate training (or at least routine exposure to ended training) for the ground crew with that aircraft. Also considering it was a Piedmont ground crew working and Envoy flight.

Piedmont has ramp contracts across the AA network. Piedmont crews work everything from CR7’s and E175’s to A321’s in OKC. I’m guessing they give quite a bit of training on all aircraft types.

This unfortunately isn't surprising. With the amount of post-COVID turn over there's been among ground handlers, it's actually a miracle more tragedies like this haven't happened. In many airports, your most senior agent now has around a year of seniority, and it's truly the blind leading the blind. Hopefully this can lead to a refocusing on safety and proper process within Piedmont, and across the industry. It's dangerous out there.

Scoots71 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

B717fan wrote:

Unconfirmed reports that he was sucked into one of the engines. A very horrifying accident. RIP to the worker.

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

Speaking of training at MGM, the E175 would be the largest aircraft they see at that airport. Typically it only sees CRJs or E145s. There probably was not adequate training (or at least routine exposure to ended training) for the ground crew with that aircraft. Also considering it was a Piedmont ground crew working and Envoy flight.

Very horrific accident, training will most definitely be reviewed as part of the investigation by at least three organizations; the FAA, OSHA, and the NTSB. With the recent DL ATL incident, OSHA may place airline ground operations under the microscope. The NTSB has not been very busy lately, and may send more resources to MGM than they might have otherwise. Will be interested in knowing findings of the investigations.

Vio wrote:

Did they have to start one of the engines at the gate?

*edit: Disregard. Seem like the plane was arriving at the gate, not departing.

Where do you see they were arriving?

The idle thrust of the -175 is only about 800lbs thrust per engine which is basically nothing. If they were doing an air start (APU was inop) it would make more sense since you've got to get the bleeds up to 40 PSI to start. Their huffer cart is placed in the videos/pictures available too.

I would think they would have had to bad significant power to suck the ramp agent into the engine. The 175 doesn't scare me as much as a 777 or 350 coming in. Could it have been a jet blast incident? I have seen some ramp agents get banged up pretty bad walking behind a jet engine!

n797mx wrote:

Vio wrote:

Did they have to start one of the engines at the gate?

*edit: Disregard. Seem like the plane was arriving at the gate, not departing.

Where do you see they were arriving?

The idle thrust of the -175 is only about 800lbs thrust per engine which is basically nothing. If they were doing an air start (APU was inop) it would make more sense since you've got to get the bleeds up to 40 PSI to start. Their huffer cart is placed in the videos/pictures available too.

That was what was also on the tip of my mind. It is very dangerous on the 175 doing an air start! That fuselage is so low to the ground too. It's painful. Poor guy!

My guess would be not a newbie but a 1-2 year staff. That's when the confidence sets in without the necessary amount of experience.

Any ground fatality due to an aircraft running is gonna be nasty.. be it crushed or … this. This is much harder to look at

It seemed there was doubt admitting what had occurred, so that gave away what was likely the cause of death.

Prayers to their family, friends, and coworkers... My condolences

n797mx wrote:

Vio wrote:

Did they have to start one of the engines at the gate?

*edit: Disregard. Seem like the plane was arriving at the gate, not departing.

Where do you see they were arriving?

The idle thrust of the -175 is only about 800lbs thrust per engine which is basically nothing. If they were doing an air start (APU was inop) it would make more sense since you've got to get the bleeds up to 40 PSI to start. Their huffer cart is placed in the videos/pictures available too.

During an external air start, the start cart gets the PSI up, but no engine is running, and the engine being started is at idle. Sounds like you’re talking about a cross bleed, in which one engine is pushed up so that there is 40psi on the engine to be started. But that is generally not done at the gate. They start one at the gate with idle thrust. Disconnect everything. Push back, then crossbleed on taxi out.

When APU is out, the station is notified beforehand and general pre-positions a start cart to be used to turn the plane, which is likely why that one was seen. I’m not reposting it here, but on a pilot forum someone posted what appears to be a screenshot of a synopsis of the event, seemingly from an official source, that mentions it taxied in with both engines on and an attempt was made to open the baggage door and he got sucked in to the #2 engine. Also, the news sources and official tweet all say it happened around 3pm, and the plane landed at 3:35. Had it been on departure/pre-pushback, it would have had to have been after 4pm, so I’m pretty sure that “on arrival” is accurate.

Why would anyone want to open a baggage hold unless they verified both engines were off?

Rip to the person involved.

YQGflyer wrote:

RIP, absolutely horrific. I remember during training for a ramp job they showed us pictures of the aftermath of a Continental AME going through a 737 engine and, while it was quite gruesome, it was a stark reminder of how dangerous of a working environment it can be. Not that it is much consolation, but it was likely quick and painless.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/165878

It wasn't a Continental AME, he was a contractor, close to retirement. El Paso, Flight 1515, 737-500 Fleet Number #626. Engine run for a oil leak, engine was taken up in power. His baseball cap came off and he went to grab it towards the inlet. The after photos are horrific.
May he RIP, poor soul...

Have seen folks on the ramp drive/walk behind running engines. All their equipment blows off, one guy went skidding across the ramp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMY-GHpSmX4

Another possibility is the APU was Inop, engines running till ground power hooked up. Saw it a lot with Yellow Airplanes, engines running and people moving towards the airplane. It became better in the past few years, until grd power was hooked up, no one approached the plane. May the worker RIP. Horrific way to go....

pugman211 wrote:

Why would anyone want to open a baggage hold unless they verified both engines were off?

Rip to the person involved.

Airline management speaks out of both sides of their mouth. They want these arrival baggage scanning metrics to show baggage scans within 2 minutes of arrival. These contractor companies get dinged financial penalties for not hitting these metrics. They preach safety but monetarily penalize safe actions.

Airline management penalizes APU usage if ground power is available, so pilots often leave engines running at the gate for long durations of time until ground power can be connected (usually after the jetway is attached).

It’s customary for E175 operators to shut down that side’s engine as they are turning into the gate so it is usually completely spooled down by the time they set the brake. Always look twice.

CALTECH wrote:

Have seen folks on the ramp drive/walk behind running engines. All their equipment blows off, one guy went skidding across the ramp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMY-GHpSmX4

Another possibility is the APU was Inop, engines running till ground power hooked up. Saw it a lot with Yellow Airplanes, engines running and people moving towards the airplane. It became better in the past few years, until grd power was hooked up, no one approached the plane. May the worker RIP. Horrific way to go....

My understanding is incident happened on arrival with INOP APU. If using Jetbridge GPU, Jetbridge would need to be positioned before the GPU can be energized. Yup, seen many near misses with folks going in front of and behind engines.

Scoots71 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

B717fan wrote:

Unconfirmed reports that he was sucked into one of the engines. A very horrifying accident. RIP to the worker.

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

Speaking of training at MGM, the E175 would be the largest aircraft they see at that airport. Typically it only sees CRJs or E145s. There probably was not adequate training (or at least routine exposure to ended training) for the ground crew with that aircraft. Also considering it was a Piedmont ground crew working and Envoy flight.

A plane is a plane no matter what paint job it has or who operates it. What difference does it make?!
?

Fixinthe757 wrote:

Scoots71 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

Speaking of training at MGM, the E175 would be the largest aircraft they see at that airport. Typically it only sees CRJs or E145s. There probably was not adequate training (or at least routine exposure to ended training) for the ground crew with that aircraft. Also considering it was a Piedmont ground crew working and Envoy flight.

A plane is a plane no matter what paint job it has or who operates it. What difference does it make?!
?

The point he is making is that the other aircraft they would normally see would be tail mounted versus under the wind like on the E175. We don’t know what happen but it’s a good observation if the ground crew are typically servicing aircraft with tail mounted engines.

Fixinthe757 wrote:

Scoots71 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Ugh….
Cannot imagine….

Was only a few hundred feet away from the Airlink incident at Memphis many years ago. It is why I am so hard on the newbies about ramp safety.

Speaking of training at MGM, the E175 would be the largest aircraft they see at that airport. Typically it only sees CRJs or E145s. There probably was not adequate training (or at least routine exposure to ended training) for the ground crew with that aircraft. Also considering it was a Piedmont ground crew working and Envoy flight.

A plane is a plane no matter what paint job it has or who operates it. What difference does it make?!
?

I believe what Scoots way trying to convey is that an inexperienced ground worker who has only been exposed to CRJ and E145 aircraft with tail-mounted engines which are ***slightly*** less dangerous than the much lower wing-mounted engines may be completely unaware of the danger because he may have little to no exposure to these aircraft.

I hope this wasn't an ''I dare you'' type accident. I wouldn't normally think so but today's youngsters seem to think nothing of posting highly dangerous 'challenges' online to see who takes them up on it.
There's a poster on AVHerald regarding this incident that says there's a game out there to see how close you can get to a running a/c engine and ''feel its pull.'' Truly insane, if true.

So sorry to hear this. My condolences to Family and Friends of the ramp agent. Situational awareness is so important. RIP

pugman211 wrote:

Why would anyone want to open a baggage hold unless they verified both engines were off?

Rip to the person involved.

That is a "no no" on any ramp operation. I have had last minute bags show up after the engines have started or the push has began. 99.9% of the time, that plane is going without those bags. I have had some very rare occasions where I asked the Captain for permission to load some last minute bags, and they turned off #2 so we could load them. I can count on one hand how many times that has happened in my 20 years as a ramper.

I am under the impression this may have been an air start. Sadly, these are not a common procedure, and we all get a little brain fart sometimes when they do happen. Especially if you work a ton of different aircraft types, you tend to get fuzzy when it comes to placement of the air start cart. I do hope more details come out on how this happened, as most of us on here work around planes. It's a valuable learning experience to prevent something like this from happening again. My condolences to the rampers loved ones.

CALTECH wrote:

YQGflyer wrote:

RIP, absolutely horrific. I remember during training for a ramp job they showed us pictures of the aftermath of a Continental AME going through a 737 engine and, while it was quite gruesome, it was a stark reminder of how dangerous of a working environment it can be. Not that it is much consolation, but it was likely quick and painless.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/165878

It wasn't a Continental AME, he was a contractor, close to retirement. El Paso, Flight 1515, 737-500 Fleet Number #626. Engine run for a oil leak, engine was taken up in power. His baseball cap came off and he went to grab it towards the inlet. The after photos are horrific.
May he RIP, poor soul...

I remember when we had a mechanical on a Skywest Fairchild Metro in the mid 90's. We used a small metal step ladder under the door for easier passenger access. Anyways, we shut the door and someone forgot to take the metal stair away. They fired up the #1 engine and started applying some power to it. My heart sank when that metal stair started sliding towards the prop!! I gave the signal to cut the engine. It took a second for the mechanic to understand what I was trying to tell him to do. He finally shut it down and came out pissed. When I pointed out what was happening, he gave a breath of relief. That could have been a very bad day for all of us. God only knows what that prop would have done to that metal stair. It would have sent shrapnel all over the place, and put some serious damage on the aircraft.

I also nearly walked into a running prop, same aircraft type trying to remove the power chord behind the #2 engine. Man that plane was a dangerous plane to get started with an aux power start.

My guess is that they were trying to put the caution cone in front of the engine. I very nearly had a similar incident at my pervious airline in a 175 without an APU. Ramper in training was approaching the running left engine to put the caution cone in front of it but we were waiting for the jetbridge to be pulled up so we could get ground power before shutting the engine down. Ended up quickly shutting down the engine as the ramper approached the engine while opening the window and yelling at them to get back.

There was also a video on YouTube of an American E175 where this exact thing happened but only the cone got sucked into the engine.

Prayers for the family.

Condolences to the family of somebody just trying to do their job. It’s really sad.

This isn’t the first time. I see there were fatal prop accidents in 93 and 98 on Northwest, and 2001 at US Air Express. Jet fatalities to people on ground (passengers, in addition to crew, have been known to die this way) are a bit more rare, at least in the US.

jetmatt777 wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

Why would anyone want to open a baggage hold unless they verified both engines were off?

Rip to the person involved.

Airline management speaks out of both sides of their mouth. They want these arrival baggage scanning metrics to show baggage scans within 2 minutes of arrival. These contractor companies get dinged financial penalties for not hitting these metrics. They preach safety but monetarily penalize safe actions.

Airline management penalizes APU usage if ground power is available, so pilots often leave engines running at the gate for long durations of time until ground power can be connected (usually after the jetway is attached).

It’s customary for E175 operators to shut down that side’s engine as they are turning into the gate so it is usually completely spooled down by the time they set the brake. Always look twice.

Most of the time when GPU use is required, they'll shut down #2 coming into the gate that way we can get the doors open and start turning the aircraft. You don't approach the aircraft until you verify that #2 has been shut down.
#1 runs until GPU is connected and they can switch to GPU.

I worked the ramp for two decades at ORD I can't tell you the number of times rampers were distracted and got lucky someone either got their attention or the engine was shut down just in the nick of time when the APU was inop. I would always brief my guys like hey do not approach the aircraft at all, do not chock the mains until both engines are shut down, only chock the nose gear and get the GPU plugged so the engines can be shut down.

With so many new hires airlines need to take another look at preaching safety and being aware of what's going on at all times by limiting distractions. Just a few weeks ago a Delta ramp agent was ran over by a lav truck. If the reports are true the guy was texting while driving. At the airline I work for we've had a ridiculous increase in the number of complaints from pilots on the ramp calling in saying they were just cut off by a baggage tug while taxiing. We've had quite a few near misses on the ramp at the airline I work for that haven't made headlines. But this unfortunate accident should serve as a wake up call to all carriers that they need to make sure with so many new hire their employees understand just how dangerous and deadly the ramp can be. All it takes is one mistake, one distraction and you're not going home, working on the ramp can cost you your life if you are not paying 100% attention 100% of the time.

My heart goes out to this family who lost their love one in this horrific accident.

At my airport an inop APU meant a remote stand or a mobile GPU waiting for the aircraft at the gate so that the ground power of the jetbridge was never used. The bridge was not moved at all until any of the engines were running.

Caspian27 wrote:

My guess is that they were trying to put the caution cone in front of the engine. I very nearly had a similar incident at my pervious airline in a 175 without an APU. Ramper in training was approaching the running left engine to put the caution cone in front of it but we were waiting for the jetbridge to be pulled up so we could get ground power before shutting the engine down. Ended up quickly shutting down the engine as the ramper approached the engine while opening the window and yelling at them to get back.

There was also a video on YouTube of an American E175 where this exact thing happened but only the cone got sucked into the engine.

Prayers for the family.

AA doesn't use a cone in front of the engine for this exact reason.

This happened on arrival so it'll be interesting to see the final report as the E175 does not produce much thrust at idle.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but one thing I’ve observed while driving around service roads at multiple airports is that unlike my airline, no one else seems to have a signal from their marshaller that tells the rest of the ramp crew that the engines are cut and it’s safe to enter the safety zone. At my airline the captain gives a deliberate signal to the marshaller once the engines are shut down and the marshaller gives a clear signal to everyone that says engines cut, safe to enter. No one is to enter the zone until that signal is given. But when driving behind other airlines as they pull in to the gate I have to rely on the sound of the engines shutting down because nobody signals to each other or me that it’s safe to proceed.

I always thought that was odd.

pugman211 wrote:

Why would anyone want to open a baggage hold unless they verified both engines were off?

Rip to the person involved.

A momentary lapse of concentration, perhaps. It's easy to get complacent. Obviously not a good thing in an unforgiving environment like the ramp.

BB78710 wrote:

. But this unfortunate accident should serve as a wake up call to all carriers that they need to make sure with so many new hire their employees understand just how dangerous and deadly the ramp can be. All it takes is one mistake, one distraction and you're not going home, working on the ramp can cost you your life if you are not paying 100% attention 100% of the time.

100% yes to this. It's easy to lose sight of just how deadly our work environment can be.

F9Animal wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

Why would anyone want to open a baggage hold unless they verified both engines were off?

Rip to the person involved.

That is a "no no" on any ramp operation. I have had last minute bags show up after the engines have started or the push has began. 99.9% of the time, that plane is going without those bags. I have had some very rare occasions where I asked the Captain for permission to load some last minute bags, and they turned off #2 so we could load them. I can count on one hand how many times that has happened in my 20 years as a ramper.

I am under the impression this may have been an air start. Sadly, these are not a common procedure, and we all get a little brain fart sometimes when they do happen. Especially if you work a ton of different aircraft types, you tend to get fuzzy when it comes to placement of the air start cart. I do hope more details come out on how this happened, as most of us on here work around planes. It's a valuable learning experience to prevent something like this from happening again. My condolences to the rampers loved ones.

At TWA, they would occasionally (it wasn’t common, but it wasn’t rare, either) for Mainline to load a couple of late bags, especially International, after the plane was off the gate in the alley, and very occasionally, beyond the zipper.

TWA in STL had a real thing about late bags, and I saw at least on incident because of it.

Silver1SWA wrote:

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but one thing I’ve observed while driving around service roads at multiple airports is that unlike my airline, no one else seems to have a signal from their marshaller that tells the rest of the ramp crew that the engines are cut and it’s safe to enter the safety zone. At my airline the captain gives a deliberate signal to the marshaller once the engines are shut down and the marshaller gives a clear signal to everyone that says engines cut, safe to enter. No one is to enter the zone until that signal is given. But when driving behind other airlines as they pull in to the gate I have to rely on the sound of the engines shutting down because nobody signals to each other or me that it’s safe to proceed.

I always thought that was odd.

Not sure who you work for but almost every carrier doesn't do that. That is the whole point of the beacon. Beacon on = don't approach.

alasizon wrote:

Silver1SWA wrote:

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but one thing I’ve observed while driving around service roads at multiple airports is that unlike my airline, no one else seems to have a signal from their marshaller that tells the rest of the ramp crew that the engines are cut and it’s safe to enter the safety zone. At my airline the captain gives a deliberate signal to the marshaller once the engines are shut down and the marshaller gives a clear signal to everyone that says engines cut, safe to enter. No one is to enter the zone until that signal is given. But when driving behind other airlines as they pull in to the gate I have to rely on the sound of the engines shutting down because nobody signals to each other or me that it’s safe to proceed.

I always thought that was odd.

Not sure who you work for but almost every carrier doesn't do that. That is the whole point of the beacon. Beacon on = don't approach.

At my airline the Captain gives an engines off signal to the marshaller and no one is to enter the safety zone unless that beacon is off. Period

alasizon wrote:

Silver1SWA wrote:

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but one thing I’ve observed while driving around service roads at multiple airports is that unlike my airline, no one else seems to have a signal from their marshaller that tells the rest of the ramp crew that the engines are cut and it’s safe to enter the safety zone. At my airline the captain gives a deliberate signal to the marshaller once the engines are shut down and the marshaller gives a clear signal to everyone that says engines cut, safe to enter. No one is to enter the zone until that signal is given. But when driving behind other airlines as they pull in to the gate I have to rely on the sound of the engines shutting down because nobody signals to each other or me that it’s safe to proceed.

I always thought that was odd.

Not sure who you work for but almost every carrier doesn't do that. That is the whole point of the beacon. Beacon on = don't approach.

That’s my point. It’s odd to me that such a signal is the exception not the rule.

The bad thing about the 170-175 is the conditioned air / air start receptacles is directly underneath the center of the fuselage. It's centerline - sort of forward of the engines. You have to undo the four clips, and the door/flap comes down forward. Doing an air start is dangerous is because you have to disconnect the air compressor hose lying down with a running engine right beside you. The flight deck usually starts Engine Two, and the air cart is usually placed on Aircraft Left. I don't know the circumstances of this incident (our bosses sent a memo about this this morning), but I hope that if this wasn't the case, I hoping that person didn't disconnect / closed the flap/door, and got up on the Aircraft Right side while the engine is running. That's the only thing that I can think of to be ingested, since the engines of a E170-175 aren't as powerful as a 737 engine. You are very close to the engines in the air start situation.