Baggage Handler Killed in Montgomery (Jet Engine)

How does (can) this happen. One of this first safety items covered for anyone working aviation is NOT to walk in front of running engine.
 
Sometimes it is so loud on the ramp you can't tell if an engine is running.

It is similar to walking into a running prop.
 
kgruber said:
Sometimes it is so loud on the ramp you can't tell if an engine is running.

It is similar to walking into a running prop.
Click to expand...
no, its as simple as the the rampers are in to big of a hurry to get the cargo doors open. i spent 11 years as as a ramper before going to the flght deck, its simply getting in to big a hurry and letting safety take a back seat. this was completely preventable if safety protocol was followed.
 
Happened in El Paso in '06, Continental airlines.

Well known and senior local mechanic asked the pilot to perform a runup at the gate so he could inspect for a reported leak, after it had boarded.

From the below thread:

I work at ELP and let me just say the overall mood yesterday and today has been very somber. Don was a very nice person and very well known mechanic. It was being said that he lost focus when his baseball cap flew off his head and he tried to grab it... I spoke with a couple of passengers and they mentioned that the scene was horrific. I will not go into details.​

Crew shut it down and told the pax to close their window shades.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=375051
 
Didn’t her/his hair get caught in the loading ramp belt?? I thought that started the chain of events.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Happened in El Paso in '06, Continental airlines.

Well known and senior local mechanic asked the pilot to perform a runup at the gate so he could inspect for a reported leak, after it had boarded.

From the below thread:

I work at ELP and let me just say the overall mood yesterday and today has been very somber. Don was a very nice person and very well known mechanic. It was being said that he lost focus when his baseball cap flew off his head and he tried to grab it... I spoke with a couple of passengers and they mentioned that the scene was horrific. I will not go into details.​

Crew shut it down and told the pax to close their window shades.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=375051
Click to expand...
horrific does not even begin to describe it. i have seen the investigation photos, my heart go out to anybody that witnessed that incident, or this one also, im sure it was pretty horrific also.
 
How close do you need to stand to an engine to be sucked in? 5ft? 10ft?
 
dans2992 said:
How close do you need to stand to an engine to be sucked in? 5ft? 10ft?
Click to expand...
From Boeing for the 737 series:

figure4-3.jpg


https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_08/article_04_3.html
 
Also from the same reference above:

There have been 33 reported ingestions of personnel into an engine on 737-100/-200 airplanes since 1969. Several of these ingestions caused serious injuries and one resulted in a fatality. There have also been four reports of fatal ingestion incidents on 737-300/-400/-500 and Next-Generation 737 airplanes. The most recent fatalities occurred in 2006.​
 
Wow. How would it NOT be fatal!?
 
^ someone did get sucked into an A-6 intake once upon a time and lived. But yeah, probably not something to bet your life on.
 
dans2992 said:
How close do you need to stand to an engine to be sucked in? 5ft? 10ft?
Click to expand...
Depends on the engine type and your profile to the inlet. Even small turbines can suck in items to include hands.
dans2992 said:
Wow. How would it NOT be fatal!?
Click to expand...
With the current high bypass engines dont see how it wouldnt be. On the older engines some had inlet vanes that saved a few people or they got hung up on the inlet itself. As mentioned situational awareness around jets and rotors is absolute.
 
Long years ago we had an engineer get sucked into an F-16 inlet. Quite a life changing event for him. The AP's picked him from the ER after his release and put him on a commercial jet back home. Management had a directive from USAF, before he even go t off the flight home, that he was not allowed on any USAF base in the world ever again. The country that owned the aircraft involved went further and banned him outright from entering the country ever.
 
dans2992 said:
Wow. How would it NOT be fatal!?
Click to expand...

The article linked above states:

Additionally, there is a much greater potential for serious or fatal injuries if ingestion into a cFm56 engine occurs because the cFm56 does not have
inlet guide vanes. The JT8D has 19 stationary inlet guide vanes that have provided ingested personnel some protection from fatal contact with the rotating fan. [italics added]​

I think that's your answer.
 
Craig said:
Long years ago we had an engineer get sucked into an F-16 inlet. Quite a life changing event for him. The AP's picked him from the ER after his release and put him on a commercial jet back home. Management had a directive from USAF, before he even go t off the flight home, that he was not allowed on any USAF base in the world ever again. The country that owned the aircraft involved went further and banned him outright from entering the country ever.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
All that air gets sucked in the front.

Start at 2 minutes:
Start at 50 seconds:
Start at 3 minutes, then 6 minutes, then the saddest at 9 minutes:
 
Velocity173 said:
Yep. An infamous vid. Cranial saved him. The SLUF was known as a man eater but I don’t know of any actual cases.

Click to expand...

When I was working on the SLUF A-7D / TF41 engine problems, one of my tasks was looking at FOD causes. One was listed as “Sailor”. He was sucked in, the engine stalled and blew him back out only with minor injuries and dirty underwear.

Cheers
 
dans2992 said:
Why?
Click to expand...

He walked up to a running jet and attempted to open an avionics door, prior to being told, by the crew chief that the jet was shut down and safe to approach. His hat, headset, and pocketful of crap went down the inlet with him and fodded out a brand new motor that had just been installed a few days before. Whole 75+ man flight test team sitting around for two weeks til a new motor could be flown in and installed. Three weeks of paying for unusable range time.....And to top it off, was the customer's lead test pilot in the seat at the time of the incident.
 
Craig said:
He walked up to a running jet and attempted to open an avionics door, prior to being told, by the crew chief that the jet was shut down and safe to approach. His hat, headset, and pocketful of crap went down the inlet with him and fodded out a brand new motor that had just been installed a few days before. Whole 75+ man flight test team sitting around for two weeks til a new motor could be flown in and installed. Three weeks of paying for unusable range time.....And to top it off, was the customer's lead test pilot in the seat at the time of the incident.
Click to expand...

so the guy that went through the motor was banned, but what about the customer's lead test pilot and/or the crew chief?
 
Bob Noel said:
so the guy that went through the motor was banned, but what about the customer's lead test pilot and/or the crew chief?
Click to expand...

Crew chief and pilot were busy with shutdown procedures for all the instrumentation and the engine. Normal brief is that no one approaches the aircraft without the crew chief's direct approval. He's on a long line and in direct communications with the pilot throughout the process. In this case, crew chief was on the other side of the aircraft and pilot was head down in the cockpit. The door the guy tried to open is about 3 feet directly in front of the inlet, well within the danger zone. Crew chief and pilot absolved of any blame.
 
Craig said:
Crew chief and pilot were busy with shutdown procedures for all the instrumentation and the engine. Normal brief is that no one approaches the aircraft without the crew chief's direct approval. He's on a long line and in direct communications with the pilot throughout the process. In this case, crew chief was on the other side of the aircraft and pilot was head down in the cockpit. The door the guy tried to open is about 3 feet directly in front of the inlet, well within the danger zone. Crew chief and pilot absolved of any blame.
Click to expand...

But you said that "prior to being told, by the crew chief that the jet was shut down and safe to approach". a

So the crew chief said the aircraft was safe to approach. And the engineer got canned and the crew chief was absolved of any blame?
 
Maybe you meant "jet was not shut down and not safe to approach"?
 
Worked the flight deck as an Avionics Technician for 10 years in Uncle Sam’s Navy. Never saw anyone get sucked in, but saw many a close calls. Felt my “float coat” being tugged on by my buddy a few times and it ended up most definitely not being my buddy. You have to get incredibly close to them. Sometimes they get taxied before ya realize they’re actually not still. Always amazed there aren’t far more incidents of ground/flight deck incidents. Testimony of how well the training and safety environment really is in the Navy. I’m sure it is the same in other branches as well.
 
X3 has it correct. Pilot and crew chief were going thru all of the shutdown procedures. Depending on instrumentation requirements, it may take a longer than normal time to shut down. In this case, the engineer took it upon himself to walk up to the jet without an ok from the crew chief.
 
There was a recent thread, now locked, titled Got “thrown out” of an airport today. I wonder whether anyone else sees a connection between this tragic and entirely preventable accident and the concerns that the OP of that thread expressed.
 
Roger Wilco said:
There was a recent thread, now locked, titled Got “thrown out” of an airport today. I wonder whether anyone else sees a connection between this tragic and entirely preventable accident and the concerns that the OP of that thread expressed.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Completely different situation. They have airplanes and people in common but that doesn’t mean they are similar in any meaningful way as you suggest.
 
Rumor is the OP aircraft had MEL'd APU and kept one engine running at gate till GPU plugged in. Perhaps handler heard one engine shutdown but didn't realize the other was still running? Regardless somewhere the system failed.
 
Bell206 said:
Rumor is the OP aircraft had MEL'd APU and kept one engine running at gate till GPU plugged in. Perhaps handler heard one engine shutdown but didn't realize the other was still running? Regardless somewhere the system failed.
Click to expand...

That is the story I've heard through numerous sources as well. The question then becomes was the ground person briefed on this irregular operation in advance.

One thought I've had. I know our airline the policy is engines running/beacon is on, and don't approach when beacon flashing. However the beacon on some aircraft can be somewhat hidden by the engines, landing gear, etc. With LED technology these days, you'd think it would be easy enough to put a blinking red light on the cowl in front of the engine, where the danger actually is. I got the idea from my gaming computer that has full LED rings around the fan blades. Certainly more eye catching than the anti-collision beacon on the fuselage. Or at the very least, position the belly beacon near the engine intakes, not halfway down the fuselage between the engines and gear.
 
midwestpa24 said:
That is the story I've heard through numerous sources as well. The question then becomes was the ground person briefed on this irregular operation in advance.

One thought I've had. I know our airline the policy is engines running/beacon is on, and don't approach when beacon flashing. However the beacon on some aircraft can be somewhat hidden by the engines, landing gear, etc. With LED technology these days, you'd think it would be easy enough to put a blinking red light on the cowl in front of the engine, where the danger actually is. I got the idea from my gaming computer that has full LED rings around the fan blades. Certainly more eye catching than the anti-collision beacon on the fuselage. Or at the very least, position the belly beacon near the engine intakes, not halfway down the fuselage between the engines and gear.
Click to expand...
Don’t think that idea plays nice with engine anti-ice.

sometimes there’s nothing wrong with policy/procedure. People just do stupid things sometimes.
 
midwestpa24 said:
you'd think it would be easy enough to put a blinking red light on the cowl in front of the engine,
Click to expand...
I think once they perform the root cause to this accident it will become obvious where the existing safe-guards failed which could possibly be corrected by forbidding anybody within the gate bay until permitted by the crew lead. While the light could be another option it might possibly create other issues especially at night when you have dozens lights blinking everywhere on a busy tarmac.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Don’t think that idea plays nice with engine anti-ice.

sometimes there’s nothing wrong with policy/procedure. People just do stupid things sometimes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you may be right.

Sometimes you just can avoid human error. Like I said earlier, it will probably come down to she wasn't briefed about the irregular operation, or just had a brain-fart and forgot or was complacent. Either way a terrible, terrible tragedy.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
…They have airplanes and people in common...
Click to expand...

But that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it: people, on the ramp, in close proximity to a running aircraft engine. A single, momentary lapse of SA can, and sometimes does, result in a tragedy.

It seemed to me that the OP who started the other thread was genuinely concerned about the possibility of such an accident occurring. An entirely preventable accident, if I understood the situation correctly. Meanwhile, the accident that is the topic of this thread should serve to remind us of just how real the danger is, and what is at stake when airplanes and people are in close proximity, on the ramp. Or am I missing something?

RW
 
Roger Wilco said:
But that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it: people, on the ramp, in close proximity to a running aircraft engine. A single, momentary lapse of SA can, and sometimes does, result in a tragedy.

It seemed to me that the OP who started the other thread was genuinely concerned about the possibility of such an accident occurring. An entirely preventable accident, if I understood the situation correctly. Meanwhile, the accident that is the topic of this thread should serve to remind us of just how real the danger is, and what is at stake when airplanes and people are in close proximity, on the ramp. Or am I missing something?

RW
Click to expand...
Yeah I think you’re missing something.

The thread you referenced was an airplane sitting on a ramp, running with no pilot at the controls while it was hot loaded for tours and random people and kids running around.

Montgomery was a restricted access commercial ramp. Everyone on the ramp was trained to be there and the person injured was ignoring those policies and training.

So yeah. People and airplanes. But please don’t get concerned for my safety when you see me doing the walk around on the Airbus I fly. Everyone is trained to be there and very aware of the risks.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Yeah I think you’re missing something.

The thread you referenced was an airplane sitting on a ramp, running with no pilot at the controls while it was hot loaded for tours and random people and kids running around.

Montgomery was a restricted access commercial ramp. Everyone on the ramp was trained to be there and the person injured was ignoring those policies and training.

So yeah. People and airplanes. But please don’t get concerned for my safety when you see me doing the walk around on the Airbus I fly. Everyone is trained to be there and very aware of the risks.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I was missing none of the points you included in your summary. The similarity between the Piedmont accident and the Yak giving rides is that both aircraft, with an engine running, are a potentially deadly threat to people nearby. In one scenario luck prevailed, whereas in the other, fate, the storied hunter, took a life. In light of the ERJ accident, I think Salty's concern, as expressed in the other thread, was reasonable.

Lastly, I trust that you won't do a walk around on your Airbus while an engine is running. But that's no guarantee that your career won't be cut short by some other threat: experience suggests that you are far more likely to be felled by a rogue belt loader or catering truck, driven by an individual who, like you, is trained to be there and is very aware of the risks. Y'all be careful out there.

RW
 
Roger Wilco said:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I was missing none of the points you included in your summary. The similarity between the Piedmont accident and the Yak giving rides is that both aircraft, with an engine running, are a potentially deadly threat to people nearby. In one scenario luck prevailed, whereas in the other, fate, the storied hunter, took a life. In light of the ERJ accident, I think Salty's concern, as expressed in the other thread, was reasonable.

Lastly, I trust that you won't do a walk around on your Airbus while an engine is running. But that's no guarantee that your career won't be cut short by some other threat: experience suggests that you are far more likely to be felled by a rogue belt loader or catering truck, driven by an individual who, like you, is trained to be there and is very aware of the risks. Y'all be careful out there.

RW
Click to expand...
I won’t do a walk around for a running airplane but I can guarantee you that I’ll be sitting in the cockpit of a running airplane waiting for the ground ops guys to hook up ground power before the captain shuts down the engines.

If someone on that ground crew blows off SOP and approaches the aircraft while it’s still running there is a chance they will die like the one in Montgomery.

I don’t see how that connects to saltys thread. Unless you’re just now realizing there is undeniable evidence that getting ingested into an operating jet engine is potentially lethal. Not sure that was ever in question.

The scenarios are completely different.

A significant difference is there is no operational way to remove the running engine from the Montgomery accident. It’s easily removed from the one salty shared.

but whatever. Nice to have your input
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top