Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
KMGM accident 12/31 >

KMGM accident 12/31

Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

KMGM accident 12/31

Old 01-25-2023, 11:09 AM
  #81  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 152
Default

NTSB prelim is out. It reads like half the ground crew is mindlessly performing their tasks with zero awareness and/or regard of big wide spinning death X 2. By my count there were at least 4 instances of ground crew being verbally reminded to keep their distance. Iím not sure what to make of that, quite honestly.

One would think that footage of the sailor on an aircraft carrier deck being sucked into a jet intake would be standard viewing for any ground crew. Very hard to forget seeing something like that.
flydrive is offline  
Old 01-25-2023, 06:31 PM
  #82  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 5,653
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Yeah but still... the one *really* important thing that all the rampers need to know is: Don't get near the 30,000 hp, 6' diameter cuisinart until you're certain it's off and spooled down.

Pretty damning that they can't even get that right.
My daddy told me not to stick my fingers in the garbage disposal.
TransWorld is online now  
Old 01-26-2023, 06:00 AM
  #83  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 418
Default

It's tough to understand how anyone would put themselves in the position this ramp agent did. How distracted or impaired would someone need to be to make an error of this magnitude?

I'm curious how many days this aircraft was operating with the APU deferred? We've all seen airlines use the MEL "can be inoperative up to XX days" as a goal, rather than a short-term dispatch tool. While it may not have made a difference in this case, I think there should be a hard look at changing the APU deferral category from C to B. This would allow airlines to maintain schedule integrity when an APU breaks, but limit the risk to ground personnel.

We've seen some ramp agents are either poorly selected for hiring, poorly trained, or can't remember their training when it matters. Why not cut down the potential exposure to this hazard?

No one in this industry should leave their family in the morning, and never come home from work. RIP Courtney.

If you haven't yet, please consider making a donation to Courtney's family, as a show of solidarity with our industry brothers and sisters who perform so many essential tasks that allow us to serve our passengers. Unlike us, none of them are ever thanked by our passengers.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/courtney-...term=undefined
irrelevant is offline  
Old 01-26-2023, 08:08 AM
  #84  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 36,388
Default

Originally Posted by irrelevant View Post
I'm curious how many days this aircraft was operating with the APU deferred? We've all seen airlines use the MEL "can be inoperative up to XX days" as a goal, rather than a short-term dispatch tool. While it may not have made a difference in this case, I think there should be a hard look at changing the APU deferral category from C to B. This would allow airlines to maintain schedule integrity when an APU breaks, but limit the risk to ground personnel.
I don't disagree but I'm not sure that the FAA's mandate extends quite as far as changing operating procedures because a somebody on the ground might walk into an operating engine. Maybe.

Their calculus on that would be stats related to the risks of going single-generator in the event of an engine failure. Probably not ramp safety. Or pax safety on a hot day.


The go-fund me is over $100K, so that's good. I'm guessing pilots helped with that.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-26-2023, 12:12 PM
  #85  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by dera View Post
That's what I keep saying, and as someone who was reading these reports, this was an entirely preventable accident.

I hope someone sues the sh(t out of them. They deserve it.
Workplace accident. Wouldn't' recovery be limited to Workers Compensation?
kevinc5 is offline  
Old 01-26-2023, 12:38 PM
  #86  
All is fine at .79
 
TiredSoul's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 3,675
Default

I think the persons schedule and how much overtime was worked and the level of fatigue to be more important then changing an APU category.
TiredSoul is offline  
Old 01-26-2023, 01:35 PM
  #87  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 36,388
Default

Originally Posted by kevinc5 View Post
Workplace accident. Wouldn't' recovery be limited to Workers Compensation?
Depends. On circumstances and state. If I had to guess somebody will find a way for the heirs to proceed with a lawsuit in this case... it's worth jumping through hoops to get in front of a jury (or even a judge) due to the horrific nature of the accident.

Example: Third party claim against AA, Embraer, MGM airport, etc
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-31-2023, 06:55 PM
  #88  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 5,939
Default

Originally Posted by kevinc5 View Post
Workplace accident. Wouldn't' recovery be limited to Workers Compensation?
Pretty sure negligence removes that limitation.
Knowing how the ramp operates at AAG regionals, it won't take much to find plenty of examples of it.
dera is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
USMCFLYR
Military
85
08-14-2021 03:19 PM
Blackwing
In Memory Of
103
04-09-2018 06:57 AM
TheFly
Safety
99
10-30-2013 12:44 PM
cl65
Major
0
03-02-2006 08:31 PM
AlohaFlyer
Hiring News
7
09-02-2005 06:18 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread