Posting because I'm a bit disgusted with American culture right now. AA should either voluntarily offer up at least $250k to her estate to help with grievances. Or, if I were the CEO, I'd offer to 10-1 match donations to her GoFundMe[1] up to $1M (which would be hit as of now)
[1]: This appears to be the go fund me, but I'm also increasingly wary of these kinds of pages after hearing that post disaster fraud is a form of crime that is commonplace nowadays -- https://www.gofundme.com/f/courtney-edwards
I’m not clear from the article. Was there a warning light to not go near the plane, but the user ignored and got sucked in? Or was something wonky with the warning light.
I think the behaviors should be a bit different in those two cases.
Either way I could see OSHA dropping a fine - because either the equipment wasn't working correctly, which is a violation, or the policies weren't correct, which is a violation, or they had an employee who would do stupid things, which is a violation.
I'm more curious about this "Don't approach a plane until the beacon light turns off" system. Is this standardized or widely used? Because it sounds like a terrible design.
If you've got one signal light to signal the state of a system it should turn on when safe and off when unsafe, so when the light is obscured or the lamp fails someone doesn't walk into a running jet engine.
To be clear I don't have any information that's not in the article. I don't know if there was a system failure or what the nature of that failure might be. All I'm saying is that the description of a procedure where a people approach jets when the you're-in-mortal-peril-light goes out gives me goosebumps. My entirely uninformed opinion is that OSHA might feel the same way.
Beacon on at engine start is standard procedure for most if not all jets and is ingrained into people's heads that you do not enter the danger zone if that beacon is lit.
I mean, I'm not arguing with the usefulness of a big, bright beacon that says "DANGER". I'm just sort of shocked that... that's it? No positive confirmation that it's actually safe? Just the lack of a danger signal?
If I lived in a place that signaled traffic with a red light for stop and no light for go, I would drive a lot less.
From what I recall reading about the incident when it happened, the airplane did have the usual red beacon lights that normally indicate that the engines are running, and the crew that the woman was a part of had received multiple briefings about both safety around running engines, and this specific airplane.
The airplane had a non-functional APU, so they kept the engines running longer on the ground until they could get connected to ground power. Normally with an APU operable, the flight crew could start shutting down the engines much sooner, such that it would not have been nearly as hazardous to the ground crew. That's probably what any sort of civil suit will go after -- if AA had spent the time and money to have the APU fixed sooner, the dangerous situation could have been prevented and the woman that was killed might still be alive.
> the ground crew at the airport held two safety briefings immediately before the plane arrived at the gate.
>Employees were told they should not approach the plane until the engine was shut off and a beacon light was turned off, according to the NTSB report.
She got TWO briefings not to approach the plane.
> The National Transportation Safety Board released a preliminary report indicating a ramp worker who was pulled into an Embraer E175 jet engine and killed at Montgomery Regional Airport on Dec. 31 had walked too close to the running engine despite warnings.
It was her fault for not following her training, from the details I can find. What was AA supposed to do aside from refusing to open the door to let ground crew outside?
> What was AA supposed to do aside from refusing to open the door to let ground crew outside?
Sure, that's a pretty reasonable option. Have someone be on door duty, and they keep it locked until the plane is shut off. Better yet would be some kind of interlock where the doors automatically lock while the turbines are running, but hardware changes are hard to make in aviation. Maybe give the pilot the responsibility to unlock those doors somehow as part of the offboarding procedures.
> She got TWO briefings not to approach the plane.
Sure, and yet we still put railings around high ledges although it would be obvious even without them that falling off would be bad. Circular saws come with guards on them, even though it's self-evident that the blade is the dangerous bit. Those robots that assemble cars in factories have a big cage around them.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a device that can suck someone in and blend them from a substantial distance probably needs better safety guards than a lecture and a light bulb.
People come to work tired, or with allergies, or sick, or hungover, or just out of it because personal issues and they forget to check that lightbulb that's always off by the time they get there anyways.
Ok for the OSHA fine, but what about civil and criminal liabilities.
I guess the OSHA thing is just a fine for not complying with some safety regulations, not for causing the death of someone. For the latter, someone may sue for criminal negligence, if justified.
Exactly, I think people often misunderstand the role of OSHA and why extremely burdensome fines (right of the bat at least) would inhibit their mission. For the rest, as you say, the courts are there to pick up the slack.
It's not as though an OSHA fine removes a companies liability!
What's the argument for outsourcing workplace safety to individual lawyers? Bumping the max fine up by 10x or 20x would still leave room for excess liability while simultaneously guaranteeing actual repercussions for negligent companies. In the current setup, if the estate decides not to pursue a lawsuit since it's a horrible process that will take several years, the company basically gets off free?
> What's the argument for outsourcing workplace safety to individual lawyers?
That isn't my argument, so I wouldn't make it. OSHA oversees that, and fines are one of its tools. That's a separate issue from compensating people who are harmed as the result of workplace safety violations.
You wouldn't say that the FAA or NHTSA IS "outsourcing safety" just because they aren't the ones handing out civil penalties, right?
In the US, workman's comp replaces most civil liability claims. In other words, because workman's comp exists, you can't directly sue your employer; it's part of the law.
A person is not allowed to sue their employer directly in a civil case. Other times we might see cases where there are both the workers compensation case and a civil case at play. This means that somebody was hurt at work but there was also a third party – someone other than the employer that is believed to be responsible for the accident.
Just recently an ironworker came into the office having fallen at work well as it turns out the step that he fell on was negligently or carelessly built by another contractor who was on the same job. This person has a workers compensation case against his employer and will likely file a civil lawsuit against the other contractor who created this danger through their negligence.
This post starts by saying “most” civil liability claims are impossible where workman’s compensation exists, which is true, but then the rest of the post seems to suggest it’s a hard and fast rule. It is not. If you are injured at work, seek advice from a professional.
Because one account responded to ITSELF with a snarky rebuttal. The options are a shared account, mental illness, or attempted shilling, and maybe something else I can't figure out.
> At some point children grow up and understand that corporations, aka "incorporated entities" are just when people join together to get something accomplished. And "profit" means creating more good in the world than what is consumed.
Interesting that your own definitions here are so childlike in naivety and lack of nuance. The idea that "profit" means "creating good" is laughable and if you don't understand why, asking "Who/how many is it good for" and weighing that good against the lives lost and the destruction caused would be a good place to start.
History is filled with examples where massive profits were taken, but the cost to everyone not stuffing their pockets with cash was far greater, creating situations where "what was consumed" was far more valuable than making people who were already obscenely wealthy even richer.
Profit can be good, depending on the cost and what that profit is then put toward. The opportunity for profit drives progress. The seeking of profit at the expense of all else has also caused terrible harms, and has been used to justify some of humanity's worst and most shameful acts.
In Germany any accidents launch a criminal investigation into all involved constructing, installing and maintaining a machine. This pushes a rigorous safety thinking with clear responsibilities,but also makes safety envelope touching projects impossible.
34 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 75.4 ms ] thread[1]: This appears to be the go fund me, but I'm also increasingly wary of these kinds of pages after hearing that post disaster fraud is a form of crime that is commonplace nowadays -- https://www.gofundme.com/f/courtney-edwards
I think the behaviors should be a bit different in those two cases.
If you've got one signal light to signal the state of a system it should turn on when safe and off when unsafe, so when the light is obscured or the lamp fails someone doesn't walk into a running jet engine.
To be clear I don't have any information that's not in the article. I don't know if there was a system failure or what the nature of that failure might be. All I'm saying is that the description of a procedure where a people approach jets when the you're-in-mortal-peril-light goes out gives me goosebumps. My entirely uninformed opinion is that OSHA might feel the same way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-collision_light
I mean, I'm not arguing with the usefulness of a big, bright beacon that says "DANGER". I'm just sort of shocked that... that's it? No positive confirmation that it's actually safe? Just the lack of a danger signal?
If I lived in a place that signaled traffic with a red light for stop and no light for go, I would drive a lot less.
The airplane had a non-functional APU, so they kept the engines running longer on the ground until they could get connected to ground power. Normally with an APU operable, the flight crew could start shutting down the engines much sooner, such that it would not have been nearly as hazardous to the ground crew. That's probably what any sort of civil suit will go after -- if AA had spent the time and money to have the APU fixed sooner, the dangerous situation could have been prevented and the woman that was killed might still be alive.
>Employees were told they should not approach the plane until the engine was shut off and a beacon light was turned off, according to the NTSB report.
She got TWO briefings not to approach the plane.
> The National Transportation Safety Board released a preliminary report indicating a ramp worker who was pulled into an Embraer E175 jet engine and killed at Montgomery Regional Airport on Dec. 31 had walked too close to the running engine despite warnings.
It was her fault for not following her training, from the details I can find. What was AA supposed to do aside from refusing to open the door to let ground crew outside?
Sure, that's a pretty reasonable option. Have someone be on door duty, and they keep it locked until the plane is shut off. Better yet would be some kind of interlock where the doors automatically lock while the turbines are running, but hardware changes are hard to make in aviation. Maybe give the pilot the responsibility to unlock those doors somehow as part of the offboarding procedures.
> She got TWO briefings not to approach the plane.
Sure, and yet we still put railings around high ledges although it would be obvious even without them that falling off would be bad. Circular saws come with guards on them, even though it's self-evident that the blade is the dangerous bit. Those robots that assemble cars in factories have a big cage around them.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a device that can suck someone in and blend them from a substantial distance probably needs better safety guards than a lecture and a light bulb.
People come to work tired, or with allergies, or sick, or hungover, or just out of it because personal issues and they forget to check that lightbulb that's always off by the time they get there anyways.
https://www.castanet.net/news/World/433741/Worker-sucked-int...
Perhaps a flashing light is insufficient? Time for some ingenuity on safety equipment.
I guess the OSHA thing is just a fine for not complying with some safety regulations, not for causing the death of someone. For the latter, someone may sue for criminal negligence, if justified.
It's not as though an OSHA fine removes a companies liability!
That isn't my argument, so I wouldn't make it. OSHA oversees that, and fines are one of its tools. That's a separate issue from compensating people who are harmed as the result of workplace safety violations.
You wouldn't say that the FAA or NHTSA IS "outsourcing safety" just because they aren't the ones handing out civil penalties, right?
https://lawkirkpatrick.com/the-difference-between-civil-case...
A person is not allowed to sue their employer directly in a civil case. Other times we might see cases where there are both the workers compensation case and a civil case at play. This means that somebody was hurt at work but there was also a third party – someone other than the employer that is believed to be responsible for the accident.
Just recently an ironworker came into the office having fallen at work well as it turns out the step that he fell on was negligently or carelessly built by another contractor who was on the same job. This person has a workers compensation case against his employer and will likely file a civil lawsuit against the other contractor who created this danger through their negligence.
One exception: willful misconduct.
I am traveling in hotels helping with HIPAA compliance so I get flagged a lot
Interesting that your own definitions here are so childlike in naivety and lack of nuance. The idea that "profit" means "creating good" is laughable and if you don't understand why, asking "Who/how many is it good for" and weighing that good against the lives lost and the destruction caused would be a good place to start.
History is filled with examples where massive profits were taken, but the cost to everyone not stuffing their pockets with cash was far greater, creating situations where "what was consumed" was far more valuable than making people who were already obscenely wealthy even richer.
Profit can be good, depending on the cost and what that profit is then put toward. The opportunity for profit drives progress. The seeking of profit at the expense of all else has also caused terrible harms, and has been used to justify some of humanity's worst and most shameful acts.
Profit means creating more value than what is consumed. It is precisely and accurately the exact definition of the word.