CAPT REFUSES TO ALLOW GND PERSONNEL TO LOAD LATE BAGGAGE IN CARGO PIT WITH ENGS RUNNING ON B757.

Narrative

AFTER HAVING BEEN GIVEN CLRNC TO START BOTH ENGS; DURING THE SECOND ENG START; THE RAMP WORKER IN COM WITH THE CAPT SAID THAT MORE BAGS WERE TO BE ADDED. THE CAPT REFUSED AND TOLD RAMP NOT TO APCH THE CARGO DOORS; AT THIS TIME BOTH ENGS WERE RUNNING. RAMP WORKER PLACED ANOTHER RAMP WORKER ON THE HEADSET THAT SAID IT WAS SOP FOR BAGS TO BE LOADED ON THE B757 WITH BOTH ENGS RUNNING. CAPT STILL REFUSED AND HAD THE RAMP PERSONNEL STAND BY UNTIL CAPT MADE CONTACT WITH OPS. OPS WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY NEW POLICY REGARDING BAGS. CAPT REFUSED LATE BAGS WITH ENGS RUNNING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: DISCUSSION WITH THE RPTR REVEALED THAT HE HAD INVESTIGATED THE SIT WITH BOTH HIS FLT OPS MGMNT AND THROUGH A PHONE CALL WITH A RAMP SUPVR AT THE DEP STATION IN QUESTION. DISTRESSINGLY; HE RECEIVED DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED RESPONSES; FLT OPS ADVISING (AFTER A PERIOD OF TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS) THAT BAGGAGE HANDLING WITH THE R ENG RUNNING WAS AN ABSOLUTE NO-NO AND THE RAMP SUPVR READING A COMPANY MANUAL DESCRIBING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A HANDLER COULD IN FACT LOAD BAGS WITH THE R ENG RUNNING. HE CONCLUDED THAT; AT THE VERY LEAST; THE TWO COMPANY ORGANIZATIONS APPEARED TO HAVE NOT COORDINATED THEIR INVESTIGATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ON THIS POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS PRACTICE. HE ADVISED THAT UNTIL THEY REACHED A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT IT WILL BE HIS PRACTICE TO CONTINUE TO NOT ALLOW BAGS TO BE BOARDED WITH THE R ENG RUNNING.