Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: There are two issues. Both issues were under the observation of an FAA inspector occupying the jumpseat.Issue #1Cargo Load Report showed a live animal in the forward cargo bin and dry ice in the rear cargo bin. Dry ice is never authorized in the rear cargo bin and cannot be in the forward cargo bin with a live animal. I summoned a ramper to the flight deck and informed him of the error. The ramper made the decision to remove the dry ice and keep the animal on board.Issue #2After closing the main cabin door; a ramper standing behind the tug communicated to us via hand signals to release the parking brake. Since the rear cargo door was still open and we were not finished with the before start checklist; I kept the parking brake on and informed the ramper with hand signals. After all doors were closed and the before start checklist was complete; I gave the ramper the hand signal for brake release. The ramper returned the hand signal to release the brakes. Upon releasing the brakes; the tug driver (a separate person from the ramper) immediately starting pushing back the aircraft. I commanded the tug driver to stop the push via the intercom. The tug driver stopped the push after pushing the aircraft back about 5-10 feet. I informed the tug driver that we were not cleared to push yet. No response. I opened the side window and asked the ramper if the tug driver was wearing a headset. The ramper informed me that the tug driver was wearing a headset; but the headset was partially defective. The tug driver could hear me; but could not talk to me over the intercom. I told the ramper to be the communication medium between the tug driver and the flight deck. I closed the window and had the First Officer call for pushback clearance. We received the pushback clearance and I informed the tug driver that the brakes were released; steer off; and cleared to push if he saw a green light on the nose wheel. During pushback; the ramper walking behind the tug communicated to us that it was clear to start engines and to set the parking brake after the pushback was complete.CauseIssue #1Loading dry ice into the rear cargo bin is never allowed. I think the rampers correctly realized that to have both the live animal and the dry ice in the forward cargo bin was not authorized; but they didn't realize that their solution to put the dry ice into the rear cargo bin was also not authorized.Issue #2I don't know why the tug driver pushed the aircraft back without a clearance. We had not called Ramp Control for a pushback clearance and so both the First Officer and I were not using any pushback language on the flight deck that the ramper might have overheard on the intercom and misinterpreted. In cruise; the First Officer; FAA Inspector; and I debriefed the issue. The only thing we could think of is that the tug driver saw the nose gear light turn green when I released the parking brake and that triggered him to push even without verbal communication or hand signals from the flight deck.SuggestionsIssue #1Rampers need additional training about dry ice restrictions on the ERJ175. A bulletin for reminding flight crews about the restriction may also be prudent. The FAA inspector queried us about the dry ice in the rear cargo bin after noticing it on the CLR several minutes before pushback. While I suspected it wasn't authorized due to no ventilation in the rear cargo bin; I looked it up using the EFB to be sure. The information about that restriction is not contained in the Weight and Balance Operations Manual as one would assume; but is located in the Hazardous Materials and AOM Vol. 1 manuals.Issue #2Rampers need additional training. Tug drivers have to receive verbal communication or hand signals from the flight deck for pushback clearance even if a green light is present on the nose gear. In addition; if a known problem exists with the tug driver's headset; it needs to be brought to the attention of the flight deck crewbefore pushback so a plan can be discussed in advance of the pushback procedure.




Synopsis: An ERJ-175 Captain reported dry ice loaded in the aft cargo bin; a hazmat violation in this aircraft type. Additionally; ground personnel began the pushback without crew clearance after brake release. Ground personnel training appears to be a problem.