Passengers refuse to fly after tanks overfilled

[nomorethanbablue]

From PA:


Dozens of passengers refused to fly home from a holiday in the sun after fuel spilled from their plane as it prepared for take-off.
People on board the FlyGlobespan aircraft from Alicante to Aberdeen demanded to get off the aircraft after becoming concerned when fuel overflowed from its wing.
One passenger described "hysterical" scenes at the Spanish airport which forced the aircraft to return to the terminal.
Forty-three of the 140 passengers then decided not to take the flight.
FlyGlobespan today insisted the plane had been perfectly safe to fly and apologised for the disruption.
The company is now making efforts to return the affected passengers to Scotland.
SNIP
A FlyGlobespan spokesman said: "The airline's position, which has been confirmed by Boeing, was there was absolutely nothing wrong with the plane, it was perfectly safe.
"Three of the passengers panicked and it spread a bit.
"The captain reassured them there was nothing wrong, but if people don't want to fly we can't make them fly.
The spokesman said two of the three passengers who had initially raised concerns had decided to stay on the flight.
He said instances of planes being overfuelled were "not infrequent".
"We apologise for the disruption that delay caused to the vast majority of the passengers on the plane who were happy to travel."


BABlue

[Rainboe]

Sometimes British passengers can just be a total embarrassment. All this alarm probably came from one or two passenger 'loudmouths' egging the others on. The scenes of hysteria must have been excrutiating. Fuel draining out of vents is a not uncommon event. Whether it was overfueling or just draining out of the pipework, it was not dangerous. The fuel itself is pretty inert. You can stand in a puddle of jetfuel, light a match and drop it into the fuel burning, and it will not ignite. Until it is in spray form, it won't do anything. The 'danger' level was zero.

[No Country Members]

Unless the puddle you happen to be standing has reached 38 degrees C in which case the match would cause a quite different result. How hot is the tarmac at Alicante these days?

[hobie]

A similar incident ..... reported on PPRuNe as I remember ....

http://www.alphafloor.net/aviation/nouvelair/index.html

[Forkandles]

Hmm, those professional firefighters seem to take fuel spilling from the wing quite seriously, didn't they Rainboe?
Is it maybe just possible for you to understand now why the 'ordinary joes' on the plane might have been just a bit spooked now?

[The Otter's Pocket]

I don't deny that there were probably a few "loud mouths" about inciting the crowd.
However for others the sight of fuel pouring from the wing, the will question the structural integrity of the wing and if the a/c is going to run out of fuel.

This may seem to be bone for some people, however they do not do your job and flying hieghtens the tension for many people.
My good lady has a real apprehension of flying and yet she is the MD of a very successful company.

If you don't like the reactions of the people you are flying, then prehaps you should be flying freight.

[Ancient Mariner]

Time Traveller: Beyond the call of duty for Flyglobespan to return the passengers, I would have thought. If they choose to diregard the information and reassurance of the Captain, in the process delaying all the other pax, then they should have to deal with the inconvenience of getting home themselves.

I don't know Flyglobespan, but maybe they are one of those silly companies that believe in customer service and repeat business independent of said customers' IQ levels?
Per

[coatimundi]

As a long-time lurker on this forum (former airline employee, currently regular offshore helicopter passenger) I have never felt qualified to comment on any subject, but in this case I most certainly can!

My wife and I were passengers on this particular flight (GSM032 25June 2007)). We checked in at the normal time at Alicante, and on passing through to departures found we had a 1 hour delay. Someone heard a rumour that the outbound flight ex ABZ had been forced to divert to Stansted to refuel - that didn't particularly bother me.

At about 2130 local we were invited to board the aircraft. At this time I noticed a fire engine with blue lights flashing in the vicinity of our aircraft, but didn't pay much heed. After settling into our seats, there was a short delay and then we were asked to unbuckle our seatbelts whilst the aircraft was being refuelled. After a further delay the captain came on the intercom and announced that due to a faulty fuel filter "about half a ton" of fuel had spilled onto the tarmac and that we should get off while this was cleaned up.

There was a further delay of about 1-1/2 hours, during which the only thing I was concerned about was the crew's flying hour limitations (I used to plan pilot rosters many years ago). At the time of reboarding, one family of passengers were seen to get off the aircraft and go back to the terminal on the bus, followed by a short delay while their baggage was removed - this was also announced over the tannoy.

The aircraft then departed the stand, and proceeded at what I thought was a slightly faster taxying speed than usual to the runway. It was at this time that the panic started - someone at the back shouted "whoa" and then all hell let loose. We were in seats 11A and B so we couldn't see the affected wing, but passengers on the other side of the aircraft were standing up, shouting "Stop the :mad: plane, we want to get off!" One woman in particular was screaming hysterically (I will return to her later), young children were crying and passengers were pressing the call-buttons. The aircraft reached the end of the runway and paused - passengers were still shouting - "get this plane off the :mad: runway" and the screaming woman was still giving it plenty.

The Captain came on to the tannoy and told us that the overflow of fuel seen from the wing was a normal occurrence in this kind of situation, but it was obvious there was no way that everyone was going to sit down, so he stated his intention to return to the stand and let anyone who wanted to get off do so.

At least we were spared the tedium of having to deplane once more - we waited at the stand whilst all the baggage was removed, identified and split for travelling and non-travelling passengers. Finally, at about 0130 local time, we were airborne without any further fuss.

The points to note about this incident were how easily panic spreads - my initial reaction to the shouts was that something must have caught fire, and I was measuring the distance between myself and the overwing exit, but this was only for a second or so as it became obvious that it was the fuel problem. Personally if the pilot is happy to fly, so am I - he gets to the scene of the accident before I do so I might have time to call him a dreadful name before....

Also the cabin crew seemed as misinformed as the rest of us at the initial point of panic. Two of the stewards were at the rear of the aircraft and didn't know what was going on - I could not tell what was happening up front. We must have been holding on the runway for a good 2-3 minutes before the Captain announced what was happening.

My local rag (The Aberdeen Press and Journal) reports this morning that 43 passengers got off the plane - I didn't think it was that many actually. One of the passengers who stayed on board was the screaming woman, who had easily been the noisiest complainant at the time of the incident.

I felt really sorry for the crew overall - they had had one hell of a day (Stansted refuel, fuel spillage at ALC, panicking passengers) - I bet they were happy to get to ABZ and finish their duty early the following morning. For myself, the worst aspect of the whole flight was ending up at ABZ in the freezing cold and rain after the warmth of Spain, at 0430 in the morning and not a taxi to be seen :bored:

I'll fly with Globespan again, not a problem for me :)

TTFN
Mark

[Weasel123]

A couple of people have already posted similar, but as someone who works for an oil company, I will just reiterate that it's the vapour that ignites, not the liquid (You can drop a lighted match into petrol and it wont ignite, its the vapour it reaches first that does) and aviation fuel sitting on hot tarmac would generate a lovely flashpoint for any source of ignition. Remember Buncefield? mmmmmm lots of warmed up aviation fuel helped that along!

[Ropey Pilot]

How much fuel came out anyway?
One man's slight drip is another man's gush! A small amount of fuel venting is not uncommon at all - even if there has been no mistakes in the fuelling process - if it didn't I would be much more concerned - where within the fuselage was it collecting :eek:

Most people wildly overestimate the volume contained in a puddle - especially when the liquid involved is emotive. (people can swear there are gallons of blood at an accident - the body only contains 8 pints and you would be unlikely to see all of those on the floor - even in a fatality.)

On the airbus with old school CFM engined there is an allowed 'drip rate' of fuel from the engine before even calling an engineer. As soon as the engines are running this seals itself up - still alarming to the the uninitiated.
Problems occur if people with very little knowledge of mechanisms involved take it upon themselves to make critical decisions - how often would you overule a surgeon if you were witnessing an operation which looked like it was going wrong?

Sometimes it is frustrating that people refuse to believe that you know what you are doing. I remember re-performing performance calculations in front of someone to prove that he couldn't take his mate as a spare pax while hot and high in a helicopter (in the army). It was the only way he would shut-up! The fact we took 2 people the previous week meant that he knew better than me and that I was lying to him:rolleyes: (The fact that it ws nearly 10 degrees hotter and the baro pressure had dropped meant nothing to him).

Would you initiate an evacuation if you saw liquid pouring from the belly of an aircraft - would you feel silly helping people into ambulances when it was poited out that one of the crew has simply emptied the coffee down the sink instead of down the toilet?

While I have sympathy with those who are not comfortable in the air it seems ridiculous that 40 people chose not to fly on a perfectly safe aircraft (especially as 2 of the 3 ringleadrers seemed to have no problem:mad:)
However good on Globespan for sorthing them out with flights - I can see absolutely no obligation for them to have done so. I assume those 43 pax all checked the tech log and the MEL to ensure that the aircraft was safe enough to operate home - since they have already proved that they are not willing to take the Captains word for it.

[FLCH]

I had some passengers offload themselves after we had to return to SJU, following a noise reported by one of the girls in the back. It turned out to be nothing after the mechanics looked at it for about an hour (none of the other crewmembers heard the noise, but better safe than sorry) I explained to our shortly to become ex-fellow passengers exactly what had been done and I was happy with the result and that no more seats would be available for six more days as it was over Christmas time, but the final choice was theirs. Six days later I did the same trip, and I did see some familiar faces.

[wobble2plank]

The problem here seems to be one of communication. As professional aviators, whatever our machines, we are aware of the vagaries of 'open venting' fuel systems, pressurised fuel systems, cold soaked fuel, specific gravitys, fuel temperature and expansion and all the other variables that go with it.

We are aware that as the fuel expands in the hot temperatures of say ... Alicante, there is no longer enough space for it in the tank and it has to vent otherwise it ruptures the tanks.

Joe Public, on the way back from their annual package tour to Spain is not aware of any of this. If the fuel pours out of their car after re-fuelling it thats a BIG (and costly) problem. Call the RAC/AA sit back and wait. If they see fuel pouring out of a big complex flying machine then that is a BIG BIG problem.

Unfortunately in this day and age most people will see any kind of explaination, no matter how coherent, as spin in order to avoid the company having to pay out for something. They will disregard it and choose not to fly on the now big complex flying death trap.

Personally I would be quite happy to take those that stay onboard and say goodbye to those that don't and wish them well on finding an alternate way home.

You will not be able to change these peoples minds. They know better than we do and all we are trying to do is save 'the company' hassle.

Not worth arguing about, just not worth the heart ache.

:ok:

[bnt]

Has anyone said anything about how much was pouring out? I've seen small amounts, and no panic, but this sounds like a whole 'nother matter. How much, do you think, would get people standing up and screaming?

All these elitist "passengers are sheep" comments have me baffled. I'm a musician (amateur), and since most people don't play an instrument, does that mean I can safely ignore any opinions they have about my music?

(Personally, I wouldn't have left the plane - but then I've helped friends refuel their private planes, and gotten soaked in avgas for my trouble, so it doesn't frighten me all that much.)

[nano404]

The company is now making efforts to return the affected passengers to Scotland.

Screw that, you leaving the plane is like missing your flight. Buy a new ticket, thats more than they're obligated to do, they didn't cancel the flight...

[Double Zero]

As a previous poster said, it's a matter of communication.

Airline pilots in particular seem to be a bit precious about their qualifications & no-one else may mention anything...

A certain tragedy at Kegworth WOULD have been averted if passengers listening to the PA - or the oh so knowledgable cabin crew - had spoken up when the pilot announced he was shutting down the opposite engine to the one on fire.

As a ' sitting there ' SLF / photographer on light aircraft I've noticed - Which the Test / CPL pilots hadn't - 2 out of 3 greens on line up for take-off, assymetric fuel, and near collisions too many to remember...

The fuel was 'spraying' & thus near vapourised before it pooled harmlessly on the ground - I rather doubt fire crews would shrug their shoulders at this, certainly not the ones I worked with.

Hopefully the aircraft was earthed - as for the Bulldog mentioned above, isn't that high octane ?!

I might not have screamed like a banshee, but I wouldn't have accepted being told "I know best " - a lot of people have been killed by someone else's ego, a sad list far too long for here... Aren't we supposed to learn from the past hard - earned lessons ?

[fireflybob]

Firstly totally agree that whether or not the a/c is fit for flight is down to the Captain/Engineer(s) etc and not unqualified SLF.

However perhaps the mistake that is being made is to believe that we are in the "transportation" business. I believe this is a mistake the US airline industry made many years ago. In any business you are, actually, in the people business. These matters are very much a question of communication and how you treat the "customers". Obviously hysterical media coverage of minor events does little to help these situations.

"Establishment of rapport" starts well before the pax getting on the aircraft but as flightcrew we are very much the missing link when it comes to keeping pax fully informed. I do not think there are any simple answers to pax who behave in this manner but it is very much a question of how these incidents are handled (this is, I emphasise, no criticism of how this crew handled this situation) rather than the "logical" facts.

[ZeBedie]

I wish the airlines wouldn't pander to people who are ignorant of aviation yet feel better able than the professional flightcrew to decide what's acceptable and what's not.

They should be sued for the cost of the delay, prosecuted for disrupting the flight and blacklisted.

[Port Strobe]

bnt "Has anyone said anything about how much was pouring out?"
Probably the same amount by which it may have been overfuelled. If the a/c was on stand at 2100(L) I doubt thermal expansion would be a major cause, willing to stand corrected though. Given the operator & pax load it's reasonably safe to assume it's a 737 concerned, so the wing tanks were probably required to be at or very near full at least, hence increasing the chances of fuel venting. As for "elitist" comments, the crew who are trained to carry out that task explained it was perfectly acceptable for this to occur, as has been mentioned already they're first to the scene of the accident so why would they risk anything? bnt, music isn't such a black & white affair as this but if a professional musician had explained something contrary to my initial understanding then I'd take their word on it since I don't know better than them, is that not what the other posters were getting at?

[aviate1138]

How much "fuel" had the panicky passengers consumed prior to the flight? Did that affect their judgement?

Aviate1138

[Two's in]

Whatever your view on whether the stupidity of the passengers or the crew was greater, the indisputable result is that this carrier has captured a great deal of unwanted attention from this incident. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but upsetting pax, however irrational they may be and unintentional your actions were, is never good for the bottom line, the one that pays the wages.

PS. Thread Creep Alert - I can show you pictures of the cremated remains of an Army Scout Helicopter, victim of 2 refuellers pondering the flammability characteristics of Avtur. "Did you know Avtur doesn't burn" was the phrase used before the unstoppable series of events was set in motion with a lighted match.

[KATLPAX]

I do think this whole thing got way out of hand very quickly and should have been handled in a way to calm the uninformed freight ...however... would it not be prudent for a pax who noticed something out of the ordinary to inform crew, especially thinking that the event was out of sight of the guys up front? (in this case it was a non event but what if otherwise?) I can't fault those who raised the alarm (that in itself takes a hell of a lot of courage), but do fault them in the way in which they did so and their complete lack of faith in the crew. What do you guys up at the pointy end say?

[CYPR]

Now KATLPAX thats perhaps the most intelligent comment addressing THIS incident that I have read.

Perhaps the chronology of events as they happened may explain both the passengers concern and that of the responces from the crew.

Fuel leakage is far from being a rare event however, how many vacation travellers know this? Indeed for some of them it may be the first or second time that they have flown.

[JW411]

Now I realise that I am a lot older than a lot of you out there but I think this is one of those rare occasions when the captain needs to appear in the cabin and to address the punters. (But only ever on the ground).

It has been my experience in the past that screaming women tend to shut up when you appear in front of them - they start to feel not a little foolish.

I would only ever recommend that this course of action should be used extremely spareingly but sometimes it is necessary to calm the fears of your customers.

A simple explanation of what the problem is and how well you understand the problem and that you have absolutely no intentions of dying before you pick up your paycheck will usually do the trick. "Do you really think I want to die Madam?"

Sometimes we have to leave the comfort zone of our office and display our authority. That is all part of being a captain.

Incidentally, I don't know if any of you out there ever heard the story of the little old lady who got very upset after push-back in a Laker DC-10 heading for New York?

Basically, the old dear became claustrophobic having never ever flown in her life before. The aircraft was pushed back on to stand. While this was happening, Fred Laker drove across the airfield in his Roller, dived into the aeroplane and sat down beside the old dear.

He established very quickly that she was on her way to the USA to see the previously unseen grandchildren but she was too terrified to go on this flight.

Believe it or not, Fred went with her holding her hand. On arrival in JFK, he went straight back to LGW on the same aeroplane after a couple of hours.

When he got back, the airport authorities had fined him quite a lot of money for leaving his Roller airside!

How many airline MDs would have done that?

Sometimes we have to realise that if we expect our authority as captains of aircraft to be respected then we have to be prepared to be seen and not just hide in our offices and issue edicts.

Now I strongly wish to point out that we should NEVER go back into the cabin in order to sort out disputes in flight. That's when it used to be useful to have a Flight Engineer armed with an axe!

So much for progress.

[Fuel Boy]

"Half a Ton":eek: !!!!!!! blimey Thats loads ? well 625 ltrs.. if that much "leaked" I would be more than concerned.

That much fuel on the apron would amount to a small lake. It would be more like an a/c tech problem, than over fuelling unless crew are asking to fill the wings (752's) with 13.2T. thus pushing the limits and filling the vent boxes, and so fuel does have a tendency to leak, or in 737's over riding closed valves( topping off the tanks) will do the same.

[ZeBedie]

It was mentioned that they taxied out faster than normal. That may have contributed, perhaps?

[Union Jack]

There's a very simple answer to avoid situations of this nature - instead of requiring all window blinds to be up prior to take-off, require them all to be down after push-back, and there wouldn't be any problems like this .....:bored:

Jack

[Weasel123]

As FuelBoy mentioned, 1/2 a ton(!!!) is not an acceptable amount. To put it into context, 1/2 ton is approx 600 ltrs, here in the real world any spillage over 100 ltrs has, I repeat, HAS, tobe reported to the Environment Agency as a serious spillage. I am not involved with aviation, but from what I have read on these forum the industry is severely lacking in Health, Safety and Environmental awareness in this area. Everyone here seems to dismiss fuel leakage as an everyday event, would you say that if you were driving down the high street with every other car that passed you by leaking petrol, passerbys smoking, electrical sources as you walk by the lampost etc etc. Are there no incident investigations when this happens? Is it continually ignored? One day it will turn around and bite. People may say I'm exaggerating, but Buncefield was caused by a series of two or three failsafes failing, so it DOES happen!

[Contacttower]

Are there no incident investigations when this happens? Is it continually ignored?


Well the fire crew were present and in general airports are quite paranoid about major spillages from a safety point of view. You have a point about the enviroment though.

[CVTDog]

In my business (auto manufacture) to comply with ISO 14001 a spill as described above would be regarded as a hugely significant incident.

I am fairly sure that aviation professionals would not dismiss this lightly and the see it as a "low risk" incident. If anyone has information regarding the subsequent corrective actions, I for one, would be interested

[WildDart]

All it is, is conformity, quite a lot of people still have a fear of flying or dislike it. If one person sees something adnormal which they did in this case, then others will hear about it and it will spread. You cannot blame them if they have a fear and all of a sudden hear that fuel is leaking, if didn't know any better i would be the first one off if someone saw that fuel was leaking.

In addition you can't say that they are over acting as you weren't in the situation, thus a number of mishaps may have lead up to the point of seeing fuel leaked. I.E taxing to faster than normal!

[coatimundi]

"Half a ton" was exactly what the captain said in his first announcement to us just before we disembarked - whether this was said for effect or purely a generalisation I do not know. However there are two points to be made on this; a. I do not recall smelling an excessive amount of avaiation fuel (a smell I am perfectly familiar with from my offshore helicopter and fixed-wing flights), and b. there was no visible lake beneath the wing, more a sizeable puddle.

With regard to the signing off of the Tech Log there was a man who appeared to be an engineer who entered the cockpit for a moment before the departure.

The aircraft was indeed a 737, 700 series.

[ChristiaanJ]

frequentflyer2,
I'm with you.
.... basically uneducated pond life ....
That's exactly what they are. They do not have a PPL, or an ATPL, or an aeronautical engineering degree.
They expect an aircraft to take them from A to B, like a bus, a train or a car (and as safely, please).
So when things appear to be coming apart at the seams, they panic.
I don't blame them.

[groundrat]

oh dear!!don't think i'll bother flying again until i get meself edjumicated about such silly things like fuel leaks:rolleyes:

seriously though,i wonder if said a/c was the now infamous GGSPN?Jeez,that a/c has nothing but bad luck wherever it goes,does it??Mind you,GOTDA doesn't fare any better half the time!!!The day these pair left GLA,me and my colleagues almost threw a big party:):):):):)

[YesTAM]

With respect, it's not about communication at all, it's about managing passengers expectations

I will ignore Zebedies post which also heaps blame on the hapless Pax, but this one quoted below takes the cake:

Sometimes British passengers can just be a total embarrassment. All this alarm probably came from one or two passenger 'loudmouths' egging the others on. The scenes of hysteria must have been excrutiating. Fuel draining out of vents is a not uncommon event.

I know that Sunshine, and you know it, as do many others. The point is that the passengers don't know its not uncommon do they?????

If I was a Pax and I saw something that to me was unusual and, in my ignorance, potentially life threatening, what do you bloody expect me to do?

The smartest pilots take the trouble to manage their passengers expectations, by telling them as early as possible what is happening and why. It's difficult to know if this problem could be foreseen, but a simple message in advance to the effect that "You may see some fuel coming out of the wing vents, this is normal and not hazardous" and no problem.

It's quite easy to drive a passenger into hysterics very quickly if they don't know whats going on, as thoughtless gits in Cessna's pointing to the red "wing release button" can testify.

[tallsandwich]

It is the airline's duty to inform passengers sufficiently such that they do not panic. If they do react badly to an unusual event, it is not their fault.

[mocoman]

It is the airline's duty to inform passengers sufficiently such that they do not panic


It is in the airline's interest to inform passengers of technical issues in such a way that will attempt to allay any concerns that they may have.;)

It would appear that the situation was not controlled by cabin or flight crew adequately to ensure that SLF concerns were defused before the situation reached a point where the Captain considered that takeoff was inadvisable given the disturbance in the cabin.

:sad:

[gflynorw]

lol, it was actually 73G - G-MSJF!

[green granite]

The thought running through passengers minds, especially Sun readers probably went, whats that coming from the wings? Must be fuel, hey thats how Concorde turned into a flaming torch, panic everybody.

I agree with JW411 Had one of the Pilots appeared in the cabin and had a look and said "There's a fuel venting out let there designed to SAFELY vent fuel in the event of a sight overload, then all might have been well. Otherwise people will assume they are just guessing, as at to the cause.

[Beausoleil]

I've been trying to think of an analogy. Try this.

You're in the dentist's chair waiting for the anaesthetic to take hold - the dentist and assistant are next door doing some paperwork. Suddenly, blood starts spurting intermittently from your gum where the needle went in. You alert the dentists, but he doesn't look up or come in he just says "there's sometimes a little blood from the gum - perfectly normal".

Are you reassured completely, or do those stories of people dying in dentists' chairs come to mind? Is your attitude to someone who insists on the dentist coming and looking that they shouldn't hold up the queue of patients outside?

In general, I'm curious about pilots - do they generally have a "the expert knows best, I'll not worry about it" attitude to life? I'm an academic - if your child comes home saying they've had a bad experience in a university class do you say "well, the lecturer has been doing this for a long time - he knows what he's doing - you should calm down and let him do his job"?

I'm guessing that trust in experts is no more widespread among pilots than among the rest of the population.

[Octavius]

I am not surprised the "pond life" and the "sun readers" eventually went ballistic.

It started with...

""we were asked to unbuckle our seatbelts whilst the aircraft was being refuelled."" (did they say why?)

O.K professionals, why should a plane load of passengers unbuckle their seat belts while the plane is being re-fueled. (not a sun reader, maybe it is so if something goes wrong you can get out faster?) Worry factor 1.

""captain came on the intercom and announced that due to a faulty fuel filter "about half a ton" of fuel had spilled onto the tarmac and that we should get off while this was cleaned up."" Worry factor 2

O.K!!! now the pond life realise why they had to take their seatbelts off while re-fueling. so they could get off the aircraft faster when half a ton was spilled.

Fuel is dangerous stuff they now realise. No seatbelts on when re-fueling. Got that!

Fuel spill means they have to get off the aircraft while the spill is cleaned up. Pond life and Sun Readers are now pretty well educated in re-fueling dangers and fuel spills. They learn fast!

""The Captain came on to the tannoy and told us that the overflow of fuel seen from the wing was a normal occurrence in this kind of situation""

All of a sudden, fuel is nice, fuel squirting out of the wings is OK.

TWO lessons in fuel and re-fueling and even people dumb as a rock get the idea.

The fuel is supposed to be in tanks, not on the ground or squirting into the air.

[cwatters]

All sounds like perfectly normal human flight reaction to me. Put tired people in a stressful position they don't understand and then show them something that looks dangerous. How do you expect them to react? They want to run away. Only they can't. I suspect there was also an element of thinking that the "pilot can't see what's happening from up front so how does he knows it's safe".
Edit: Actually Octavius it started even earlier when pax heard the flight had to divert due to a fuel problem.

...a rumour that the outbound flight ex ABZ had been forced to divert to Stansted to refuel

[Octavius]

I once saw something like what happened to that aircraft. I was waiting to board and the aircraft was parked just outside the terminal building.

They were re-fueling it, and some liquid was pouring out of the left engine. (it was an md11 rear engine sort of russian plane.)

Out came several "engineers" carrying 5 gallon buckets and a few more with a ladder.

The buckets were placed to catch the liquid, (and soon a chain was formed where the buckets were carried off somewhere....)

To cut a long story short, the flight was delayed 4 hours and the left engine was just dripping when we all got on. (there was still the bucket guys collecting the drips.


I just wanted to go home!!!!!!

[Con-Trail]

It's difficult to know if this problem could be foreseen, but a simple message in advance to the effect that "You may see some fuel coming out of the wing vents, this is normal and not hazardous" and no problem.

I do not think that the pilots have any direct indication that fuel is poring out the vents. They might notice that the amount of fuel is decreasing as a secondary effect. So notifying the passengers early might be tricky.

However I do agree with JW411 that the situation might not have been aggravated this much if the captain or the fo had come into the cabin and explained the situation calmly. But then again, it might have been to busy on the flight deck to take the time to walk to the back.


Beyond the call of duty for Flyglobespan to return the passengers, I would have thought. If they choose to diregard the information and reassurance of the Captain, in the process delaying all the other pax, then they should have to deal with the inconvenience of getting home themselves.

My opinion: When I make an educated assessment of the situation and decide that it is safe to operate the flight I think it is more than reasonable to let passengers, who decide to leave my aircraft, pay for their onward journey. Not to mention the cost incurred with the delays of off-loading them.

C-T

[pogop]

Based on what I've read here about the situation, I would not have been happy continuing with the flight - and I'm a 737 captain, not just a "Sun" reader. Obviously I don't know the full ins and outs of what happened on the day, but my thoughts are....
Fuel leaking from the vent system is NOT an every day occurrence. The main role of the fuel vent system, as I understand it, is to allow ambient air to go into the tanks as the fuel is burned in order to avoid a vacuum occurring in the tank. Fuel should only pass out through the vent if too much has been pumped into the tank, or if it is sloshing around violently in the tank. I don't see how a faulty fuel filter can be blamed for fuel leaking from the vent system, so maybe the initial leak in ALC was not from the vent system but from somewhere around the engine? So, depending on where fuel was coming from before push back and what the Captain, alledgedly, said was the problem, I would begin to have doubts. This is along with the rumour that the aircraft had to divert to STN due to a fuel problem.....
Once fuel had already leaked out of the vent system due to overfilling, I would not expect it to then start to come out on the runway - unless it was coming out of the wing on the outside of a very fast turn on to the runway!!!
I welcome questions/concerns from the passengers and therefore take them seriously. Obviously you do your best to reassure them based on what you KNOW is going on, but in this situation it would have taken a lot to convince me.

[Double Zero]

Referring to passengers as " unqualified pond life etc " takes the biscuit -

I am not even a PPL but have done a lot of flying, since 1979...one of my most recent experiences was having a drugged / hung over CPL pass out, leaving me circling with thoughts of asking for a straight in approach - he came around before that career-limiting move had to be used.

I know another airline pilot who has kept his epilepsy quiet.

I have engineering & aeronautics training - don't write off all passengers as ' Sun readers ' - as I mentioned before, airline pilots seem to be very precious, for highly tested bus drivers.

Military test pilots are a great deal more professional, and are usually intelligent enough to listen if a problem arises, and either explain it or sort it.

Fuel venting is one thing, dumping that amount on the tarmac is enough to raise eyebrows...:ugh:

[ChristiaanJ]

Double Zero,
It was probably me who used the term "pond life", admittedly tongue-in-cheek... sorry if somebody felt insulted.
As to "unqualified", yes, the average passenger is not qualified to judge if a given situation is normal or dangerous. Why should he be? He has bought a ticket to be transported from A to B, and AFAIK he is not required to sit a technical and psychological exam before being issued the ticket.
Not to mention that maybe he is scared sh!tless of flying, but he has to fly for one reason or another.
Maybe he's already at the end of his tether after long waits, rude security, a three-quarter mile walk to the aircraft and then being seated next to a yobbo.
So he's already no longer fully rational, and in a situation where he has little if any control over what's going on.
Add bedlam in the cabin, and you may well be pushing him over the edge.

[PaperTiger]

I do not think that the pilots have any direct indication that fuel is pouring out the vents. They might notice that the amount of fuel is decreasing as a secondary effect. So notifying the passengers early might be tricky.If it's venting because of an overflow, the gauges won't show it. Looking out the window might though :hmm:

http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/spill.jpg

[ChristiaanJ]

PaperTiger,
The photos, that Hobie posted a link to, showed a quite different aircraft type doing pipi from almost exactly the same location.
Is there a fuel vent/overflow valve in about that location, or was it a "true" leak in both cases?

[PaperTiger]

The A320 was after my time, but I expect the fuel overflow standpipes are in a similar location. Here's a diagram (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arffdc9.pdf) of the DC-9.

[ChristiaanJ]

PaperTiger,
Many thanks for reply! Your pic and Hobie's look rather similar....
And as said elsewhere, it doesn't take a lot of liquid to make an awfully big puddle.

[Double Zero]

ChristianJ,

I agree that some passengers might be at the end of their tether one way or another, and won't be as qualified as you; but they're not all 'Sun readers' and might have something useful to mention - I refer again to the Kegworth tragedy, and quite a few others in the short history of aviation.

Might be worth listening before you discount it...

[mad_rich]

I am a pax, and nothing else. I don't read The Sun.

Please remember that we may be making critical decisions just as you pilots are: "Ooh, should the fuel be pouring out of the wing like that? ... I'm sure it's OK, the pilot know's what s/he's doing ... but what if it's not OK? ... maybe I'm the only person who's noticed ... shall I say something? ... I don't want to make a scene ... but I'd feel a fool if we all perished in an exploding fireball ... wait a mo, we're careering down the runway .. it's now or never... "*

I am (possibly) only here today because my Dad, as a passenger in a car, screamed at the driver who hadn't noticed a red light. He could have kept quiet. I frequently do, even when I feel my right foot going for the imaginary brake pedal.

-

* Going off-topic, but I remember a commotion going on as we began the take-off roll at NCL a couple of years ago. Passenger appeared to be having some sort of fit. Was really impressed by the way the cabin crew looked at the situation, and made a swift judgement. The intercom was picked up and seconds later we were slowing to a halt. Pax was fine in the end, and we were away again shortly, but it must take a brave cabin crew to call the pilot at that stage.

[A Very Civil Pilot]

Military test pilots are a great deal more professional, and are usually intelligent enough to listen if a problem arises, and either explain it or sort it.


...and don't work in a commercial environment.

[ChristiaanJ]

Double Zero,I agree that some passengers might be at the end of their tether one way or another, and won't be as qualified as you; but they're not all 'Sun readers' and might have something useful to mentionI fully get your point.
But my remark was more directed to some posts that seemed to denigrate the "pond life" and "Sun readers" that seem to have created the bedlam. They've paid for their ticket like anybody else, and until the day they will be required to sit a technical and psychological exam before getting their ticket, they will be part of us SLF.
I merely tried to say that I could understand the way things got out of hand.