From The Times of India, Mumbai, Aug. 29, 2010:
DGCA hauls up Jet for lapses, 10 suspended
TNN, Aug 29, 2010, 02.11am IST
MUMBAI: Two pilots and eight flight attendants of Jet Airways have been suspended by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) after it found ''serious procedural lapses'' during its investigation into Friday night's suspected engine fire incident. The airline's Boeing 737-800 aircraft, bound for Chennai with 131 passengers on board, was on a taxiway at the Mumbai airport when an emergency evacuation was initiated after a warning about a fire in the left engine.
Jet Airways, in its media statement, said the ''crew carried out the evacuation in accordance with standard operating procedures''. According to aviation sources, it is routine to deroster the crew involved in an incident or accident (irrespective of whether they are at fault or not). It is done to aid investigation. The DGCA, however, in a press release issued on Saturday, chose to use the word ''suspended'', instead of derostered or grounded . DGCA chief, Nasim Zaidi, was not available for comment.
''Preliminary fact-finding by the DGCA has indicated serious procedural lapses in dealing with the emergency and evacuation situation as per existing procedures laid down in aircraft rules,'' read the DGCA release. ''Hence, the pilot in command, first officer, four cabin crew members and four additional crew members have been suspended till further orders,'' the release added. The additional crew members were flight attendants flying as passengers to operate another flight.
The Jet spokesperson said the commander had ''initiated a precautionary evacuation''. ''It was carried out in the interest of safety of the passengers and crew,'' the spokesperson said.
The pilot community was divided over the action taken by the Jet commander. Though the flight attendants had confirmed that they had seen fire in the left engine, no fire alarm went off in the cockpit. Neither did the fire handles for the left engine light up. ''He erred on the side of caution. It's always better to order an evacuation than risk an explosion, what with tonnes of fuel in the wings,'' said one commander. Another felt that the commander acted in haste. ''Since the fire alarm did not go off, he should not have hurried with the evacuation. He should have waited for the airport fire brigade officials to give their opinion, and then as a precautionary measure he could have taken the aircraft to a remote bay,'' he said.
But all agreed that the most serious air safety lapse in Friday's incident occurred when the aft door on the left side of the aircraft was opened for evacuation. ''As the suspected fire was on the left engine, the emergency exits on the left hand side of the aircraft strictly should not have been opened,'' said a commander. The overwing rear exit on the left side, too, was opened, but that would have been done by passengers. ''In such situations, passengers do not pay attention to warnings,'' he added.
In Jet Airways, the pilots only give the command for evacuation; the side from which it should be initiated is decided by the flight attendants.
There was an element of surprise for passengers who used the overwing exit for evacuation. Unlike heavy aircraft like Boeing 747 and 777 or even single-aisle aircraft like Airbus 320, the overwing exits of Boeing 737s do not deploy an inflatable chute when opened. In a Boeing 737, the passengers have to slide from the leading edge of the wing to its trailing edge, then onto the flaps and fall onto the ground, which would only be a few feet below if the flaps are extended by the commander, as the norms dictate, to a convenient 40 degrees.
''We were not aware that there would be no inflatable slides at the wing exit. Passengers realised it only when they reached the exit, by which time it was not possible to turn back,'' said Srikant Barhate, a passenger onboard the Jet Mumbai-Chennai flight.