Which part of getting passengers safely out of a smoke filled cabin is open to criticism?
I don't contribute to these fora too much any more, or indeed read them (too much), for reasons apparent in this thread. But gentlemen, with the best will in the world, and no hindsight, would you rather be toast in an aircraft cabin, or on the apron in Glasgow "doon a slide"?
"The smoke filled cabin" part?
The debate centres around the SCCM initiating an evacuation in the circumstances that were present at the time. There is no mention of a smoke filled cabin, more of a pungent or acrid odour. There are established protocols that don't appear to have been fully followed here. That isn't to say that the actions taken were other than with the best intent, but that Doesn't negate the risks and damage that might have been avoided if those procedures had been complied with.
Smells of burning are of course always taken seriously, but the cause may be anything from detritus in an oven, to moisture on a light fitting, to equipment warming up after an overnight cold soak. You don't send passengers down a slide simply as a precaution.
Sometimes you get burning smells at home. You identify them and try and resolve them. I doubt you call 999 (911) and evacuate your family unless more serious evidence manifested itself. Even if that were not the case, the process wouldn't likely cause injury to them.
Fire or Smoke in the confines of an aircraft cabin is a serious matter, however that doesn't mean that each and every smell, fume or odour event is cause for injuring a proportion of your passengers by sending them down slides. If it was it would be happening many times a week!
The discovery channel is all very well, but in the real day to day world, measured and sensible judgments in accordance with established operating principles need to be, and are exercised every day.