I wonder, does Mr Stewart have the impartiality to make such a comment?
Mr Stewart doesn't have the knowledge to make such a comment. Unless of course, he was one of the engineers working on the aircraft and knows for sure that the fault was not fixed and the aircraft wasn't released for service. But I suspect that wasn't the case so he was speaking out of his R's.
Another idiotic comment to this numpty was:
as airlines cut costs they enter what John Stewart of AirportWatch calls "a grey area between savings and safety".
I don't know of any large Western airline (and I'll include Ryanair) that allows aircraft to depart with an un-allowable, non-deferable defects. He is suggesting that someone (a controlling mind) is making an economic decision as to whether to repair or dispatch. Ignorant does not describe this t*rd. Airlines try their damnedest to get their passengers to their destination safely and on time. Lufthansa, like most other legacy carriers will not place undue pressure on crews to fly with unairworthy aircraft. Furthermore, any pressure to do so would get the LBA involved as quick as a flash.
And just because the guy says he is an avionics engineer, it does mean to say he that he doesn't drink the same thing as that knob Stewart.
...flame could spread as air temperature increased
What temperature? Rubbish! Remember, none saw flames, just smoke. But what happens as you descend is that the air pressure increases, as will the O2 concentration. It's the oxygen that allows the fire to breathe.
Now for the journalist:
Down we went, the plane shaking, overhead baggage-lockers swaying...
Erm... yes. Emergency descents in Boeings shake the airframe like this because of the location of the airbrakes (ie. on the wings).
Let's have a pop at the Boeing engineer now:
The former Boeing engineer was aghast: "So they're checking for fire WHILE we sit on the plane!? First, we'll make sure there's no fire, then you can get off? Isn't this the wrong way round?"
No it's not. As the smoke had stopped, someone decided to make sure that there's nothing smouldering whilst passengers disembark. Disembarkation takes in the order of 20 minutes, so to avoid an unnecessary evacuation, you check the aircraft first. Maybe this person only lives next door to a Boeing engineer?
And another go at Stewart:
"Lufthansa should not have flown that plane," says Stewart of AirportWatch. "Clearly, so much had gone wrong with it before takeoff … It's like your child bumping their head badly at the seaside, and you drive home to see your usual doctor, when you should go to the local hospital."
Erm... no again. Stewart is an ignorant bystander with no (or just a dangerous) knowledge of aviation. Licensed engineers decide what is appropriate in conjunction with the airline's maintenance control department. Remember, aircraft running late, missed connections, crews running out of hours cost a fortune (both in compensation and cash) and airlines will do all they can to avoid cost like these. Losing potential future passengers is even more expensive. And if you take the doctor analogy further, the surgeons were already on site looking at the patient. Stewart clearly needs drowning in a bucket of water.
I've insulted most of the people in the story, so let's have a go at the man in the street - the people who pay my wages. Firstly, aircraft fly because man has learned about the natural world, physics, metallurgy, properties of plastics, etc. It's science that puts aircraft in the air. But flying in them are Mk. I cavemen. Unreformed and in many cases, uneducated. Relying on information about the world of technology from red-tops, facebook and other such peddlers of sh!te. Proper understanding of what happens in the real world would help as would an acceptance that we have but three caveman like ways of dealing with threats: Fight, flight or freeze. The world has become so safe that the "freezers" are becoming more numerous. Gripping armrests, screaming, crying etc. won't help you when you are really threatened.
Lastly, I reckon, Lufthansa emailed their passengers in an attempt to try and improve their handling of similar events in the future. Unfortunately, muppets with MBAs write the dross that accompanies the survey questions.
I'll remember not to read any of Ed Vulliamy's future articles if he does so little research.
PM