Originally Posted by
tonytales
Staying in a plane with an exterior fire is daft unless the exterior fire surrounds the aircraft.
Perhaps.
Would it still be daft to initiate an evacuation if you had grounds to believe there was more than a slight chance of fire surrounding the slides before everyone could have been evacuated?
In the situation where the captain knew there was a fire - had every reason to conclude that it was due to leaking fuel (which spreads on ground contact) - knew that help from an extremely capable response unit was around a minute away - why is it not a logical decision to use the short-term safety of the cabin knowing that (a) rescue services are capable of delivering a mother-load of foam on the fire and (b) knowing that rescue services will prioritize the safety of the evacuees should they need to leave the safety of the cabin?
In summary:
EVACUATION:
- Known fuel leakage
- Rescue services not on scene yet
- Unknown if passengers will be engulfed in pool of burning fuel before evacuation completed
- Unknown if opening door will expose them to more danger
NON-EVACUATION
- Known that hull is sealed and can provide short-term protection
- Known that extremely capable rescue services are seconds away.
End of the day it's a judgement call. Risks either way. In the case of a cabin / cargo fire then for sure - get the heck out of there. In the case of a wing fire - not necessarily that cut and dried IMHO. If anything that Chinese example impressed me as to how well the cabin held up for quite some time; one of the big differences there being the length of time it took for rescue services to start the foam.