Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Stansted-3

Old 31st Mar 2018, 14:48
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 35,000ft
Posts: 733
You canít do right for doing wrong in this world we live. If people had been injured or died there would have been uproar. They didnít. But in the eyes of the ill informed or those who think they could have managed the situation better, they (Stansted) still did wrong.

I say hats off to everyone involved.
pamann is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 15:09
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,304
Sadly several posters have let themselves down in an eagerness toward tabloid mentality.

STN fully aware of the consequences of their actions but have a FIRST duty.

& Rule Number One in a fire evacuation DO NOT EVACUATE INTO THE SMOKE & ANY SOURCE OF THE THREAT.
southside bobby is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 15:20
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,304
CaptainSensible...

Cost to RYR estimated at £3million.

EZY & EXS a lesser amount.

Friendly advice would also advise you to take care with the aspersions/allusions in your post...

No reply required...
southside bobby is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 15:52
  #604 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 3,663
Evacuating into fire/smoke was never suggested - but was there really no possibility of limiting the potential disruption by keeping airside passengers airside, moving some landside passengers to the circular area around the car hire outlets / the baggage claim hall / down the ramp to the coach station, and moving the remaining landside passengers to the area immediately after security (e.g. around duty free) and shopping area immediately after duty free prior to the main departure lounge ? Furthermore, flights which were fully boarded (with no missing pax) could still have departed as normal instead of being cancelled.

That way, the airport would have been able to recover operational capacity more quickly without the need to sweep everywhere airside. The security framework at Stansted is large - contingency planning for this kind of thing must exist or we end up with terrorists seeing even the hint of trouble at an airport as being a way to cause major disruption.
davidjohnson6 is online now  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 16:11
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 30 Miles from the A1
Posts: 368
David, That assumes everybody is acting rationally. There would be many pax who would see the inferno and the only rational thought would be 'run the other way quickly'. The sterile area would soon be breached. Even if well informed staff had tried to control the flow they would have probably been knocked over in the rush.


If any incident in the air is not treated with the maxim 'Safety First' there is an uproar on here from the professionals.
2Planks is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 16:38
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: STANSTED & MANCHESTER
Posts: 1,740
David seeing the inferno and the uncertainty of the cause I guarantee 99% of passengers and staff would have thought terror related given the date EASTER unfortunately that’s the world we now live in the only option was to push people to safely through security and I have no problem with that decision yes it inconvenienced a lot of passengers and I’m sure ruined people’s Easter get away but can you imagine the news headlines if it was terror related and staff had directed people into more danger the fact is everyone did the right thing and there were no injuries or deaths well done to everyone involved at Stansted job well done
daz211 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 16:45
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,304
davidjohnson6...

Why the professionals did not enact your reasoned plan once evacuated airside is not for me to answer...."but circumstances...dear boy circumstances" would be the overall factor certainly...

Have you any idea of the numbers involved?...Just safety FIRST I would hope would be the priority.

From airside the next way forward is out onto the tarmac..we were passed up to open those ground level doors & marshall airside in an evacuation from there too.

Not suggesting that was the thinking perhaps but at one stage all threat scenarios would have been contemplated by those units whose job it is.

The authorities were very anxious to determine the cause of the fire...Enough said.

Still stand by my remarks earlier.

I retain a doubt why you could not or did not post your at least reasoned response earlier in the day as opposed to what you stated originally.
southside bobby is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 18:04
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,184
Originally Posted by daz211 View Post
David seeing the inferno and the uncertainty of the cause I guarantee 99% of passengers and staff would have thought terror related given the date EASTER unfortunately thatís the world we now live in the only option was to push people to safely through security and I have no problem with that decision yes it inconvenienced a lot of passengers and Iím sure ruined peopleís Easter get away but can you imagine the news headlines if it was terror related and staff had directed people into more danger the fact is everyone did the right thing and there were no injuries or deaths well done to everyone involved at Stansted job well done
Agree. I just wish you used a device which had punctuation symbols. It would make your posts much easier to read.
inOban is online now  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 18:13
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: STANSTED & MANCHESTER
Posts: 1,740
Originally Posted by inOban View Post
Agree. I just wish you used a device which had punctuation symbols. It would make your posts much easier to read.
Agreed itís my biggest weakness sorry
daz211 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 22:10
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Friendly advice would also advise you to take care with the aspersions/allusions in your post...

No reply required...
I retain a doubt why you could not or did not post your at least reasoned response earlier in the day as opposed to what you stated originally.
Sadly several posters have let themselves down in an eagerness toward tabloid mentality
What are they smoking on the southside?
Who put you in charge of what’s allowed to be said? You’re not a mod, you’re becoming like a corbynista bobby. Everything that sits outside the “everything about STN is wonderful” is taken as a personal attack which you er....”firefight” ��.
You see conspiracy theories left, right and centre man, this is friendly debate, we’re all aviation geeks to some degree. Play the ball, not the man.
Why WERE fully boarded flights cancelled or did that not happen? I assume airport fire cover was at terminal perhaps?

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 1st Apr 2018 at 07:26.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 22:51
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,457
Lack of fire cover? Who knows - not me.

Unless you were there, taking the decisions based on what was known at the time, everything else is Monday morning quarter-back stuff.
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 07:56
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,304
Skipness One Echo.

Thanks for your post # 611 but politely I can see no worthy contribution to the facts for the benefit of readers relating to the topic in hand I`m afraid.

If there are any viewers they will have made their own judgements already from the posts & other info now have they not?.


I make no apologies for my own posts relating to the subject concerned with nought more to add or repeat.

More generally I feel I do not require to apologise either for my "positive view" of news concerning STN.

I really really do attempt to add "news" tho once in a while..It could be construed that some do not.

The only news input I can offer from your post is that... yes I am aware that some flights were departing & as has been reasoned must have been fully boarded prior decisions already related were taken.

STN ATIS was transmitting full normal airfield info with the added "closed to arriving a/c".

FDX MD11F arrived during the event I believe too.
southside bobby is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 08:47
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,038
It does beg the question why the airports own fire service did not attend or did they? A vital few minutes difference could have made a difference between disruption or closure.

Not that Luton has much to shout about but at least it is the airports own fire service that sends out crash tenders when there are accidents or fires within the CTA
LTNman is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 09:11
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: STANSTED & MANCHESTER
Posts: 1,740
Originally Posted by LTNman View Post
It does beg the question why the airports own fire service did not attend or did they? A vital few minutes difference could have made a difference between disruption or closure.

Not that Luton has much to shout about but at least it is the airports own fire service that sends out crash tenders when there are accidents or fires within the CTA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSg_TzA8tkw
Nothing to do with how long fire services took or where they came from or if it was airport fire service attending, the cause of the incident was not known and terror related was at the forefront of everyoneís mind and quite rightly so.

My point is even if an airport fire truck responded in one minute the cause was not know and would not have made any difference in the right decision being made, get your passengers and staff to safety through security.
daz211 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 09:41
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 836
Unless you were there, taking the decisions based on what was known at the time, everything else is Monday morning quarter-back stuff.
Spot on SWBKCB. All this stuff about why what happened or didn't is pure speculation and hindsight based on stories swirling around.

Having been involved in Airport Emergency Planning, you have to take decisions based on what you know at the time and information is forever changing, can be incomplete or plain wrong. Just watch 24 hour TV news of any major incident and you can see that.

There will be a control room with the appropriate people there from various agencies to make the decisions and a decision which involves evacuation into the sterile area is not taken lightly, but the safety of both staff and passengers is paramount.

It does beg the question why the airports own fire service did not attend or did they? A vital few minutes difference could have made a difference between disruption or closure.

LTN Man, it was reported earlier that

The AFS whould have been first on scene.
Stansted has an appliance ready to respond to any emergency situation landside of the airport grounds whether thatís medical/ traffic accident/ fire.

Fire reported at 16:20
Fire under control at 16:40
Fire extinguished at 17:00


All airport RFFS will have a procedure for responding to landside incidents with their own resources whilst also calling for additional resources from outside brigades if required.

Whilst I am not familiar with STN's actual procedures, it may be that the severity and location of the fire required additional airfield resources to attend quickly and therefore the category of airfield resources had to be reduced. If this is the case, it could explain why departures were not happening.

One possible scenario is that departures were temporarily stopped because of reduced fire cover and by the time fire cover was restored, the sterile area had been breached and everything had to stop until the sterile area had been resealed and swept which takes a very long time indeed.

No doubt there were many other factors which contributed to the decisions made and what happened. We don't know on this board. Debriefs will reveal what worked well and what didn't and Emergency Procedures will be revised if necessary. But the main thing is that no one was killed or injured
Suzeman is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 10:39
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,753
Just two small points: the FedEx MD-11 would need less fire cover Category ? for insurance purposes and I believe four Ryanair aircraft did depart later in the evening so I would expect that all pax were on board and ready to go when the unfortunate incident took place.
compton3bravo is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 19:43
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 836
Originally Posted by compton3bravo View Post
Just two small points: the FedEx MD-11 would need less fire cover Category ? for insurance purposes and I believe four Ryanair aircraft did depart later in the evening so I would expect that all pax were on board and ready to go when the unfortunate incident took place.
Thanks compton3bravo.

Certainly seen large all cargo aircraft operate with fire cover well below the category required if they were a passenger aircraft, but that was many years ago and rules may have changed. Seem to remember that the airline involved had to get clearance from their insurers.
Suzeman is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 19:53
  #618 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,619
Why weren’t people in the terminal directed to the DEDICATED EMERGENCY EXITS that feed down into the undercroft which then leads out to Enterprise House? Keeps airside sterile - which surely is a priority if the bus fire is a “distractor”. Yes it was a “spectacular” fire but it was very localised and with the doors to the terminal closed little or no smoke entered as far as I’m aware.

The knock on effect of evacuating to airside is huge (and very costly.....I know, I know safety first...but where is the common sense/perspective?) Everything these days seems to get blown up out of all proportion - just deal with it in a non-panicked, sensible, non knee jerk way. If the terminal WAS ACTUALLY on fire then sure, evacuate to airside. This was external, contained and not, IMHO, an immediate threat to EVERYONE in the terminal.

No doubt there will be claims for PTSD, anxiety, emotional stress from the Facebook/selfie generation......rant over

Standing by for incoming......

A4

Last edited by A4; 1st Apr 2018 at 20:11.
A4 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 20:30
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,184
I would assume that there will be a comprehensive revue afterwards, as happens after any significant incident. Every organisation has an emergency plan written in back rooms, which rarely survives the activities of real people in the real world. It can't be helped by the outsourcing of so many activities to third parties so that there's unlikely to be a unified chain of command.
inOban is online now  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 22:50
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 37
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by compton3bravo View Post
Just two small points: the FedEx MD-11 would need less fire cover Category ? for insurance purposes and I believe four Ryanair aircraft did depart later in the evening so I would expect that all pax were on board and ready to go when the unfortunate incident took place.
Surely the key difference with Fedex was that it didnít need to use the pax terminal?
AirportPlanner1 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.