ezy full emergency at EDI

[higher]

just heard an ezy had smoke in the flight deck of a 737-300 flight was from luton to edi it was mentioned a forced landing was discussed any further details plz

[nimston]

yeah its true tower was told he had a cockpit fire. apparently put it out. shut the airport for 30 mins evacuated the pax on the runway then towed the a/c away no one hurt jobs a good un

[MFALK]

Any more details on this?

[Arkroyal]

Same in CDG last week!. .. .Are they making a habit of this?

[Bally Heck]

Journalism at it's finest <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> . .. . <a href="http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=285502002" target="_blank">Edinburgh Evening News</a> . .. .Well done to the crew!

[Fuzzy112]

Bally Heck,. .. .Don't think I have ever read such a load of journalistic tosh. As you say well done to the crew.

[Phil McCavity]

Fuzzy,. .. .What did you find "so much tosh"? . .. .I managed to get the drift. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

[HugMonster]

Yep - you don't extinguish a fire - you "battle flames". The incident becomes a "drama in the skies", fire and ambulance crews don't stand by, they "brace for the worst".... .. .As you say, journalistic tosh.

[ops kid]

Phil McCavity: There's enough tosh-like melodrama to sink a ship (or down a stricken airliner in a fateful ball of fiery flame-like fire).

For “brave airline pilot battled flames” Read: “airline pilot (who might possibly be brave) dealt with the fire”.

For “drama in the skies” Read: “Incident on an airline flight”.

For “full-scale emergency” Read “usual precautionary emergency procedure”.

For “ambulance crews braced for the worst” Read “emergency personnel were ready”.

For “believed to have originated at London Luton” Read: “We can’t they be bothered to check where the plane was flying from because it doesn’t add to the drama”.

For “a Royal Mail van burst into flames while on the tarmac” Read: “other minor incidents have also occurred in the history of this airport”.

[Kaptin M]

Congratulations to the crew on doing a fine job - in all probability wearing smoke goggles and oxy masks.. .Every professional airman works towards achieving the same successful outcome that you didon "the day". Again, Well Done!!!!. .. .And now to our sensationalising journalistic friends. You certainly do very little to endear yourselves to our profession when you indulge in the type of material written wrt this incident.. .. ."A BRAVE airline pilot battled flames in the cockpit of his passenger plane as it approached Edinburgh last night. . .. .The drama in the skies prompted a full-scale emergency on the ground as the plane neared the Capital. . .. .The blaze broke out in the insulation of the EasyJet Boeing 737 shortly before 9.30pm. . .. .Although the pilot managed to extinguish the flames prior to landing, airport fire appliances backed up by the Lothian and Borders fire brigade and four ambulance crews braced for the worst on the runway. . .. .The EasyJet flight - which is believed to have originated at London Luton airport - had 94 people on board at the time of the near-disaster. . .. .All of the passengers were checked out by medical personnel while on-board before being a clean bill of health and removed. . .. .No casualties were reported.". .. .Any wonder you find aircrew reluctant to discuss ANYTHING aviation-related with you!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

[Bally Heck]

A bit off topic, but I really enjoyed the sentence regarding the Royal Mail van. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> But no mail or parcels were damaged by the incident.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">I like to think the whole thing was written with the tongue firmly in the cheek. Regretfully I think the guy is serious.

[ajamieson]

OK, I normally ignore it when posters rip into journalists on here because it is usually entirely justified. But guys, please.... .. .This article is over-written tosh.. .. .That said, someone suggested the phrase "thought to have come from Luton" implied the reporter had been too lazy to check facts. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> This incident happened late at night and the newspaper's first edition deadline is 9am. The airline's out-of-hours press office did not return the reporter's calls to ask whether it was a LGW, LTN, AMS or BFS flight and the BAA press office had very little information. The story was updated (but sadly not rewritten) for later editions.. .. .It was actually a member of aircrew who contacted the newspaper with the story in the first place, so let's have a little less stone-throwing about professional integrity, please. FWIW, I don't think aircrew should speak to journalists, either.. .. .It is also worth bearing in mind that if reporters wrote stories in the matter-of-fact, technically-worded language of the log book, no-one would ever buy newspapers in the first place.. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[Mr Angry from Purley]

The EDI Firemen struggled to find the source of the fire according to a source

[BRUpax]

But, as Arkroyal points out, this is the second "fire in cockpit" incident affecting EZY in a week! (the first was an AMS-BCN which diverted to CDG). Same aircraft or coincidence?

[Skyjob]

Different aircraft registration, so must be coincidence...

[no sig]

BruPax. .. .These two incidents were completely un-related, The CDG was NOT a fire in the cockpit but a precautionary landing due to a whiff of smoke, the EDI diversion was somewhat more serious and did require action by the f/d and cabin crew who brought the situation immediately under control.. .. .As we all know, most pilots do not take chances but put the safety of their passengers and crew first, as was the case in both of these incidents.

[HOVIS]

apbj,. .. .Quote. ."It is also worth bearing in mind that if reporters wrote stories in the matter-of-fact, technically-worded language of the log book, no-one would ever buy newspapers in the first place.". .. .Let not the truth get in the way of a good story eh? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

[t'aint natural]

ABPJ:. .Please, spare us the wounded defence of the Fourth Estate. You hit the nail on the head with your closing statement - "It is also worth bearing in mind that if reporters wrote stories in the matter-of-fact, technically-worded language of the log book, no-one would ever buy newspapers in the first place.". .No-one expects newspaper reports to be written in 'the technical language of the log book.' But it is legitimate to expect the story to accord a passing nod to the facts. Instead, we see a piece of scaremongering drivel about a "near disaster" which perpetuates and plays on the public's ignorance of aviation for the profit of newspapers.. .I've got news for you. I don't care if no-one ever buys another newspaper. I care that paying passengers are conveyed safely through the air, despite occasional occurrences such as the one that began this thread - technical aberrations in complex machines, competently dealt with according to procedures, at no risk to anyone.. .Journalists are massively ignorant of aviation. When I did a survey ten years ago, not a single aviation correspondent in Fleet Street could fly an aircraft, and as to the run of news staffers, they still resort to the world of Biggles - eighty years past and fiction even then - for their terminology.. .What worries me most of all is that journalists are equally ignorant of every other vaguely technical subject.. .Newspaper circulations show a long-term downward trend, reflecting I think the fact that the public is more knowledgeable and less inclined to swallow the nonsense you peddle. I've got no sympathy for your young reporter toiling against his deadline. Have him instead crank out some left-handed piffle about Popstars or Naomi Campbell; I'm sure it would keep the readers reaching for their money, and it would certainly be less fraudulent.

[SID555]

A slightly different view - your punters want you to get them quickly and safely to their destination (why some pax view the first more important is beyond me), and your airline management want you to do it at the lowest possible cost to maximise profits.. .. .For the hacks, their punters want something interesting to read, and the pressure is on from their editor to make sure they write it. So that they will sell more papers and maximise their profits. What would you do in their shoes?

[t'aint natural]

I'm asking them to stop dressing up and selling fiction as fact, even under pressure from management. That story is nothing less than a fraud on the public, perpetrated for cash. Unfortunately, the same thing goes for most newspaper stories.. .I don't care if they're only following orders.

[BTB]

The papers are always after a spectacular story. That is why easyJet and the like know they cannot afford an accident, or indeed, a major incident. I can`t speak for the other low-cost operators, but when I joined easy, I was astonished and impressed by the investment in selection, training, a/c maintanance, brand-new aircraft precurement, and the massive emphasis on safety. That may be why you see many a thread on minor easyJet incidents which ended uneventfully, rather than in drama.

[Self Loading Freight]

Also, if the airlines weren't so prudish about discussing normal procedures for handling emergencies then it would be harder to overwrite news in the first place.. .. .Read the safety briefing card in the seatback. Cabin depressurisation results in the gentle descent of an oxygen mask, right? No mention of the thumping drop in speed, vigorous bank to keep the gs and 20 degree dive. Best to keep any thoughts of unpleasantness from the minds of the punters, otherwise they'll go by boat or something... and as a result, when something does go awry it comes as a big surprise and results in dry cleaning bills all round.. .. .No excuses for purple journalism. But the industry does itself no favours.. .. .R

[hobie]

I wonder if we could confine all comments on the Media to a dedicated forum and allow factual and accurate, technical and focused info on incidents to be posted here on R&N ......

[Rob_L]

Hobie. .. .Nice idea but who are you going to get to write up this factual information. There is more tosh put on this website by "professionals" than journalists, of that I am quite certain.

[paulo]

I know there's historical reason to distrust the media, but does anyone have any facts on this particular incident?. .. .One story I've heard is that Cap (or poss FO) gave the crew their last writes, and subsequently that the last writes thing was some kind of EZY standard procedure. Sounded odd to me, but I've never flown for an airline so I wouldn't know about these things.. .. .Anyone in the know got any thoughts?

[Gypsy]

And if you could even begin to believe such tosh then you sound odd to me

[jumpseater]

Paulo, they were probably too busy, handling the evnt professionally to do the last rites thing, I'm not sure the Capt or F/o are legally able to apply the last rites, and I can't recall if the religion checklist covers multi-denomination crews. After all could be an interesting problem to resolve if the crew were of different religions, who do you do first?, alphabetically by religion?, and what happens to the poor soul who they might not be able to do before the end?. Maybe they do it in the pre-flight brief, to insipre confidence in your crew, give them the last rites before departure!. .. .Warning: This is a mickey take for any pruners out their unable to tell the difference! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[paulo]

It's anecdotal for sure, but from someone who knows one of the FAs who helped put the fire out. There was other detail provided that matched someone else's (apparent) inside knowledge posted here, so it didn't seem like a typical friend of a friend story. Hence why I asked (not believed, asked.). .. .Anyone actually know?

[paulo]

jump - I totally agree, I couldn't figure the logic.. .. .I suggested to my friend that it was simply a Cap/FO who was a religious sort, but he said no, some/all/one of the crew were later told it was some kind of standard. If someone said this to them, it doesn't make it policy. (e.g. Could have been some kind of line manager passing it off).

[jumpseater]

paulo, think about it mate!, in any airline when, how and why would you prioritise the last rites above saving the aircraft and the people on board! Who ever fed you that snippet of info is probably a bit of a muppet!

[paulo]

jump - absolutely, I can't make sense of it either. I suspect it's probably something that's been lost in translation. Perhaps the original story mentioned a final briefing, and that's been chinese whispered into last rites.. .. .Other bits of the story I've not posted here corroborate with other people's apparent knowledge of the incident (i.e. things not in the media reports that any old joe could read), so that's why I'm curious.

[Few Cloudy]

Look, this is absolute balls! How can it have gone on for so long on this thread?. .. .Only briefing to FAs in EZY is the NITS:. .. .Nature of the emergency. .Intentions of Capt. .Time to landing. .Special instructions. .. .If you can make rites (no W in that by the way)out of nits it's time to become a journalist.

[Superpilut]

"The Pilot".. Do they run single-pilot ops at EZY to cut costs or what?

[Few Cloudy]

Or what.

[leonbrumsack]

Could someone please post the reg. of the aircraft involved in this incident and also the CDG diversion please?. .. .Thanks,. .. .Leon

[crossfeedclosed]

Another crew doing an excellent job. Well done to all concerned. Just like the Ryanair one in Stansted recently, a professional crew doing what they're trained for and hope they will never have to put into practice. Congratulations guys - gals?