Emergency Evac at BKK today

[Xeque]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...55E1702,00.html

United Airlines plane evacuated
From correspondents in Bangkok
August 2, 2004

A UNITED Airlines jet aborted takeoff at Bangkok International Airport early today after a bird got caught in one of its engines, and four passengers suffered minor injuries as they evacuated the plane, the company said.

Flight UA838 headed for Tokyo also "experienced a tyre blow-out" during the aborted takeoff, United Airlines said in a statement. It wasn't clear what caused the tyre to burst.

"The takeoff was aborted due to a bird ingested into one of the engines," the company said. "For the safety of passengers and crew members, the pilot activated an immediate evacuation."

The Boeing 747's two pilots, 15 crew members and 346 passengers slid down evacuation chutes onto the tarmac, the statement said.

There endeth the story.

OK. It's at full chat TOGA and there's a bird strike. It's before T/O decision so there is room on the runway to stop. Slam on the brakes and blow a tyre or two.

Is that really enough reason for a full scale evacuation?

And yes. I must add a big "well done everyone for holding it all together"

[Flight Detent]

Hi all,
I'm B747 (Classic) rated, with around 5,000 hours on the type, seen a few very high energy stops in my time, together with the occasional deflated tyre due hot brakes.

My reading of this post is such that I would have kept everybody onboard, "for the safety of the passengers and crewmembers".

because,
1/ there are always injuries when a B747 is evacuated,

2/ who needs crowds of grounded passengers wandering around the aircraft if the fire services have to extinguish a brake fire.

Safety is always paramount of course, but I think in this case, the best course of action, with the lack of any indication of anything amiss from the attending services, is to remain aboard.

(The firehouse at BKK is very close to 21L, and response is quick!)

The proximity of the fuel tanks is of no concern in regard to any decision to evacuate after an aborted takeoff, when the airplane remains on the hardstuff, it's designed to do this, for ....sake!

Cheers,

FD

[411A]

Flight Detent,

Agree completely.
Far too many crews are prepared to throw the folks down the chutes for the flimsiest of reasons. Far too many passengers have been injured as a result.

Evacuate only when absolutely necessary...period.

[catchup]

Yes, I also agree totally. To me it seems that there is a different philosophie concerning pax evacuation between the old and the new world. Major airlines of Northern America tend to train theire pilots to evacuate pretty soon.

regards

[NigelOnDraft]

It's at full chat TOGA and there's a bird strikeIs that really enough reason for a full scale evacuation? I am not sure if you have ever been near an airliner cockpit. However, there is not a pretty little light comes on saying "birdstrike"... He would not have aborted takeoff, and certainly not evacuated, for a "birdstrike". In fact the actual act of the bird would probably not have been even felt at takeoff roll speeds.

However, if the birdstrike now led to an engine problem, then this may well lead to an RTO. That engine problem may take the form of a surge (which probably would be heard), and/or indication problems. The SOP for an engine problem prior to V1 is to ... Stop.

Now depending on the situation when the aircraft stops an evacuation may or may not be needed. If the engine problem led to a fire indication, then an evacuation becomes more probable. It is possible the birdstrike led to a surge, which produced visible flames from the engine that the crew's attention was drawn to by ATC / other crews.

As ever, the crew are being judged on the flimsiest evidence, and no real facts, by the thread initiator.

If you want my/my companies general rules:
RTO for engine problem requires 2 pieces of information - at least one inside (the bang and swing may be tyres, not engine, and best to continue...) i.e. an instrument or warning indication.
Evac would be for aircraft off paved surface at anything above trivial speed, or a confirmed, unextinquished fire.

Recent evacs also came from fire crews requesting an evacuation for fairly trivial reasons (minor fuel leak, smoke emanating from inside a shutdown engine). However, that's their call and I doubt most would question their judgement / advice / request.

NoD

[lomapaseo]

Recent evacs also came from fire crews requesting an evacuation for fairly trivial reasons (minor fuel leak, smoke emanating from inside a shutdown engine). However, that's their call and I doubt most would question their judgement / advice / request.

I believe that this should be reexamined by the respective company's flight safety department and possibly admended in recurrent training.

[maxalt]

How many airlines really reinforce the High Speed/Low Speed Regime decision making process in their training?

In the High Speed Regime (above 100kts usually) an RTO should only be carried out for Engine Failure/Fire or any indication which would strongly indicate the a/c is unable to fly (e.g. Config Warn).

Perhaps the engine failed after the birdstrike, in which case they did the right thing.
If there was no engine failure or fire indication a bang alone would not require an RTO if they were over 100kts.
Especially on a 4 engined a/c.

[Flight Detent]

Back again.....

Assuming the engine did surge (and bang!) following the birdstrike, the captain would surely still have used all four engines for reverse thrust to stop. (though I don't know the speed of the RTO).
Most times, following the reduction of power on a surging engine, it will recover unless the damage is extensive.
Retarding the T/Ls to idle, and the subsequent application of reverse throttle would probably clear most surges.

I believe the evac. was an over reaction, on the face of the available story, and expensive for airlines to continue doing unless they are really required.

All those chutes and engine/APU fire bottles fired, in addition to the rectification of the original problem!

Cheers

[NigelOnDraft]

I believe the evac. was an over reaction, on the face of the available story, and expensive for airlines to continue doing unless they are really required. I am glad you can read enough into this to criticise the crew.

I cannot see anything in the story above to even begin to indicate whether the crew were, or were not correct. No mention of the problem, condiditons, indications internal or external, communications, or company or authority SOPs / regulations.

I hope if I have any incident, you are not part of the investigating team...

NoD

[In the slot]

Not only is the speed of the RTO significant, but also the take off weight and thrust used affecting momentum.
Even fully loaded with pax, a 747 flying from Bangkok to Tokyo would probably have only around 60,000kg of fuel on board, making it still a relatively "light" takeoff weight by 747 standards, hence the need for "full whack" (non derated power) would seem unlikely. In fact, a max derate would probably be possible.

No judgement, purely info.

[aviator]

NigelOnDraft,

You are absolutely right in what you posted above.

I spoke to a UA flight attendant in Tokyo a few days ago. She told me the evacuation was initiated after the tower reported what they believed to be a fire in the tires on one side of the aircraft. Pretty hard to ignore that, it seems.

By now all the "interested parties" should be well into the investigation, and with the benefit of hindsight and having ALL the information, should come up with their report before too long.

[pug munter]

The quick evacuation by UA seems to contract what recently happened in Sydney when a sick bag with BOB written on it was found in first class. The 747 returned to Sydney and pax were kept on board for 45 minutes before being allowed to disembark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3929093.stm

[spleener]

Abort: a job well done [did I just agree with 411A?]
:ok:
Evac: let's see.....:confused:

[stiffwing]

Flight detent, Whilst the fire station may be situated near 21L, my experience is that response time is anything but quick. The language difficulties make communicating what you really want quite difficult. Consider the following... you are starting an engine at the gate, and the ground engineer reports "tailpipe fire". Honestly, would your immediate actions include sending a "Pan" call to the ground controller, or something less urgent, perhaps to the effect of "callsign ___ tailpipe fire, stand XXX, standby for intentions" ? (typically a tailpipe fire will extinguish when the fuel is cut) If you chose the latter option, it would have taken numerous radio calls to get the message through to ATC, coupled with stepping on each other and ATC approving the aircraft at the adjacent bay to push in the meantime! Yes, this incident happened around 10 years ago there.
It is also not apparent if the United aircraft was tankering fuel to Tokyo .This would increase its GTOW significantly.
Bangkok is the worst airport in the world that I operate in to w.r.t .communications, both the quality of the controllers and their equipment. Regularly the ATIS is appended with "controller training in progress" (if you can understand the ATIS at all!)