PDA

View Full Version : Engine fire, EDI


MagnusP
11th Jan 2006, 09:15
Spotted on BBC website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4601342.stm

JohnnyRocket
11th Jan 2006, 09:35
Passengers on board a British Airways flight at Edinburgh Airport have had to use the plane's emergency escape shutes after a fire in an engine. The aircraft was taxi-ing to the main runway for takeoff when the incident occurred. The pilot of the plane - which was bound for London's city airport - shut down the engine and the fire was put out. One passenger described how he saw flames coming from a starboard engine. No one's been injured

judge11
11th Jan 2006, 10:13
Another RJ grounded?

Ballast
11th Jan 2006, 10:15
Its great how the passenger interviewed says "I wasn't for hanging around" and was first off the plane then complains that there was no-one outside directing him to move further away from the aircraft!

Everyman for himself

lexxity
11th Jan 2006, 10:33
Shows that at least somebody is listening to the emergency demonstration.

AlanM
11th Jan 2006, 10:39
"I suppose that was a bit of a risk, lots of passengers within 20m of a plane which had a report of engine on fire."

Not 'arf mate!

Can't believe there was no-one waiting at the steps to meet him. What did he expect? Complimentary vouchers for the bar or a limo and an apology? Well done to the crew, sounds like the evac went OK.

CCR
11th Jan 2006, 11:16
I was talking to a passenger at the back of the plane this morning. Apparently, the rear chute failed to deploy and it took them over 10 minutes to evacuate the plane!

Kalium Chloride
11th Jan 2006, 11:32
Well done to the crew, sounds like the evac went OK.


Apparently, the rear chute failed to deploy and it took them over 10 minutes to evacuate the plane!



So...which of these is true?

Magplug
11th Jan 2006, 11:53
An evacuation does not automaticly follow an engine fire unless the fire fails to go out after the fire bottles are discharged into it. Who initiated the evacuation, the Captain... or Mr.Morton?

Haul By Cable
11th Jan 2006, 12:13
This is weird, the same thing happened to the same type in BHX on Monday 9th.

Skipness One Echo
11th Jan 2006, 12:14
On a more upbeat note, the load factor was a good one. Anyone know which airframe got broken?

Arkroyal
11th Jan 2006, 12:16
Mr Morton:

'I was the first one off the plane."

"When we got down the chute there was no-one there to take us further away from the plane."

Mr Morton's IQ?

Time to introduce a man with a red flag walking in front of taxying aeroplanes:confused:

Int EDI at 0825 out at 0850. Saw nothing.

BOAC
11th Jan 2006, 16:08
Ark - NOT a solution, I'm afraid. We need TWO - walking alongside as we do not know which side Mr M will pop out of....:)

Seloco
11th Jan 2006, 16:20
Does a 146/RJ actually NEED chutes? Not far to jump, surely?!

Sliding member
11th Jan 2006, 17:47
Same thing didn't happen in BHX on Monday the 9th

HON 1R
11th Jan 2006, 17:48
Does a 146/RJ actually NEED chutes? Not far to jump, surely?!
Of course it does! Think of elderly or wheelchair passengers for example.

Dale

hobie
11th Jan 2006, 17:50
Not far to jump, surely?!
a touch under 6 ft I would say ..... :rolleyes:

tiggerific_69
11th Jan 2006, 20:47
i believe it was BZAU
ive just been looking at my company manual after being told a version of events from quite a reliable source.if what i have been told is what actually happened,the crew are gonna have the book thrown at them and heads will more than likely roll

Volmet South
11th Jan 2006, 21:05
i believe it was BZAU
ive just been looking at my company manual after being told a version of events from quite a reliable source.if what i have been told is what actually happened,the crew are gonna have the book thrown at them and heads will more than likely roll

Do give us the benefit of your expertise and tell us why heads should roll.

Haul By Cable
11th Jan 2006, 21:07
Does anyone know why a BAe 146 initiated a pax evac shortly after push at BHX on Monday morning?

tiggerific_69
11th Jan 2006, 21:15
not heard anything about an incident at BHX.
Apparently the aircraft had no APU,so there is a different startup procedure for this.Too much fuel was pumped into engine four,which caused it to spark/ignite.The cabin crew saw the flames & proceeded to carry out an evacuation without informing the flight deck.
Cabin crew ops manual states

"Unless there is immediate danger,cabin crew should wait fifteen seconds.this period of time allows the flight crew to perform shut down checks and establish whether an evacuation is required.if no flight deck command is received after 15 seconds,the SCCM should investigate by either calling on the interphone or visiting the flight deck."
it then goes on to say
"cabin crew should not initiate an evacuation if:
-flames and sparks are produced from the engine exhaust during starting"
and this is "unless otherwise instructed by the flight deck crew or conditions require a cabin crew initiated evacuation"

tiggerific_69
11th Jan 2006, 21:16
haul by cable,was it a BA RJ100 i presume?no one seems to know anything

208
11th Jan 2006, 21:25
loath as I am to let facts interfere with a good story, the story so far, after engine start of #4 engine which was slightly longer than normal 43 secs, the captain started #3 engine during this time the lights dimmed and flames were reported from #4 engine jetpipe or similar areas, by 1) the ground guy on the headset, this used to be an engineer but know not 2) a passenger or two. At no time did the flight crew get any warnings on the displays incl the MWS. The crew shut down the cc evacuated the aircraft down the front.
slide, as the rear slide is not being replaced guess it was not activated.
As those who like less sensational reporting the aircraft was not taxying and initial engineering reports reveal no signs of fire or leaks or any reasons for the flames or panic
But lets not get in the way of a good story, I hope the headset guy is congratulated and not criticised for I hope I would have the guts to call fire in a similar situation
:)

Haul By Cable
11th Jan 2006, 21:28
Yeah, BA RJ100 at about 07:00, had just pushed back from stand. Four or five fire trucks attended and crew said they wanted to evacuate. Just being nosey - no big deal.

tiggerific_69
11th Jan 2006, 21:47
apparently it was the no3 crew member who initiated the evacuation at the front of the aircraft,the no3 noticed the flames & informed no1 crew member but not no2 so the no2 crew member was at the rear and thought it was just a precautionary & therefore did not blow the slide

Lassie
11th Jan 2006, 22:33
Haul by Cable

There was no evac at BHX.

Magplug
12th Jan 2006, 10:57
I say Number One....... Where have all the passengers gone ?

tristar500
12th Jan 2006, 16:07
I happened to be on duty (work for said company) when the 'incident' kicked off and I know the Captain and one of the cabin crew involved.

The bottom line is that the aircraft was evacuated and everyone got out without injury (including a pregnant woman). The inquiry will now look into the factors leading up to, during and after the incident.

The Captain did what he was trained to do. Contain and stop the 'engine fire' as quickly as possible, secure the aircraft and make it safe for an emergency evac. He has to go with the info he has been presented with, be it visual / audio (external ground crew signals / voice transmissions), Instrument panel warnings, cabin crew advisory calls or ATC calls. All this must be decided on within nano-seconds! Lets not rush to blame the crew with replys like 'heads will roll'...

Remember that the 'incident' continued on the tarmac and in the terminal building..... Lets just say that BA was not ready for this 'Non Fatal incident'.

Oh, and by the way the aircraft was G-CFAE

tallaonehotel
12th Jan 2006, 16:13
re: EDI incident

CFAE was the aircraft involved at EDI, the number 4 engine coughed and spluttered. As usual the press have got hold of a story and 'Sexed it up'.

Looks like no fire actually took place, so you can guess that someone pushed the button to go far to soon....

tallaonehotel
12th Jan 2006, 16:14
Tristar500
You beat me to it!.

Tandemrotor
12th Jan 2006, 17:02
tiggerific_69

As has been intimated earlier. Your contribution to this thread (whilst eagerly devoured by those who feed on 'gossip') simply causes distress to those involved, and does little to enhance the image of your employer, and in turn, yourself.

I know next to nothing about this 'incident', and neither do you, it's too soon!
Too much fuel was pumped into engine four,which caused it to spark/ignite. Oh really??

But as you may learn (if you spend more than 5 minutes in aviation) when 'stuff' happens, it tends to 'happen' pretty quickly. We should all consider ourselves fortunate if our reactions are anything close to perfection!

If anything should ever happen to you in your aviation career, just pray it isn't the 'self aggrandised' talking heads who appear on TV, who have to dissect your actions. And hope that your instantaneous reactions, under stress, don't become the fodder for lounge lizards, twits, and journos, to nit pick ad-nauseum, after a night down the pub.

Have a good career, and don't put a foot wrong!

tiggerific_69
12th Jan 2006, 18:04
Tandemrotor i have already had an unplanned incident in my short career involving an embraer going off the end of the runway in a certain german airport.
and as for the image of my employer at the moment..well its hardly perfect is it?

shefield
12th Jan 2006, 18:10
Tristar500, well said.
The rest of you losers, without being a detective, it's fairly obvious from your lack of (and conflicting) detail that you know nothing about whatever this incident really was and merely enjoy making up pathetic gossip.
Leave primary school and get a life.

puddle-jumper2
12th Jan 2006, 18:20
An evacuation does not automaticly follow an engine fire unless the fire fails to go out after the fire bottles are discharged into it. Who initiated the evacuation, the Captain... or Mr.Morton?:}

Magplug, Your surely kidding right ? Are you really going to sit there and wait for the flames to die down ?:eek: Not me sunshine.:hmm:

In my humble opinion and of what little I know of this incident I'd say the crew acted correctly.

The BAe 146/RJ does not have a history of fire detectors going off without a damn good reason. In fact I seem to remember someone from BAe recommending me to treat every fire warning as serious because of this.

Well done crew - oh and I if anyone's wondering I don't work for BA.;)

Underdog
12th Jan 2006, 19:48
puddle....,

You must be the one kidding right?

I haven't posted here for years, but just have to answer your post. :*

As far as we know the fire detection system didn't activate, and even if it did, then it takes a finite amount of time to perform the immediate actions BEFORE initiating an evacuation; which by the way, is NOT (neccessarily) the way to go until it can be confirmed that the fire has not been contained. NOTE: we are talking about an engine fire here - not the same thing as a fire in an uncontained environment.

Passengers initiating their own evacuation in a situation such as this really stretches the bounds of 'safe-practice'.

Just hope you don't decide to 'jump' when it's my sector! :sad:

ATB,

Underdog

Magplug
12th Jan 2006, 20:23
Puddle Jumper2.... What type of big jet do you fly then?

Swedish Steve
12th Jan 2006, 20:48
puddle....,

As far as we know the fire detection system didn't activate, Underdog
But it was a jet pipe fire. The jet pipe is always on fire. or very hot anyway.
Why should the fire detection system operate?

climbnormal
12th Jan 2006, 21:48
We don't know what happened for sure yet.

Puddle-Jumper2, I'm afraid posts such as yours are the sort of thing that turn professional pilots away from this website in their droves. How can you say the crew acted correctly when we don't actually know how they acted yet?

You quote Magplug with more than a small amount of ridicule in your tone, yet his quote of the sequence of events following an engine fire is completely accurate.

Following the Manchester 737 incident 20 years ago (still BA's last fatal incident), BA take the issue of how to handle an engine fire on the ground very seriously and pay close attention in sim checks not only to the immediate handling of the fire itself, but especially to the "post recall items" management of the situation. Obviously, CFAE is operated under BACX SOPs at present, but I cannot imagine they are much changed from when I flew her under mainline SOPs. There are still some pilots seconded to BACX who have flown the RJ right through the 'integration' using CFE, Mainline and now BACX SOPs... They will know for sure whether anything is materially different, but I bet it isn't - every commercial transport type I have flown (from three different manufacturers) uses more or less the same procedure for dealing with an engine fire.



As an aside, some years ago I witnessed some colleagues starting an RJ at night in NCE that I'd positioned down to them (CFAA it was). The aircraft in question had a FADEC inoperative which required a different sequence of putting the fuel into the engine on startup. If you got it wrong and did the 'normal' start sequence by mistake, things got a bit hot out the back of the engine, which was exactly what happened that night! Quite an impressive display it was too, but nothing to overreact to and indeed, having caught the hot start very quickly (I guess they knew instantly what they'd done wrong - I certainly did as a spectator knowing that the FADEC was u/s on that engine), they simply started the other three then went back to the first one and started it correctly whereupon it behaved normally and off they went back to West Sussex.

All I'm saying here is that the flames out the back were very impressive, albeit for only about one or two seconds. Maybe they were just lucky that nobody unqualified spotted and overreacted to them. I was certainly half expecting a passenger to demand to get off or something like that, but all the flight crew would have seen was a hot start on their EGT gauge which they reacted to immediately before exceeding the limit. Where I'm going with this is that just because there are what appeared to me to be quite large flames out the back of an engine, it doesn't necessarily mean that all hell is going to break loose. I guess they didn't look so bad to the headset man standing at the front as they did to me standing beside it. I'd be amazed if a passenger didn't spot it though and draw it to someone's attention, but then I don't know what went on inside the aircraft - It was late and they'd had a long tech delay with the previous aircraft so maybe all the pax on the RH side were asleep! Maybe the crew made an explanatory PA in a reassuring, soothing voice explaining what had happened, who knows?

To recap then... Flames out of the back of an RJ engine is not necessarily a reason to evacuate.

Oshkosh George
12th Jan 2006, 22:17
[QUOTE=puddle-jumper2]:}
In fact I seem to remember someone from BAe recommending me to treat every fire warning as serious because of this.
/QUOTE]

So that's not normal then?!?!?!

Tandemrotor
13th Jan 2006, 00:14
puddle-jumper2

I suggest you read carefully the posts by Underdog, Magplug, and perhaps specifically, climbnormal.

You've just shown yourself up mate. Suggest you engage rewind on the neck!

Why, since this is the PROFESSIONAL pilots website, don't we just wait a wee while, until somebody tells us THE FACTS. Then, anyone wanting to tell us how superior THEY are, may (or may not!) be able to fill their boots!!

puddle-jumper2
13th Jan 2006, 01:09
Fair point gentlemen. I shall refrain from commenting on this incident in question. Perhaps though some of you should not be pointing fingers at the cabin crew until we do indeed know the full facts.

Magplug, didn't mean to offend - although I stand by what I wrote RE: your (and it would seem allot of other's) point - waiting for the fire warning light to go out; - I would still have to disagree.

Climb normal, it's interesting you mention the 737 incident 20 years ago, I remember that one also. There where a number of factors which caused the many deaths regarding that incident, one of the main ones was "time" , the time it took the crew to realise the severity of the incident and initiate the evacuation.

How do you know for sure if it's a contained fire. How do you know that just because the fire warning has gone out that there is no further damage to the engine/wing etc. The pilots of the Manch. 737 incident would have acted very differently if they were able to see the engine/wing in question but the point is you can't.

The overriding point here is that you have 2 choices if you see a cockpit fire warning -

a) Carry out the emergency procedures and wait in hope that it has done it's job and that when the fire light goes out the fire is really out.

or

b) Carry out the emergency procedures and order an evacuation.

I know which one I'd chose.

itsresidualmate
13th Jan 2006, 01:12
APU u/s. #4 started on stand. #1 started during push back.

Iíve carried out engine runs on the RJ myself and forgotten to increase engine power on the running engine, resulting in a wind down of the good engine and it stalling/surging. I escaped with a cough of flames and brown underwear, fortunately only me onboard so no witnesses! I also had the luxury of only being concerned about one person and could pause to decide what to do. I didnít have to worry about any possibility of the PA not working when the aircraft died down to battery power, or try to communicate through a locked flight deck door with cabin crew and eighty-odd punters.

A surge or jet pipe fire will not give a fire warning. Pulling the fire handle on your only source of AC power will disable a lot of a/c systems, including main lights. If youíre told you have an engine fire what else would you do?!

The cabin crew got everyone off safely from what they believed was an aircraft on fire.

The flight deck acted the best they could with the information they had at hand.

Itís taken you about 15 seconds to read this post. Probably about 15 times longer than the decision time the crew of G-CFAE had.

Leezyjet
13th Jan 2006, 02:29
Completely unrelated to this incident, but Jet2 had an emergency landing too on the 11th Jan into LBA with a suspected engine fire, one engine shut down just after take off (B737), returned and landed safely.

Seems that one didn't even make the news and it actually got off the ground.

Amazing what makes a good read and what doesn't.

:)

lomapaseo
13th Jan 2006, 02:37
Puddle-Jumper 2

You have a right to your opinion, but your recommendations on how you would handle the situation has little to no credibility.

We're not talking about flames impinging on a fuselage where there is only a small finite time before it is breached similar to Manchester.

The great majority of external (from the fuselage) fires are well mitigated from threatening the aircraft occupants as well as other critical systems (fuel tanks etc.) by shielding or fire barriers in the design of the aircraft. More specifically the engines are shielded from the pylon critical structure and fuel for a period of time well within the crews ability to assess the situation via instrumentation as well as visual cues (from cabin crew, rampworkers, tower etc.)and to take appropriate and advised action. Such action includes assessing whether its a contained engine tailpipe fire or a nacelle fire.

I am not happy to be put out a door onto a slide in front of running engines just because Gus passenger thinks its a good idea.. I have experience with passengers screaming fire and causing undo panic including leaping out of moving aircraft because they felt it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately they greatly exacerbated the situation by forcing the pilots hand when the correct action was simply to turn off the fuel to the engine and motor the engine so as to blow the temporary flame out the tailpipe and clear of the engine and aircraft wings.

I am happy to say that I shall not follow your unwise assessments and recommendations and will continue to support the longstanding recommendations developed by the professionals.

itsresidualmate
13th Jan 2006, 03:18
"You have a right to your opinion, but your recommendations on how you would handle the situation has little to no credibility."

Perhaps you should reserve your learned judgement until the AAIB has released its findings. You may find the cabin crew were unable to communicate with the flight deck. Lots of punters + Fire + No comms = Run away!

RobJ
13th Jan 2006, 04:48
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16574385&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=98-flee-burning-plane-on-runway--name_page.html

-- slightly over-dramaticized?

puddle-jumper2
13th Jan 2006, 10:45
Lamapaseo,

I am not referring to this particular situation - but I am interested in the earlier comments RE; different opinions on how to handle a fire warning on ground.

Like me your entitled to your opinion - and if you think my opinion on how to handle a fire warning on the ground is unwise, then it's your choice.

I have found some extracts from our operating manual 'abnormal procedures' for you and others to read. -----


"It is company procedure to order an evacuation if a fire warning occurs on the ground. A rejected take-off from 60 knots or less may be ignored from the point of view of brake and tyre waiting periods unless taxiing distances are very long. After a rejected take-off from between 60 and 100 knots, ETC ETC"


An evacuation must be performed without delay if remaining on board would put the passengersí health or life in danger.
A spurious fire warning is a rare event in the 146. So an evacuation is ALWAYS ordered in the event of a fire warning occurring on the ground; evacuation is ordered even if the caption subsequently extinguishes; this covers the case of the fire re-igniting. If a fire is successfully extinguished in the air, there is no need for an automatic evacuation after landing.

This is the opinion of our Chief Training Capt.- and as you know by now I happen to agree with it.


Itsresidualmate - spot on

Hotel Mode
13th Jan 2006, 12:15
There was no "Fire warning" on the MWS, it was not a fire, it was a duff start. Any larger aircraft/engine and the slides and passengers whould have been minced.

As for your chief pilots view about not getting false fire warnings on the 146, we had several in the 3 years i flew it.

puddle-jumper2
13th Jan 2006, 12:30
Hotel mode,

You must have been very unlucky.

I've been on the 146 for 16 years - and have never had a false one.

beaver eager
13th Jan 2006, 12:49
Well that's specifically at odds to the BA manuals Puddle, old boy...

My emergency brief states that in the event of an emergency during take off, having brought the a/c to a halt and set the parking brake (after turning appropriately for any wind), we first discuss the reason for the stop. Personally, I might even take a deep breath and put the dome light on too. Then I call for any appropriate checklist (always the Engine fire c/l even if after simple flame-out or run down) which the F/O carries out unmonitored whilst I assess the situation by contacting CC, Twr or by looking out of the window. There's still probably useful information coming from the cockpit indications of course.

The SCCM will pick up the interphone and be waiting for me to talk to them but will not interrupt me until I initiate the conversation. F/O, as part of the recall items, only fires a fire bottle if the red light is on, then starts the stopwatch with a view to firing the other one if the light has not gone out within 30 seconds. The 30 seconds goes very quickly whilst you are gathering information from other sources, and on the 737 (and RJ) you can always open the DV windows and lean out to see what is happening behind. Only then, would you normally initiate an evacuation if the fire warning had not gone out after putting the second bottle in. It is generally considered more dangerous to evacuate unnecessarily it the fire has gone out and a more orderly disembarkation would do nicely. BA invest lots of time and money assessing this kind of stuff amongst 'core' safety managers and their policy is based on a considered evaluation of the risk assessment.

I say normally above, because there could always be a situation where the information you have learned before firing the second bottle makes it so obvious that an evacuation is necessary, that you would not wait. I feel this would be rare, but cannot be discounted. One thing pilots have to be is flexible. There is a lot going on in a short time... What is very important is to do things in the right order without rushing too much. Shutting down any engines still running is quite important before ordering the evacuation if you don't want to cook/mince those who think they are evacuating to safety. Panicking in headless chicken mode is not recommended.

PS. Hotel Mode is right about there having been spurious fire warnings on the ex CFE RJs. How goes it on the Jumbo, me old mucker?

puddle-jumper2
13th Jan 2006, 16:41
Finally, the sort of reply I was looking for. Thanks.

It's interesting to note the differences in our emergency SOP's.

Yes, I too also take a deep breath before asking for any emergency checklist and I am not advocating 'panicking in headless chicken mode.'

I seem to remember that some of the cabin crew on the Manch. 737 incident were still found strapped to their crew seat. My guess is that if they could comment on this they would argue that 30 seconds is a very long time - a life times worth in fact.

Lets hope we never have to put these theories to the test.

Your right when you say that we have to be flexible, thinking outside the box sometimes is part of the job.

Personally though I'd rather be sitting on the tarmac wondering whether or not it was the right decision to evacuate than sitting in the cockpit wishing I had .

PJ

beaver eager
13th Jan 2006, 17:37
At the subsequent board of enquiry, you need to have a jolly good reason for deviating from your company SOP.

BA obviously decide that the chances of another fire as serious and fast acting as the one in MAN are very small so have written their SOPs accordingly. Your company clearly takes a different view.

If I ordered an evacuation before firing the second bottle, the fire then went out straight away and someone subsequently (and very unluckily) died of a concussion received whilst going down the slide, I don't think it would look all that good for me.

Conversely, If you didn't order an evacuation straight away and the worst were to happen you'd be in a similar amount of hot water.

WRT this incident, BA have been quoted as saying that the crew had no cockpit fire indications and we do not know yet who actually initiated the evacuation.

Hotel Mode
13th Jan 2006, 18:07
An engine fire on the runway at high power is a whole different ball game to a tailpipe fire on push too.

marlowe
15th Jan 2006, 08:56
Rightly or wrongly a decision was made and a decision acted upon what would have been far worse would have been indecision now everybody can write here about what they would have done but given the same set of circumstances nobody knows how they would have handled it, sure you can quote SOPs until you are blue in the face , as some people have but until you are in the same situation and have seconds to act then you do not know how you are going to handle it I am sure there are many flight deck out there who have made decisions only to reflect on them later and with the benefit of hindsight and a large G&T thought given my time again i would have done it differently ,so at the end of the day 86 pax evacuated no injuries jobs a good un!!!!

Hand Solo
15th Jan 2006, 11:26
Any chance of using a full stop in future posts?

marlowe
15th Jan 2006, 11:51
Full stop key bust!!!!!!

Magplug
17th Jan 2006, 16:08
OK.... After all the debate, has it been determined:......

a) Who hit the evac alarm, the Capt or the CC or,
b) Did the punters just start jumping out ???

puddle-jumper2
18th Jan 2006, 23:01
beaver eager,
some good points. The question is - which is the hottest water ?

a) Someone dies from the evac. It goes to court where the FDR and CVR are examined and they see evidence of the fire warning - just luke warm I'd say !
or
b) You wait the 30 sec. and the fire continues - it goes to court and they conclude that many lives could have been saved by acting quicker - boiling I'd say !
Your comment RE: sticking to SOP's is a very valid one though - particularly if you do indeed end up in court afterwards.:uhoh:
I appreciate that there may have not been a fire warning with this particular incident which is why I'm staying off that topic - I've already made an ar** of myself on that one.:}

Hotel Mode,
An engine fire/warning can happen anywhere and it's sod's law it will happen when you least expect it.- i.e.: not the just before V1 as it tends to be in the Sim.:{ The question is - how to deal with it ?

Morlowe,
I'm with you all the way. It's all too easy to 'armchair' an incident after the event and point fingers accordingly - and there's more than enough of that going at the beginning of this thread thank you.

Incidentally- I've been discussing this incident during my pre-flight briefs with the cabin crew. It's good to learn something from these sort of things - regardless of how the actual event was handled.:cool:

RatherBeFlying
20th Jan 2006, 01:15
J.Blow with wife and kids on seeing a humongous flame coming out back of an engine: counts 8 rows = 48 other punters of varying degrees of sobriety / capability / hustle / baggage between his family and nearest exit knows nothing about tailpipe fires hears nothing from the cockpit -- yes, we here know they're busy up to their eyeballs carrying out the drills, but not J. Blow may have faint memory of Manchester has no knowledge to differentiate start problem from imminent catastrophe hits the panic button.You blame him?

barit1
20th Jan 2006, 13:59
That's one very good reason for tail-mounted engines, out of sight of SLF. :rolleyes:

4468
21st Jan 2006, 02:20
RatherBeFlying

When J.Blow takes the decision out of the hands of the 'professionals' he accepts absolute responsibility for his own actions. People could be injured, or die, due to his 'ignorant' act. Chances are, he was one of those c#*#s who hasn't even the courtesy to look up from his precious newspaper during the safety brief!!

Forgive me, but as far as I'm concerned, he DESERVES to die! His newspaper is clearly more important than his life!

Sadly, his stupidity also affects the survival chances of those other 'innocent' individuals around him.

Yes, I "blame him"!!!

puddle-jumper2

You accept that much of your commentary has been made with 20/20 hindsight (in this case at least!)

I understand that you would order an immediate evacuation for a hot gas leak, or indeed a spurious fire indication??

Bearing in mind you appear to fly "puddle jumpers" you may wish to bear in mind that, statistically speaking, an evacuation of a large aircraft (eg 747, 340, 777 etc) is almost certain to result in at least one major injury!

I would suggest to you that, it is highly unlikely that lives will be lost purely for the sake of the few seconds taken to assess the situation. Your SOPs appear to be more akin to the programming of a robot, rather than the more considered approach of more respected operators!

RatherBeFlying
21st Jan 2006, 14:47
4468
The point that I am trying to make is that those in back without professional knowledge become seriously concerned when they see a tailpipe fire.
And the cockpit crew on occasion has been slow to realise the seriousness of the situation in other cases.At Calgary, following the uncontained engine failure, approximately 45 seconds elapsed before the cabin attendant in-charge was able to enter the flight deck to tell the flight crew there was a fire. The flight deck door had been locked in accordance with standard company procedures. (A84H0003)
Meanwhile, the aft cabin attendant attempted to notify the flight deck of an engine fire by using the aircraft interphone system. Although the signal tone was heard on the flight deck, it went unanswered because the first officer mistook the tone for that associated with the passenger cabin attendant call button. The aft cabin attendant contacted the cabin attendant in-charge stationed at the front of the aircraft via the interphone. He advised the cabin attendant in-charge that there was a fire and the aircraft should be stopped. The cabin attendant in-charge did not confirm that the information had been received and understood; consequently, the aft cabin attendant did not know if he had been successful in transmitting this vital message.
Inadequate communication between the cabin and the flight deck resulted in a significant delay before the flight crew was aware of the existence and seriousness of the fire and contributed to the fact that the evacuation was not initiated until one minute 55 seconds following the rejected take-off. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/studies/sa9501/sa9501.asp?print_view=1
I like to think that the 1984 YYC incident produced changes in SOPs after a reject, but I do faintly recall from newspaper reports at the time that a pax was the first to open a door.The success of the evacuation was attributed in part to the fact that almost all the passengers were frequent air travellers familiar with the Boeing 737 and that there were no children, elderly, or disabled passengers on the flight.I would prefer to cite from the original CASB report, but its successor, TSB Canada, does not seem to make them available.

Magplug
23rd Jan 2006, 19:49
From the EDI incident..... Definitively.....
During push back a passenger, (perhaps the one quoted above), witnessed a hot-start/tailpipe fire. He panicked and ran to the front of the aircraft where his demeanour convinced the solitary junior crew member there that the aircraft was about to erupt into flames...... Upon his word the evacuation began.
Like you may be often told - It never goes like in the Sim. On the ground if someone outside the flight-deck initiates an evacuation then you have no choice but to go with it. The alternative is to have panicky passengers outside the aircraft getting sucked down engines.
Thank God there were no injuries. The question is.... Should this individual suffer censure?

flt_lt_w_mitty
23rd Jan 2006, 19:58
Probably not, but the 'junior cabin crew' need retraining! (Assuming they did not check with the flight deck to shut down the motors, of course!:))

Magplug
23rd Jan 2006, 20:18
the 'junior cabin crew' need retraining
You really think so? I have no doubt they will get it... however... Maybe with 20/20 hindsight the crewmember made a single wrong call. But exactly how much expertise and judgement do you think £6-8k buys? Every so often these kids get a situation that is way off the script.

Let's take a reality check here .

4468
23rd Jan 2006, 21:18
I expect I'll be slammed for saying this, but I can't help wondering if a few pidgeons have come home to roost for BACX in this incident!

There seem to be plenty of inexperienced, not particularly well trained, and not very well paid crews flying around in BA uniforms these days!!

And on the basis of this incident, that goes for both sides of the flight deck door!

I wonder if the passenger's reaction had anything to do with his perceived level of crew competence??

Very lucky nobody was injured!

rhythm method
24th Jan 2006, 13:49
4468,

you deserve to be slammed for such a sweeping statement, but your hatred towards anything to do with BACX is depressingly predictable. Pray tell though, just how much knowledge do you have about training standards within BACX? If it really is as poor as you suggest, then I think BA would have something to say about it (perhaps you should take it on yourself to organise an internal inquiry by BA?). It would also imply that BA's auditing is below par, as we have been subject to training audits by BA since way back when we were a profitable franchise.

Please try to retain a balanced view and don't allow your slanted judgement to distort the thread.

RM

Magplug
25th Jan 2006, 09:16
Guys.... when you are done BACX bashing......
The crews are trained and certified to the satisfaction of the Authority - End of story. Back to the point...

If some joker ran around in a pub screaming 'FIRE' when there was not - And a dozen people got trampled to death - Who would be to blame?

Wrt the young CC member... Had it been one of the more mature BA mainline ladies, the hysterical punter in question would have got a calming smack across the face and the silly boy would have been sent back to his seat :)

Richae
25th Jan 2006, 11:55
Assuming the pax in question ran forward they would have encountered the senior cabin crew member anyway. Most of the BACX senior crew members are fairly worldy wise in my experience. Fair enough BACX have some junior guys down the back, but everyone has to start somewhere. They fluff their lines occasionally on the PA which gives us chance to have a little titter, but im my experience the senior guys at the front know what they're doing. On the whole I feel a lot more reassured by the BACX crews that I do with a lot of other airlines so I think we should give em a break.

The trouble with having some random pax stand up and start yelling FIRE! is that is tends to just cause panic. Once the whole plane starts panicking events kind of take control of themselves. It's hard to stop 80+ people trying to jump up once they've got themselves all excited. I've been sat next to people in the past who have thought that engines were on fire because they can see smoke coming from the breather masts. The answer is obvious.... paint over the windows so the pax can't see the big whizzy things and gag them so they can't make silly noises!!