JetBlue emergency evac in Bahamas

[Eboy]

A JetBlue aircraft with 93 people onboard caught fire on its left side as it was landing in the Caribbean Thursday afternoon, prompting an emergency evacuation on an airport taxiway, the airline said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/world/americas/04plane.html?_r=1&hp

[Avman]

The plane landed safely and moved under its own power to a taxiway, where fire fighters quickly arrived and put out the fire.

No lessons learned from Manchester then!!! (yes, I know, it was an aborted take-off, but it's the same principle). Aircraft should stop as quickly as possible and evacuate immediately. To hell with blocking the runway. What price a life?

[lomapaseo]

No lessons learned from Manchester then!!! (yes, I know, it was an aborted take-off, but it's the same principle). Aircraft should stop as quickly as possible and evacuate immediately. To hell with blocking the runway. What price a life?
Today 01:08


Considering it was am EMB190 I doubt that the aircraft spent much time in rollout on the runway. I suspect that the decision to evacuate was made within seconds of assessing that there was a fire.

[GearDown&Locked]

If you can shorten the distance between your "crippled" plane and the emergency vehicles - and the situation is properly assessed meanwhile - it could help improving the survival probabilities of your pax. Stopping on a remote runway with a a couple of chutes that didn't deploy on a burning plane, and you'd wish those fire engines would be closer.

[Avman]

With respect, I suggest you both read up on the Manchester report and think again.

[Cymmon]

I must agree Avman. Slight error in turning into wind and all hell let loose.
Better to stop asap, then get everyone off.
No need for the Firefighters if everyone is on the tarmac. The plane is expendable, the passengers are not.

[varkdriver495]

With all due respect, for all to pass judgement based on sketchy newspaper reporting...unbelievable. Each fire situation is unique in its own right...I'm sure in retrospect, some things might have been done differently...but, give me a break...Manchester was a catastrophic, uncontained engine explosion...who knows what happened with the JB Emb190. Give it a rest, thank goodness everyone got out alright.

[Avman]

Sorry vd495, but fire is fire, I don't care where or why it starts. I'd like to get out asap, thank you. No, I won't give it a rest - my life may depend on it!

[varkdriver495]

Av,

No one is minimizing the need to egress quickly after a fire...what concerns me is your rush to judge this crew and their actions, armed with a news article! Your reaction is what I might expect from a non-aviator, not one from an individual in the business. Just my opinion.

[Locked door]

Avman,

I think you're oversimplifying, especially on big jets. We expect one serious injury per evac and one fatality per two evacs. That means there's a 50% chance that when you initiate an evac you'll cause a fatality. Yes, in a Manchester scenario throw them out the side asap. However if the fire indications cease after the fire eng checklist then it's definitely worth thinking twice.

Just my two pennies worth.

LD

[Avman]

vd495, because it was the New York Times and not The Sun or Daily Mirror. Furthermore, the bit "The plane landed safely and moved under its own power to a taxiway" was not the type of reporting one would have expected to read in most newspapers. It wasn't my intention to criticise the crew, but more to point out that when fire is involved, hesitation and/or delay may prove fatal. I imagined that FD crew may have been inclined to want to be "helpful" (to ATC) and vacate the runway (I believe Nassau only has a single runway).

Locked Door, I accept your point, but this was an EMB-190.

[TowerDog]

it was landing in the Caribbean Thursday afternoon,

Bahamas is not in the Caribbean and never was. The islands are located in the North Atlantic just like Bermuda. :=

(I know the newspaper got it wrong, not the thread starter)

[varkdriver495]

Av,

Your trust in NYtimes reporting accuracy is admirable, but I would suggest remaining a bit more skeptical and inquisitive...questioning the veracity of each line of print when it comes to facts. I might even include your remark about the FD crew wanting to be "helpful", as one that might be off base. Wait til the safety review comes out before we hang these airmen out to dry. Again, are you in the flying business, or do you naturally enter a discussion armed with feelings ablaze?

cheers,
varkdriver495

[LimaFoxTango]

Bahamas is not in the Caribbean and never was. The islands are located in the North Atlantic just like Bermuda.


Using that theory, I'd guess Barbados is not part of the Caribbean either seeing as it is completely surrounded by the Atlantic ocean.

[PappyJ]

...especially on big jets... I thought Jetblue flew the A320 and the Embraer?

[hetfield]

Bermuda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda) and the Turks and Caicos Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_and_Caicos_Islands) which are found in the Atlantic Ocean are Associate members of the Caribbean Community, and the same goes for the Commonwealth of the Bahamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamas) which is a full member of the Caribbean Community.'

wiki.......

[411A]

...because it was the New York Times ...

These folks are lucky to get the time of day correct, let alone aircraft fire details...:rolleyes:

[Avman]

Stay cool guys, especially you JBU guys ;)

[dicksorchard]

The above aircraft landed safely yet 300 people died .

From what i have read this was due to Pilot error , and a delay in evacuating the passengers and the lack of coordination of the emergency srvices.

The fire consumed the aircraft on the ground, killing everyone aboard.

People cannot be to complacent when dealing with the issue of fire on board an aircraft the smallest fire can become the biggest killer .

I for one would want to be off that aircraft Asap . I think you guys are being a little unfair to Avman .

[Two's in]

We expect one serious injury per evac and one fatality per two evacs. That means there's a 50% chance that when you initiate an evac you'll cause a fatality. Yes, in a Manchester scenario throw them out the side asap. However if the fire indications cease after the fire eng checklist then it's definitely worth thinking twice.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_002.pdf

This report doesn't agree with those statistics. It says that if evacuation slides are used there is a 50% chance of an injury. Study group of 142 slide evacuations in the Annex has zero fatailites, so if your figures indicate there is a 50% chance of a fatality for each evacuation, I would be suspicious of your data, or very worried about your airline of choice.

[Egerton Flyer]

Avman,
I have to agree with everything you have posted so far.
Varkdriver495. I take your point about the crew but I don't think Avman was hanging them out to dry with his comments.
People in and around Manchester still have very vivid memories of that day.

E.F.

[Baja]

The Manchester accident caused everyone to rethink pulling off the runway. The taxiway is more narrow than the runway thus restricting emergency vehicles at times. The larger the airplane, the less access on the sides for vehicles because the airplane takes up the entire taxiway width. Further, if it has rained recently, the ground adjacent to the taxiway can bog down emergency response vehicles. As stated earlier, every situation is unique so no cookbook answer to this or other similar incidents. My default position is to stop on the runway where access to the side of the airplane is better and any evac can be conducted quicker than taxiing further. But that default position doesn't mean a different resolution wouldn't be more prudent in some cases.

[varkdriver495]

Av, et al.,

From the top, once again, your comments on the crews actions...all based on a newspaper article, are speculative, at best. I can't remember many instances where the press "got it right" when reporting news events. Manchester was terrible, but there are many more questions than answers, until the official review of this situation is released. Many cudos to all involved in the safe evac of the passengers.

[filejw]

Avman. Guess it depends on who you work for. SOP here, make sure wind blows fire away from a/c and is fire contained in the engine. Generally before you evac...JW

[profot]

Although my natural instinct is to evac asap, I think to be able to judge the decision process here we need to have a working knowledge of the airfield and its facilities. I don't know the airport but perhaps their is a high speed taxiway which would have put the engulfed engine downwind and closer to the firetrucks? My point being we don't know all the facts to judge

[Doors to Automatic]

We expect one serious injury per evac and one fatality per two evacs.

I'm also surprised at the fatality figure. My guess would be that the stats take into account serious accidents where an evacuation has been initiated but where cause of death is something other than the evacuation itself (e.g. Manchester).

I'd be amazed if there is a fatality per 2 evacs if there is no fire in the cabin or fatal injuries sustained during impact.

[orentavor]

official review of this situation is released???

[Bahamapilot]

I am in the Bahamas and saw the incident...The pilot actually stopped right in front of the fire crash and rescue station which is close to the
nearest exit taxi way for most airliners after landing...Good job Jet Blue