Monarch-Engine fire Birmingham UK

[TrafficPilot]

BBC News - 'Engine fire' on Monarch plane at Birmingham Airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-10860160)

Not much info at the moment.

[Capt. Horrendous]

Twas a well handled efato.

[WindSheer]

Yeah, well done guys.
Must have been at a reasonably high TOM if heading to ZTH.

:ok:

Oh, and who's going to be first to say....."no big deal, blah blah, nothing to see here..."!!

[oversteer]

Did the captain really say

"This is your captain speaking. Code cobra, code cobra"

as reported by BBC?

[Chuffer Chadley]

Yes, that struck me as odd. Can any Monarch crews clarify?

If they do have this sort of codeword system in use, 'Cobra' is a bit of an odd one; more dramatic-sounding than I would have thought.

Much like 'Cabin crew: take your positions for operation certain death.'

CC

[anengineer]

"huge bang", "sheet of flames", "This is Code Cobra, Code Cobra' and the cabin crew reacted", "captain said, 'We have lost an engine.'.", "The plane was shaking quite badly. It tried to level off and he said, 'We're returning straight away.' - "People were crying. We thought we were going to die." - "We thought the plane was just going to come down. We were over houses.", "big burst of fire", "We shouted to get the kids away from the pitch." "He said people were "deeply shocked" by the time they had returned to the departure lounge and were surprised to find that paramedics were not immediately waiting for them."

Funnily enough, my car had a puncture the other day. We were all screaming "WE'RE GONNA DIE !!!" at the traffic lights, I issued a special code word and my wife sprung into action. People at the traffic lights reported seeing a puff of air and hearing a huge hiss - they were certain the tyre was going down. My sister in law was deeply shocked that there was no ambulance waiting for her at the side of the road.

[steve757]

must have been misheard. Cobra is not a codeword used by Monarch.

[Basil]

Sounds like an engine surge.
Re alerting phrases to CC: can we keep those to ourselves? :ok:

[A4]

Totally unrelated but the COBRA meetings we hear about on the news when the Government has a crisis actually stands for "Cabinet Office Briefing Room Alpha". As Michael Caine would say "not many people know that" - or in hindsight want to! :O

Good job by the crew though - no-one hurt.

A4

PS Agree with Basil - careless talk costs ........

[Guest 112233]

In an emergency situation like this, it does not surprise me that the captin would anounce to the cabin crew a code word or phrase.

From direct personal experence of a petrol fire on the car deck of a passenger ferry if you here the phrase;

" This is the captain speeking - A working party is urgently required on section A Car deck 2" - Set your brain in gear quick.

As a now informed passenger I would round up everyone I know and quietly say "there's a serious problem listen out for further anouncements - we may have to abandon ship ".

As for the BBC report :( if true, am I alone in thinking that prospective PAX should be screened before boarding to weed out the panic ridden, the nervous and the just plain stupid. - A screaming/jumping panic ridden PAX is a bigger threat in a cabin than a contained engine malfunction.

Yes I would be frightenerd like everyone else but the "Screaming Ab Dabs" no chance. Not even if there were snakes on the plane.

The screaming/panic ridden soul is a self obsessed individual with no comprehension for the effect of their behaviour on others. Is there a case for public education for (very rare) situations like this.

Hopefully a non event.- Well done, to the crew I would fly ZB any time.

CAT III

[Burnt Fishtrousers]

Im no fan of some of the journalistic nonsense that gets into the press these days so am not defending sensationalist journalism.

I think some of you lot really need to get a grip in appreciating that not everyone is aviation minded, know how an aircraft operates, know crews are trained routinely for such event.To most people if an engine lets go in flight with a bang or should that be "huge explosive bang" and they see flames they assume they are going to crash and die....everyone saw what happened to Concorde ( different circumstances yes) and that ended tragically..

If the language appeared sensationalist do you not consider that your average person might have been scared and used emotive language?
The rugby player might have used "sheet of flame"to describe what they saw....or do witnesses have to be AAIB and cockpit qualified to describe what they saw.

If you'd witnessed the Paris Concorde crash I bet a pound to a penny "huge sheet of flame" would be a faily good description of events....

If I, as a 400hour PPL with a multi engine and aerobatic rating, saw an engine let go on takeoff whilst flying off on my hols, I being a total aviation expert, poster on PPrune (an aviation qualification in itself) and all round smart arse, of course couldnt care less, wouldn't be scared and would exercise, with square jawed steely eyed alacrity, restraint in my language if a journalist wanted my opinion...:E

[etrang]

I think some of you lot really need to get a grip

I think that if heaping scorn on pax and journalists every time there is an airline related incident helps some people feel more important or better about themselves, let them get on with it. On one else takes any notice and it does no harm really.

[lexoncd]

Kegworth started off as a "non event" but look what that turned into... Sadly in whatever field of transport when something isn't as it should be it will make the news.. deal with it...

[gunka]

There is a codeword, basically informs no.1 to head to flight deck for NITS briefing while rest of crew secure the cabin, a good system which seems to work. The word however is not Cobra, was not surprisingly picked up wrongly by a pax expecting imminent death, according to the article.

[Magplug]

Having any codewords that are designed to be used over the PA in the event of a mishap is a pretty poor idea.

Already the pax are aware something is wrong but likely don't understand exactly what... add to that an announcement over the PA they don't understand and it's guaranteed to put the fear of Christ up them - It's not rocket science.

...Time for an SOP review Monarch!

[BOAC]

A PA message that informs no.1 to head to flight deck for NITS briefing while rest of crew secure the cabin - is indeed an excellent idea and one used by several airlines.

.......and when did pax EVER understand PA's?:)

[Bealzebub]

Having any codewords that are designed to be used over the PA in the event of a mishap is a pretty poor idea.

Already the pax are aware something is wrong but likely don't understand exactly what... add to that an announcement over the PA they don't understand and it's guaranteed to put the fear of Christ up them - It's not rocket science.

The use of a code, enables each member of the crew to initiate the action that is relevant to their station and to the team requirement. In situations that might come under the category "emergency," the flight deck crew will normally be very busy dealing with their own priorities.

I absolutely agree that communication with the passengers is very important and desirable, but only when the situation permits that to be done properly.

Codewords enable a lot of basic instruction to be given to the people who need to know, in a few syllables, and without tying up an otherwise important time resource unnecessarily.

[Dawdler]

It is perfectly possible for emergency codes to be used, in order not to panic the people inside. e.g. A well known large public building in London (used to have?) in the event of (say ) a bomb threat, "Will staff members responsible for administration, report to room 99." This meant the you had to search your area for suspicious ityems and report in if anything found. A perfectly innocuous announcement to all but those in the know, but getting the message to those who needed to act.

[Bealzebub]

It is perfectly possible for emergency codes to be used, in order not to panic the people inside. e.g. A well known large public building in London (used to have?) in the event of (say ) a bomb threat, "Will staff members responsible for administration, report to room 99." This meant the you had to search your area for suspicious ityems and report in if anything found. A perfectly innocuous announcement to all but those in the know, but getting the message to those who needed to act.

Yes, but you are rather missing the point.

The code isn't meant to deceive passengers, they will be informed as appropriate once time permits. The code is intended to get the crew to follow a particular drill appropriate to their individual and collective crew stations, with the minimum amount of communication at that point.

The flight deck crew are busy with their priorities at this point. Those priorities are first and foremost to fly the aircraft and deal with the problem. Ensure the aircraft flies a safe profile, and to communicate as necessary between themselves and ATC in pretty much that order. (Aviate, navigate, communicate.) Depending on the nature of the problem the "communicate" function may well involve the cabin crew quite early in the process, and the passengers somewhat later, once the immediate priorities have been satisfied.

Code words are used to instigate the cabin crew actions with very few syllables in a couple of perhaps repeated words.
Will staff members responsible for administration, report to room 99!May be great in an office building, but frankly 21 syllables of delivery is inefficient and pointless in the context of an aircraft emergency.

To be clear, the use of codewords is for brevity in instructing a set of actions. It is not for placating or misleading passengers, many of whom would likely be aware of a problem in any event. To that end it works well and is standard operating procedure for many airlines.

If it offends your sensibility as a passenger, then sorry, but safety is paramount to your immediate concern, the latter hopefully being addressed once the former is guaranteed.

[call100]

As a passenger, there are some things that I don't want to know. Unless I can have a effect on it's outcome.....:eek:

[Serenity]

Never mind the petty arguing on here.....

Engine on fire for all pax and crew to see....

Well done to the monarch guys and gals, good job well done, it's one of the worst case senarios we all train for and hope not to see every 6 months!
All credit to the crew !!!!
:D

[fokker1000]

Most eloquently put BB. I never cease to be amazed by some of the dimbo posts here..
Crew had a pretty major problem and dealt with it professionally Well done Monarch!:D

[buzz boy]

Is this not the second engine fire / failure recently on a UK registered aircraft? I believe Jet2 had a problem with one of their 757s on take off in the canaries, sounded very similar.

[teamilk&sugar]

Having any codewords that are designed to be used over the PA in the event of a mishap is a pretty poor idea.

Already the pax are aware something is wrong but likely don't understand exactly what... add to that an announcement over the PA they don't understand and it's guaranteed to put the fear of Christ up them - It's not rocket science.

...Time for an SOP review Monarch!


I get really tired of comments like this from ill-informed, probably armchair wannabee pilots. If you have no idea what you are talking about - please don't bother posting!

It's amazing how certain individuals seems to think they know better than established airlines (not just Monarch) who use phrases like this, for exactly the reason why Bealzebub has explained so well.


Nicely handled by the crew.

Well done!

[lomapaseo]

teamilk&suger

I get really tired of comments like this from ill-informed, probably armchair wannabee pilots. If you have no idea what you are talking about - please don't bother posting!

It's amazing how certain individuals seems to think they know better than established airlines


How about addressing the issue rather than the poster. It strikes me that they have a valid experienced based opinion, although I don't necessarily agree with it.

I do appreciate the pros and cons I read in the majority of posts on this thread.

[Otto Throttle]

Hmmm, next time I have an incident, perhaps I too shall request the CA1 to bring me a cold Cobra. I think it is an excellent idea and should be SOP for all.

Cheers! :}

[Ace Beer Charlie]

I can see the point of short code phrases being useful to communicate to all staff that they need to instigate certain actions but unless they have an innocuous meaning to passengers they are bound to cause panic to passengers with a resultant risk of panic, stress and associated unpredictable behaviour.

Surely the senior cabin crew would already be on their way to the flight deck having heard the loud bangs and been alerted by the passengers reaction to the sheets of flame!

I think any ordinary passenger would find the use of blatant code words rather disconcerting and would be worried about what they are hiding. I also think that any codes involving types of snake or any other colour apart from green are probably only suitable for military use, although to be fair it has been pointed out that the actual code word was 'apparently' misheard. Perhaps the passenger had seen the film 'Snakes on a Plane' !

[Bealzebub]

I can see the point of short code phrases being useful to communicate to all staff that they need to instigate certain actions but unless they have an innocuous meaning to passengers they are bound to cause panic to passengers with a resultant risk of panic, stress and associated unpredictable behaviour.

A well handled emergency such as this one involves many phases. There is often a "critical " phase where the problem first manifests itself. Once that phase has been resolved, it doesn't mean the emergency has ended. For example an engine fire that results in an engine shutdown still results in the aircraft operting in a performance limited envelope with all (in the case of a twin engined airliner) of the redundancy capability utilized. That would necessitate a diversion to the departure airport, or another nearby airport. It can also happen that secondary effects of the primary emergency are not immediately apparant.

It is conceivable that in some situations it may be necessary to evacuate everybody on board shortly after landing. As such, a bit of "panic and stress" is no bad thing, in that it should raise adrenelin levels. Perhaps they will be raised to the level that a few people who thought it was unnecessary to read the safety card, will now have less qualms about reading it. In any event the cabin crew will carry out the requisite procedures in accordance with their own training and in accordance with the situation as it manifests itself.

Surely the senior cabin crew would already be on their way to the flight deck having heard the loud bangs and been alerted by the passengers reaction to the sheets of flame!

No, they react to the communication that has already been given as is appropriate to the situation.

I think any ordinary passenger would find the use of blatant code words rather disconcerting and would be worried about what they are hiding.

They might, but as already pointed out, they are not "hiding" anything, and in the example you have given I would imagine the "loud bangs & sheets of flame" might worry them a little bit as well. I am sure they would cause more than a little consternation to the crew come to that. The procedures for resolving these rare situations are what everybody is trained for, and it is of primary importance that this training is utilized with communication procedures that have been established for the purpose, without any other non essential concerns at that point.

[PA-28-180]

Having also worked the medical side of the street....what's the difference between this and "code blue, code blue, 304" in a hospital?? Note: 'code blue' refers to the patient in room 304 has gone into cardiac / respiratory arrest...at least in the States.
This code means that the nurses / doctors / residents / other specialists on duty or on call haul @ss to room 304, and what to expect when they arrive there. :eek:

[Magplug]

@teamilk&sugar

....I gave up being a passenger about 16,000 hours ago old chap.

No criticism about the handling of the fire/surge/whatever, I am sure they did a fine job.

If your comprehension of what makes passengers scared is so incomplete as to not understand the issue about codewords then the point is completely lost on you. Just don't moan when you see more headlines like the one at the top of the thread.

[SLFguy]

"am I alone in thinking that prospective PAX should be screened before boarding to weed out the panic ridden, the nervous and the just plain stupid. - A screaming/jumping panic ridden PAX is a bigger threat in a cabin than a contained engine malfunction."

Yeah - because Shirley from accounts has a vast knowledge of aviation - in fact she probably turned to Kevin from purchasing and said

"Meh! Compressor stall - can I borrow your magazine Kev?"




Cool - I appear to have responded to a post made 38 minutes later.

[Carjockey]

CATIII-NDB: As for the BBC report if true, am I alone in thinking that prospective PAX should be screened before boarding to weed out the panic ridden, the nervous and the just plain stupid. - A screaming/jumping panic ridden PAX is a bigger threat in a cabin than a contained engine malfunction. Yes I would be frightenerd like everyone else but the Screaming Ab Dabs no chance. Not even if there were snakes on the plane.The screaming/panic ridden soul is a self obsessed individual with no comprehension for the effect of their behaviour on others. Is there a case for public education for (very rare) situations like this."

Oh what a hero you are sir! Perhaps you should consider that all PAX (excepting those harbouring immediate suicidal/homicidal intentions) board their flight with the expectation that they will arrive at their destinations safely and in one piece.

The majority of PAX have little technical understanding of aviation, and even if they did, an in-flight engine failure of their aircraft will definitely scare even the most hardened traveller sh**tless.

PAX have no choice other than to rely on the training and experience of the flight crew to handle such situations, and in this case things turned out well, so congrats to the flight crew.

I guarantee that most PAX on this flight will have made a beeline for the nearest bar and/or the lavatories once safely disembarked.

Many of them will not quickly (if ever) forget such an experience.

Flight and cabin crews should remind themselves that, unlike them, the majority of PAX do not routinely launch themselves into space two or three times a day.

In-flight, the safety and lives of PAX rests entirely in the hands of the flight crew.

PAX have become increasingly aware that air travel carries real risks and are therefore (understandably) somewhat more nervous about the whole flying experience than the flight and cabin crew.

CJ.

[Dawdler]

Yes, but you are rather missing the point.
Bealzebub: Quite how you drew that conclusion I am at a loss to know!

I was supporting the use of codes to indicate that certain actions should be taken/prepared for without setting the public on the alert until it is necessary/desirable to do so.

My illustration was (as was indicated) for a large public building which many contain upwards of 30,000 people. I was not advocating this phrase for use in the particular case being discussed, merely that forms of word do exist and are in routine use that achieve the desired effect, i.e. initiate action without unneccessary alarm.

[bedsted]

Magplug:

Your public info: FS pilots are welcome to read and ask questions but keep your theories to yourself’
But you say ‘...Time for an SOP review Monarch!’
I suggest that you practice what you preach.

Well said Teamilk&sugar.
Well done Monarch

[teamilk&sugar]

@Magplug

....I gave up being a passenger about 16,000 hours ago old chap

If your comprehension of what makes passengers scared is so incomplete as to not understand the issue about codewords then the point is completely lost on you. Just don't moan when you see more headlines like the one at the top of the thread.

No - of course "old chap" you are absolutely right. My comprehension is totally incomplete about this and having used such codes on occasion myself on the line, seeing how effective they can be; not to mention my time sat in the back of a simulator assessing other crews use these tools counts for absolutely nothing. I'm sorry. How presumptuous of me.

What they should have done was not said anything at all to the crew, because giving them a full briefing of the event whilst trying to deal with a heavy (over max landing weight) aircraft whilst performing all the necessary actions to run an ECAM drill for an engine fire and the subsequent diversion to an airfield would have obviously only taken moments to complete. The cabin crew, throughout this period of time, would have obviously assumed that everything was OK, and that the problem was being dealt with by the guys up the front, because...well..they would just KNOW...wouldn't they?

They could have then gathered all the crew together (without using the PA of course, as this may distress the passengers somehow), and explain what was happening - tell them to secure the cabin and prepare for the landing.

Easy.

Yup, your way works much better. How stupid of Monarch to not have even thought of that. Thanks for pointing out the idea.:ok:
I'm sure, as you say, that Monarch will change their Company SOP's immediately.

I give up.
:ugh:

[Spendid Cruiser]

[quote]It is perfectly possible for emergency codes to be used[quote]
Sounds like nonsense to me. We have trigger announcement that tells the passengers to sit down and do as they are told. The CC know what to do in response. As for all potential emergency situations.

Code Cobra indeed :}

[teamilk&sugar]

For clarification:

"Code Cobra" - was not ever used and is not relevant to the discussion.

[merlinxx]

What the heck is wrong with some of you folks ? A situation happened, it was handled, what right do you have to question a crew acting within the proscribed company SOPs ? Go play with your FltSim:ugh:

[AerocatS2A]

On the subject of code words. There may be times when they are appropriate but they carry the risk of significant misunderstanding. In a time of relative stress the pilot must ensure they've used the correct code word and the flight attendant must decode it correctly. There's a reasonable chance that something's going to go wrong along the way. Sometimes it might be better to just say "cabin manager to the flight deck now please" with the word "now" denoting the immediacy of the situation (if not already obvious.)

[AerocatS2A]

What the heck is wrong with some of you folks ? A situation happened, it was handled, what right do you have to question a crew acting within the proscribed company SOPs ? Go play with your FltSim
Dude, it's a discussion about the appropriateness of the procedure, not bagging the crew for using it. If there's a procedure then the crew should use it, but is it a good procedure? And just because lots of companies do something doesn't necessarily make it good.

[fmgc]

Monarch aren't a new airline. Their SOPs have been developed for over 40 years and have proved to work well.

Any PA with a sense of urgency whether it be for senior CC to attend flight deck now or a code word will get the PAX's attention.

As for CC having to remember codes there are only 2 used and I can assure you they all will know exactly what to do instantly they hear them.

[AerocatS2A]

Fair enough.

[sharpclassic]

Has anybody thought of the fact that maybe the media were told the actual code word but decided it would be a good idea not to publish it but change the word to something else instead?

[fmgc]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha.......and breathe.....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh your serious?

[sharpclassic]

I am serious. Unlike you're (sic) spelling.

[strikemaster82]

Let's see: Monarch is a well established airline, the incident was undoubtedly well handled. The press are easily excited during 'silly season' and it is essential to get the cabin No1 to the flt deck for a briefing.

The use of a code IMHO is more likely to scare passengers witless rather than reassure them, some airlines merely ask senior crew member to report to the flight deck.

Some of you Monarch chaps seem a little touchy, though! Perhaps this little pic will calm you down! :ok::ok:

http://www.codecobra.com/media/cobra.png

[CEJM]

The problem with asking the no1 to the flight deck is that it takes to much time. First the No.1 has to come up to the flight deck, get briefed by the captain. Then he or she has to go back, round up the remaining cabin crew and brief them.

By the use of a code word everybody knows what to do and no time is wasted. The No.1 still gets briefed but in the meantime the rest of the crew gets on with their allocated duties.

Better to make the pax a little bit more nervous and be on the ground ASAP instead of wasting time and end up in a ball of flames. What do you prefer?

CEJM

[strikemaster82]

CEJM

The No 1 has to come to the flight deck and then having received the information, go back and brief the remainder of the crew. They will be ready for this as they have heard the No1 being called.

In your scenario, the rest of the crew telepathically get on with their allocated duties on hearing a magical code word.

How are they supposed to know the nature of the emergency, the Captains intentions, the time left until landing and any special instructions :ok: until they in turn have been briefed?

Wasting timeWhat's the big hurry to land unless you are actually on fire? Better to make sure all is set up for the approach?

As for Better to make the pax a little bit more nervous and be on the ground ASAP instead of wasting time and end up in a ball of flames. What do you prefer? you are obviously being playful, :} we would all I'm sure reassure the passengers whilst avoiding your ball of flame, as hopefully we haven't rushed everything and forgotten something? What would you prefer?

[Sir George Cayley]

Any news from the hangar how the engine is? Any feathers?

SGC

[CEJM]

Strikemaster82, you have obviously no idea what action are being taken by our cabin crew when they hear the code word. They know what to do and get on with things. Nothing telepathically about it at all.

Yes, they will be briefed by the No.1 but in before that happens they have other duties to perform. No point in keep handing out meals to pax while the No.1 is being briefed as it takes more time to clear it all way.

Our crew is very familiar and trained to know what to do when they hear the code word.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

No feathers Sir George Cayley, it did not ingest anything, my understanding a panel of some sort behind the fan section let go.
This went through the engine, surge or two and turbine well and truly stuffed.
No fire, flames were just the result of the surges.

[iwhak]

I cant't believe the CAA have approved this coedeword nonsense.....have we learnt nothing in aviation! What are the red lights in the cabin for! Why after an EFATO force a busy flight deck make a PA to summon the No.1, open the flight deck door, explain situation to No. 1, let her out, re-secure the door, and all that time you're trying to handle a heavy aircraft at low level on one engine trying to return! Instead you could have flicked a switch, got her immediate attention, she buzzes, you explain, you fly!Sounds like someone had theirs shaken and not stirred when writing SOPs! LOL code cobra!

[TURIN]

My local Co-Op uses code phrases.

"Will Mrs Braithwaite return to checkout please" means there is a shoplifter in the store. Apparently. :}

They don't sell Cobra though. :{

[Mr @ Spotty M]

My understanding is that our No.1s are quite capable of letting themselves in and out of the flight deck, if l am wrong l am sure one of our flight deck will let me know.

[dionysius]

must have been misheard. Cobra is not a codeword used by Monarch

The first letters of complaint from passengers on this flight are starting to appear, and they have all mentioned that "Code Cobra" was announced over the PA system :uhoh::uhoh:

[fmgc]

The crew can't let themselves in.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Thanks fmgc for the correction.:ok:

[gunka]

The first letters of thanks are also starting to appear praising the crews handling of the situation and the calmness of the Capt on PA. These funnily enough do not mention snakes. The complaints are no doubt an attempt at compensation from people after the event reading an innaccurate and borderline hysterical news report. Sadly the way of the world these days.

[BOAC]

I'd sue! It would really freak me out 'cos I would think it wuz like that fillum with snakes on a plane, like. Must be worth a stack of dosh.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Would it have been better in the press if the skipper had said on the PA to the No.1 "S**t what the **** was that"?:E

[Matt995]

A321 G-MARA is now back in service after its engine change, ferried BHX-MAN this afternoon, & now operating the delayed Heraklion flight MON3834/5

[ZeBedie]

A Cobra isn't a big deal at Monarch but if I heard ANACONDA-ANACONDA-ANACONDA on the PA, then I'd be quite worried. Some other reptilian codes which can't be mentioned here for security reasons are also cause for concern when broadcast over the PA. Basically, snakes are aircraft related emergencies,
lizards relate to security issues and anything amphibian is a non-specific low level alert.

[lomapaseo]

snakes are aircraft related emergencies, lizards relate to security issues and anything amphibian is a non-specific low level alert.

Thanks, I'll try to remember that as a passenger, but I'm afraid that I will just pee myself if the captain mentions any animal over the PA :)

[BOAC]

We used to have a Captain who always said 'Adder' when stewardesses were around.

[mini]

Code words? utter rubbish IMHO.

Whats wrong with "CC prepare for landing/emergency landing"

Very straightforward, no chance of someone either side of the cockpit door getting confused regarding codewords to use and the proper response, PAX know what's happening etc etc.

Jeez guys, keep it simple. :ugh:

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Maybe the whole idea is that the passengers don't know that we are preparing for an emergency landing, until either the Capt or the No.1 tells them.
I would guess that as soon as as the pax know, a number of them are going to hit panic mode (l am going to die). Now this will mean that some of the cabin crew will have to deal with the panicking pax and not getting their station or area ready.
This is only how l see it, but as l am not aircrew l may be well off the mark.

[kaikohe76]

In my day we had the `NITS` briefing between the Flight Deck & the cabin Crew, rather than a coded PA message that all including pax can hear, is this no longer the case these days?

With no knowledge at all of this particular incident, I would have to suggest, yet again lots of sensationalist & over the top reporting by the media.

In the latest Monarch On Line news letter, there is a letter to the Company, written by a passenger on a ZB flight from BHX to TFS, which also had to return to the UK due to an en route problem. We can only wish the majority of pax are like this, unfortunately this may not be the case.

Take care folks.

[Magplug]

@teamilk&sugar

It is always a pleasure to meet a fellow professional willing to openly debate aviation matters for their relative merits to achieve a safe and panic-free outcome. Whilst your obvious defence of the current (very mature) Monarch SOP of using codewords is laudable you are clearly blind to the ever changing world in which we live. I sense you are rather unreceptive to any idea that the Monarch codeword SOP may have become outdated.

I have no doubt that the Monarch incident was ably handled by two pilots who have my congratulations. Unfortunately the use of codewords inflamed the incident from an airborne return that was un-newsworthy.... to into a headline event that only serves to frighten even more potential passengers. Furthermore there seems to be a broad degree of support in many postings above for that notion.

- Use of codewords that passengers don't understand creates scared passengers.

- Scared passengers make headlines.

- Our industry needs all the help it can get right now, there are plenty of our colleagues on the dole who can bear witness to that. We simply do not need headlines.


I see from your profile that your age now poses certain licencing difficulties that we do not share. I would venture to suggest that despite your clear depth of experience... that the world of aviation has continued to move on and that we all need to rather more adaptable than in the days of yore.

[groundbum]

I think my deepest darkest fear has materialized, and 411A may have spawned..

magplug "come on Monarach, time to rethink SOPs!"

magplug "old boy..."

magplug "I stopped being a passenger 16,000 hours ago"

magplug "from your profile I think things have moved on a bit"

It's not what they say, it's the high handed hear speaketh godeth way some people talk on the Internet..

8-)

G

[Storminnorm]

I never did like Spotty M anyhow.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

kaikohe76, that was the one with the engine failure, the in house newsletter has made a bit of a pigs ear reporting what went on last week.

[Agnostique75]

Having read all previous contribution with great interest, the emergency « codeword » issue has caught my attention. I am a mere SLF and having spent way too many hours in metal tubes doesn’t make me an aviation expert. My field of expertise is crisis management and communications.

IMHO, as some of you have already pointed out, the use of code words to inform C.C. of technical issues immediately affecting a flight reflects an outdated approach and, in most cases, is likely to be counter productive. It relies on two basic erroneous assumptions:

1. Ignorance is bliss: the SLF probably won’t notice that something is amiss. Now, with “sheets of flames” (according to witness reports) emanating from an engine, shouts of “Cobra” (or any other herpetic equivalent) over the P.A. system and the C.C. brutally interrupting their routine, you’d have to be in a rather deep coma not to realise that something is wrong.

2. Truth is scary: If we tell the SLF what is going on, some will likely panic and complicate our task. Experience tells us that this is plain wrong. Faced with a real or perceived imminent danger, a properly informed /briefed group of people will always behave in a more coherent, rational and compliant manner than a similar group left outside the information loop.

With the codeword approach, you are likely to generate instead distrust and a misperception of the reality of the threat: “If they are not telling us, it must be real bad”. This form of infantilization runs against the expectations of any adult group under pressure/threat. They logically expect to either act according to clear instructions or, in a passive mode, be informed that another group is acting on their behalf. Not communicating amounts to leaving them facing an unknown –and often over-estimated- threat, potentially resulting in the most unpredictable personal behaviour, i.e. panic.

I fully understand that a flight crew under pressure has little time to deal with the niceties of providing SLF with a detailed brief but allow me to share a personal experience: Some years ago, on a flight from LHR to GVA, our DC-10 suffered a decompression at cruising altitude. The announcement was very short: “Decompression, starting emergency descent”. This, despite the “rubber jungle” and the subsequent automatic recording, was sufficient to put everyone on-board in the information loop. There may have been discomfort and fear but there was no panic. Had the Swiss flight crew shouted “Alligator” or “Fuzzy Teddy Bear”, results may have been different.

A few posts earlier, the healthy benefits of a good adrenaline rush was raised by one contributor in favour of the codeword practice. The argument is self-defeating: An adrenaline rush is a defence mechanism that essentially serves one purpose: Survival, at all cost. In the absence of clear information, guidance or training, you are likely to get exactly what you should want to avoid: A group of very alert and defensive people, ready to do anything they see fit to ensure their personal survival. Usually not a very pleasant social gathering.

Two last considerations, before I stop rambling. I am here considering technical issues that do immediately affect a flight; in cases less time-sensitive, a direct brief by the flight crew or through the C.C. would, in my opinion, yield the best results. Finally, the only circumstances which would, from my perspective, warrant the use of a codeword are high jacking or partial crew incapacitation.

Thank you for reading this ridiculously long first contribution, and, as a non-native English speaker, I beg in advance for your indulgence.

[leftseatview]

I agree with Agnostique 75,using plain and simple english should work quite well.
Codes have their use...but are not the best fix for all situations.
With improved automation,A/c like the A321 are much easier to operate.
Not taking away from the great job done by the crew...however Airlines need to take advantage of this (and use the expertise available in new fields of crisis management and communications)rather than use the earlier SOP template borrowed from the milatary.

[sharpclassic]

The code word is only part of the response process to an inflight problem.

Once the problem has been dealt with, diagnosed and a plan of action devised by the flight crew, they then issue the 'code word' to the cabin crew to brief them on the situation. After this, an announcement is then made to the passengers to inform them of what has happened and what the plan is.

With this sequence, the cabin crew will then hopefully be able to answer as many questions from the passengers having been briefed by the flight crew as opposed to answering with 'I know as much as you'

The flight crew's priority is to fly the aircraft, everything else, including keeping the passengers informed comes second. There's no prizes for making a wonderfully informative PA to the passengers as soon as the problem has occurred and then fly the aircraft into a hill.

In practice, the PA to the passengers is made pretty much as soon as the cabin crew have been briefed by the flight crew so there would only really be a few minutes tops between the issue of the code word and an explanation of the situation to the passengers.

Mountains and molehills seem to spring to mind here.

[Agnostique75]

@sharpclassic

Quote
« The code word is only part of the response process to an inflight problem.

Once the problem has been dealt with, diagnosed and a plan of action devised by the flight crew, they then issue the 'code word' to the cabin crew to brief them on the situation. After this, an announcement is then made to the passengers to inform them of what has happened and what the plan is.

With this sequence, the cabin crew will then hopefully be able to answer as many questions from the passengers having been briefed by the flight crew as opposed to answering with 'I know as much as you' ”
Unquote


I don’t follow your logic: Codewords, in my perception, are devised to trigger an immediate and pre-planned response from the C.C., precisely to avoid a time-consuming briefing.

In the sequence you refer to, a problem will have been “dealt with” –presumably after and not before having been “diagnosed”- and the codeword seems to have as sole purpose to “brief the cabin crew” in order to enable them to better inform the passengers…. I fail to see the usefulness of a codeword to achieve this….

I equally fail to fully understand the next step of your reasoning,

Quote
“In practice, the PA to the passengers is made pretty much as soon as the cabin crew have been briefed by the flight crew so there would only really be a few minutes tops between the issue of the code word and an explanation of the situation to the passengers.”
Unquote

To be a bit blunt, if the flight crew has the time / opportunity to fully brief their cabin crew as to nature of an emergency, why bother with a public and strange “codeword” that will raise the level of anxiety ? The truth is that crisis management is mostly characterised by a lack of time. In “practice” as you said, you will need to communicate, to the best of your ability and almost instantly on situation that you are yourself in the process of analysing.

As you quite rightly put it –especially from my SLF point of view- “flying the plane” is the priority, drilled into you by many hours of training and practice…. If you have some time to spare in between dealing with the technical issues you are confronted with, why bother to issue a codeword, that would trigger in turn a brief of the cabin crew ?

Why not directly inform, in plain language, the C.C. and the SLF of the issue at hand ?

To be honest, I feel that no flight crew should ever have to be in a position to devise their own “ad-hoc “ crisis-management and communication plan. I understand that your respective SOPs are supposed to achieve just that… In this particular case, it was clearly a failure and those responsible for suggesting this approach should probably be held accountable, rather than the crew that did a flawless job.

Back to the point raised by “magplug”: Time to revise the SOP ?

For the time being, I will spare you the sociological explanation for the “codeword” approach, which dates back to the early 80’s and was common spread across all industrial branches…

Best regards,

A.

[kaikohe76]

Mr @ Spotty M,

I did think this could have possibly been the same flight, thanks for confirming this. For me anyway, I would still go for the `NITS` briefing between F/D & CC, but obviously well out of the loop these days & procedures, SOPAs etc, do change as time moves on.
Thanks again & regards to all.

[fmgc]

There is still a NITS briefing!

The code is used to bring the No 1 to FD for the NITS, with his/her NITS briefing notepad and a pen.

On hearing the code the rest of the CC have specific actions to perform.

The code is a trigger for other actions, it is specific and can not be misinterpreted by any of the crew, in the same way that a plain english phrase could be.

It works, and works well.

[pilot999]

I personally use the code word 'oh ****' then every one understands

[charter man]

On a slightly lighter note, I recall a Monarch Britannia skipper using the codewords "roost birdies" for cabin crew (in canary yellow and all female) seats for landing....don't suppose you would get away with it now though!

[Ancient Mariner]

I was a passenger on a SK, B767 flight Beijing-Copenhagen sometime in the nineties when one of the engines shed a number of blades while climbing north of Beijing. The vibrations were incredible and I actually believed that some external panels were loose and flapping in the wind as I simply could not believe that a imbalanced turbine would be able to vibrate the whole aircraft to such an extend.
No information was given from the flight deck, but the vibrations and the speed of the CC as they shuttled up and down the ails were a clear indication of something being not entirely right. After what seemed like an eternity, probably a few minutes, the offending engine was brought down to idle and the vibrations subsided somewhat, indicating to me at least that the problem was engine related. Quite a bit later the Captain came on the PA to inform us that they had a bit of stalling, that he had reduced power on the concerned engine, that it was nothing to worry about and that we could, if he would continue to Copenhagen, but that he had decided to return to Beijing. Yeah, right.
Morale? When you finally decide to provide information, don't lie.
Per

[lomapaseo]

Morale? When you finally decide to provide information, don't lie

I don't see the relationship to your incident above.:confused:

But at any rate, calming words to the passengers after an event that upsets them is better than none :ok:

[Ancient Mariner]

A constant vibration from a lack of blades could hardly be considered stalling, no?
Per

[lomapaseo]

A constant vibration from a lack of blades could hardly be considered stalling, no?
Per


Agree, but it was't clear to me how constant so I read past your comment.

[KBPsen]

Morale? When you finally decide to provide information, don't lie.

On a number of occasions I have been accused by passengers of lying after briefing them of the situation. Curiously the accusation has always been that I had tried to hide or downplay 'the danger we were in'. It seems some people can't accept that their perception of the situation differs somewhat from what actually occurred.

Moral? Exaggerate. People seem to prefer to have been 'inches from death'.

[Ancient Mariner]

KPBsen,
I don't know about "people". Your passengers are not a homogenous group, they consist of individuals, some ignorant, some not so ignorant and some bloody brilliant. An aircraft is put together by a lot of parts that are not unique to aeroplanes and there is a good possibility that some of your passengers has more than a fleeting relation with some of them. Being told white lies does not impress. As for "prefer to have been 'inches from death' ", not me, I'm immune.
Per

[leftseatview]

Agnostique 75
could you please share with us the sociological explanation to the "codeword"
approach.
i am very interested in the SOP vs Free thinking debate,and it could sure do with this kind of background education

[bedsted]

Quote:
On a slightly lighter note, I recall a Monarch Britannia skipper using the codewords "roost birdies" for cabin crew (in canary yellow and all female) seats for landing....don't suppose you would get away with it now though!


The correct phrase is: Birds to perches, but don’t expect any favours from the cc after saying it.

[fmgc]

Dogs to their baskets??

[Bruce Wayne]

Dogs to their baskets??


snort !


perhaps in the event of an emergency situation a codeword could be replaced by a 'code-phrase' to alert crew and not upset pax...

maybe the announcement "anyone know how to fly a plane?"

:hmm:

anyone ?

[strikemaster82]

@CEJM - Strikemaster82, you have obviously no idea what action are being taken by our cabin crew when they hear the code word.

I expect it's similar to the actions taken by our cabin crew. But at least our pax aren't busy looking round for escaped snakes...

Why are some of you Monarch boys so touchy? :confused:

[SLFguy]

"Why are some of you Monarch boys so touchy?"

I lol'ed

[maxred]

I assume 'pigs to troughs' is un pc nowadays??:hmm:

[bedsted]

Quote
'Why are some of you Monarch boys so touchy?'

Strikemaster, thats twice you have said that, an early sign of Alzheimer's perhaps?

[PA-28-180]

Maxred...."I assume 'pigs to troughs' is un pc nowadays??".....

Isn't EVERYthing??!! :sad: :(

[DingerX]

Code words and it being "always better" to tell the truth:

Look at Pprune: members of the group develop fantastic explanations based on partial information from ongoing investigations; these explanations often far exceed what actually happened, and exceed in the direction of the posters' firmly held beliefs about The Problems In Aviation.
So I must question whether partially informing passengers will calm them down. If they think they're going die, their bias will be to interpret every bit of information or non-information as "OMG we're all gonna die!"

Code words work well in all fields, and I'm sure someone has started screaming upon hearing "cross-check and report"

There's something inherently frightening about being crammed into an aluminum tube and shot through the air with no control (or forward vision). And if something interesting occurs, there's very little chance of briefing the passengers with details as they transpire. Yet the British tabloids will always find passengers who were upset they were kept in the dark, fearful of their lives, instead of being given the 'Captain's-Eye View' (which, of course, not even the captain had).

In fact, cultural factors also come into play. I've seen Mediterranean passengers greet a fiery compressor stall on go-around with derisive applause. I've also seen a British student complain that the train known as the 'Glacier Express' was "too cold and too slow."

[IcePack]

I hear via the aviation grape vine, that the AutoPilot would not engage. Proberbly for some "Airbus" reason. So the Cobra Crew did it the old fashioned way & flew the thing. Just like real pilots. Back to thread. "what's wrong with cobras"

[d71146]

I heard this one from the flight deck once back in the 70s whilst traveling on an overseas airline
'Cabin crew the ground is coming up' thought it rather:} funny at the time.

[bedsted]

I heard this one from the flight deck once back in the 70s whilst traveling on an overseas airline
'Cabin crew the ground is coming up' thought it rather funny at the time.

No, normal for the ground to come up and meet you sooner or later, unless you have a perpetual fuel supply of course.:)

[ClaraCluck49]

As a passenger on ZB932 August 3, there are a few observations I would like to make after having had a week to process what happened.

Firstly, and before anything else, I need to express my appreciation of the skill and professionalism of the Pilots and the way the incident was handled. There seem to have been a number of whinges about lack of information from the flight deck, and it was indeed worrying to be aware that something was quite seriously wrong, but not to know what was going on, but in the first instance the crew's priority has to be to secure the situation. The PR has to be a secondary consideration until that is done.

As far as the "sensationalism in the press" is concerned, I think that is what we have all come to expect of the British media - it's what sells papers.

I was sitting on the opposite side to the engine that failed, slightly behind the wing and was fully aware of what was happening. The actual takeoff seemed a little sluggish (not the usual rush and roar down the runway) and it did appear that we were not climbing initially as steeply as I would have expected. Shortly after takeoff (we were still low enough to see people out in their back gardens as we flew over the houses) there was a loud noise from the left-hand side of the plane, quite different from anything I have experienced before, followed a moment or two later by a loud bang. At this point my daughter said "what was that, it looked like flames" and the girl who was sat across the aisle by the window on the left hand side went drip white and looked as though she might pass out. There was a final loud noise, the cabin lights failed and the plane lurched acutely and suddenly to the left. It was clear at that point, from the sudden dimunition of noise, that the engine had gone down.

What followed probably only lasted a matter of moments, while the pilot levelled the plane, but seemed to go on for ever. We then, at a very reduced rate climbed for a few minutes more until we reached a height at which the pilot presumably felt he had stabilised the position and came on the intercom to say I'm sorry folks, I daresay you've been wondering what's been going on, but it's been a bit busy up here on the flight deck - we've lost the left hand engine and are going to have to return to Birmingham.

Which, after a bit of wobbling about which drew a few collective gasps from the passengers, we duly did. The landing back at Birmingham was probably the smoothest landing I have experienced in all my years of flying (and before any Smart Alec wants to sneer at the opinion of a mere PAX - I first flew out of Heathrow on a Comet 4 in 1952, when the terminal buildings were still Nissan Huts, and have been travelling by plane regularly ever since).

There certainly was no instruction to the passengers, or anyone else, to brace for landing - that was absolute nonsense by the press. However, the Captain did say just after the engine failed, and long before he spoke to the passengers, Cabin Crew Code.... I did not catch the actual code, it was a series of numbers and would have meant nothing to me, but it was obvious from their demeanour that the Cabin Crew understood matters to be serious. I have absolutely no quarrel with him using such terminology to the crew - it is by far the most efficient way to instigate a procedure, and suggestions that this was done in order to keep passengers in the dark are quite as silly as any of the rubbish printed in the press last week.

In all, I would say that it was a bad situation, handled well, and whilst it is easy to say that pilots (and cabin crew) are trained to deal with situations like that, it is quite another matter to have to deal with it for real. My thanks to all those concerned.

It is just a shame, having got back to ground and with the passengers feeling hugely grateful both to Monarch and the crew that we were all still in one piece, that everything went , as my daughter put it "to hell in a handbasket". Our treatment once back at the Airport was nothing short of shameful and may well be the reason why the majority of those passengers never travel with Monarch again. But that is another story. . .

[BOAC]

Clara - thank you for a useful post, which hopefully will put an end to most of the nonsense we have seen about this incident.

[hapzim]

I take it once out of the hands of the Monarch crew, into the world of handling agents who I won't name!

[teamilk&sugar]

Clara

Thank you for the post. Very interesting read and informative.

I'm sure some of the arm chair pilots will still be able to pick it apart and find fault with the Monarch crew however.

Ho humm!