PDA

View Full Version : Lufthansa 747 diversion due smoke in cabin


ManaAdaSystem
18th Mar 2013, 05:21
Just got some limited info on a transatlantic Mexico-Frankfurt LH 747 diversion due smoke in the cabin. Landed at the Azores. Reports of crying stewardesses and some very poor communication to the passengers.

deptrai
18th Mar 2013, 05:54
yep I saw a headline in the guardian "terror at 30'000 feet" :ugh:

rcsa
18th Mar 2013, 21:01
.. it's a good article, by a smart reporter (I know him personally, as it happens), about what was clearly a sequence of small problems and one worse problem, extraordinarily badly handled by LH...

Smoke in the cabin, crew in tears: how my flight turned into terror at 30,000ft | World news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/17/lufthansa-air-safety-accident?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

We were going to have "a perfectly normal landing", assured the pilot of Lufthansa flight 499 from Mexico City to Frankfurt, as he prepared his wary passengers for an emergency landing in the Azores. It was anything but.

"We have smoke in the cabin," he said. "We cannot find out the reason. We will be landing in Lajes." We were seven hours into our 11-hour voyage across the Atlantic.

The crew went not into landing but panic mode: one, in tears, wrenched down the curtains between sections of the cabin, lest they impede an evacuation. Video screens went blank, lights out, air-conditioning off. The voice of the purser was shaking and breaking as she spluttered instructions: "Fasten your seat belts, ensure that your seats are …"

Couples gripped each other's hands across the aisles, mothers held children. Hardened flyers grasped armrests. An elderly Mexican woman crossed herself repeatedly. A few wept, but some crew members wept harder. "Do they know something we don't?" I asked the estimably sanguine German across the aisle from me.

He had worked as an electronics engineer for Boeing, which had made this 747, and explained that the pilot would descend steeply to reduce the time during which – if there was a fire – flame could spread as air temperature increased. "If there's something serious, it becomes more serious when you're towards the ground," he advised, expertly. I wasn't sure I wanted to know. Down we went, the plane shaking, overhead baggage-lockers swaying – mumbling expletives and devotions, whether we believed them or not, every flyer's nightmare.

But this had not come out of the blue – for the night with Lufthansa had already been a long one.

We boarded on time: 20.25 for a 21.20 takeoff. The announcement came as we settled: a fault with the brakes, we'd have to wait two hours on the ground while it was repaired – extending time on board to a minimum 14 hours.

There was an irony for me: I visit Mexico for work these days, and opted for a flight via Frankfurt rather than fly direct with British Airways because my last trip with BA had been delayed by three ghastly hours on the tarmac in London while they fixed a tyre.

Indeed, close observers of air travel note how long delays for aircraft repair have become common, warning that as airlines cut costs they enter what John Stewart of AirportWatch calls "a grey area between savings and safety".

He said: "There is increasing regularity in these stories; airlines will say this is because there are more planes in the air, and there may be some truth in that. But they are under such pressure from fuel costs, not putting passengers up for the night and getting planes where they are supposed to be, they'll do anything not to incur extra costs.

"It gives passengers no comfort that they appear to put cost-cutting in favour of safety."

The cabin of LH499, going nowhere, grew intolerably hot. The crew opened the emergency exits, but the rear left door was opened "in error", admitted the captain; an emergency slide had been forced, now this, too, would need repair. I went to the rear cabin to take some air through the broken door. It was a daunting sight: door hanging, innards of wiring all over the place, on which ground engineers worked by torchlight from a stairway. "Are we flying this thing?" I asked a flight attendant. "I don't know," she answered.

Midnight passed, the door eventually fixed, but Lufthansa demanded 50 passengers seated nearest the door leave the aircraft, shuffling off. "Please note that the last door on the left side cannot be used in case of emergency," advised the purser. Tape was fixed across the aisles to seal off the rear.

The purser also noted: "It is still very warm in some parts of the aircraft," and a Scandinavian passenger, an executive for a heating and cooling company, worried about switching off the air-conditioning system.

At 01.50 Mexican time, after five-and-a-half hours on board, we began our long flight, us claustrophobics calculating an upcoming total of nearly 18 hours on board. Only that did not happen.

All flights had been cancelled at Lajes airport in the Azores, due to high winds, but down we went. The smell of smoke reached mid-cabin; this was raw and real fear. "PLEASE have fixed the ******* brake," someone shouted. We hit the ground, expertly – swayed, swerved and halted.

We sat there, told "to keep your seat belts fastened. The fire brigade is waiting to check that we don't have any more smoke". The former Boeing engineer was aghast: "So they're checking for fire WHILE we sit on the plane!? First, we'll make sure there's no fire, then you can get off? Isn't this the wrong way round?"

A fire truck from a US air force base pulled up and men in silver space suits boarded. "The fire brigade has come on board to make sure there is no more smoke," said a superfluous announcement of cold comfort. And after a while: "We will be arranging hotels for you here." So out we went, into the humid, high winds of the Azores.

As we gathered in a terminal, waiting for explanation and news about our journey, Lufthansa's staff vanished. I called home to ask whether information could be gleaned by phone from the airline, but like everyone else was told by my partner that following a long wait she had been dismissed brusquely: "There's no information. He'll just have to catch the next flight."

At 6pm Azores time, 11pm next night in Mexico, we arrived at a hotel in the windswept, sea-swept (on any other occasion, lovely) mid-Atlantic port of Angra do Heroismo. Still no sign of Lufthansa, apart from a printout on the reception desk about a bus at 9.30am.

Next morning, the crew suddenly re-appeared at the doorways of a replacement plane from Germany, parked in front of the kaput flight 499.

The captain got straight to the business of departure, adding: "We apologise for what happened yesterday." But while our bags were transferred from 499, a revolt in business class – I later learned – demanded an account of "what happened yesterday".

It came, though without reference to problems and delays on the ground. "There are some irritations," said the captain, "about the technical standard during the flight from Mexico. We did not take off in Mexico with a technical status in doubt. We took off from Mexico with a technically perfect aircraft."

He continued: "Later in the flight we had a situation. We had smoke in the cockpit, smoke in the front aisles. As a precautionary measure, we landed here on the Azores." In the Spanish version, yesterday's "emergency" wording had changed to "a precautionary, not an emergency, landing". No information about what had caused the "smoke".

We arrived in Frankfurt, 27 hours late. "Thank you for choosing Lufthansa," said the captain. "I hope we'll see you on another Lufthansa flight some time, and that you have enjoyed your flight with us."

On Monday came a callback from Lufthansa, to partially explain. Spokesman Klaus Gorny said the original problem on the ground had been a hydraulic leak, not in the braking system but landing gears, which "needed repair". It had been discovered during the captain's final "walkabout".

Moreover, "an emergency [door] slide had been de-activated, because the door had been opened by accident … It was an error." The opening of the door was "for the delivery of additional food and beverages", and the 50 people removed from the aircraft "because we need to be sure that we have the right ratio of passengers to emergency doors".

Are you sure there's nothing about air-conditioning? I asked Gorny, wondering about what the heating engineer had said. Gorny consulted his briefing document: "Oh yes, when they started the repair to the aircraft, they shut down the air-conditioning. The emergency slide was opened and activated, for both reasons [heat and food]."

By Wednesday, the aircraft – D-ABVH – was again flying Mexico-Frankfurt, and two further days later Lufthansa answered detailed questions. But on the cause of smoke, said Gorny: "Investigations are still in progress and we are therefore unable to provide further details." However, "the status of the aircraft was technically flawless until the first fault appeared.

"There was no fire detected during the entire flight or on the ground after landing … Immediately after landing and with the help of infrared cameras, the fire brigade detected from the outside that there was no open fire on board… There was no reason to evacuate the aircraft and there was no danger to life on board at any time."

"Lufthansa should not have flown that plane," says Stewart of AirportWatch. "Clearly, so much had gone wrong with it before takeoff … It's like your child bumping their head badly at the seaside, and you drive home to see your usual doctor, when you should go to the local hospital."

Once we had returned home, traumatised, Lufthansa sent out an email to all passengers, which read: "We are delighted that you chose to fly with Lufthansa on your last trip. Day after day we do our utmost to meet your needs with our services … We would be very grateful if you would take just a few minutes' time to rate your last trip with LH499."

Old Grouch
18th Mar 2013, 22:10
extraordinarily badly handled by LH...

rcsa, would you clarify what exactly you are referring to here?


"Lufthansa should not have flown that plane," says Stewart of
AirportWatch

I wonder, does Mr Stewart have the impartiality to make such a comment?

mixture
18th Mar 2013, 22:16
.. it's a good article, by a smart reporter (I know him personally, as it happens)

If he's that smart, why not lead by example and not spout out the usual "terror at 30,000ft", "panic mode","hardened flyers grasped armrests", "We hit the ground, expertly – swayed, swerved and halted.". Almost straight out of the Lazy Journalist's Plane Story Generator tool you can find on the internet.

Whenever I see an aviation article in the newspaper, I skip it.... whenever they cover aviation on TV, I change the channel.....

The only good aviation journalists are those who work for the 100% aviation specific publications (Flight International and the like)....other than them, the column writers, "special correspondents" and the rest of the journos are out there only to write stories that get the short-term reader/viewer figures up.

Lonewolf_50
18th Mar 2013, 22:30
I wonder, does Mr Stewart have the impartiality to make such a comment?
I'll bet the under on that.

Article reads like the point of view of a very annoyed traveler, whose flight was delayed 5+ hours, whose plane had to divert for some sort of malfunction (maybe the upset cabin crew had family waiting for them, had an anniversary to celebrate, etc?) and who wasn't impressed by the charm of Germany's flagship airline and its customer relations department.

My guess from the flight deck; it was a frustrating flight (see the Mx delays and pax having to be off=loaded), then having smoke and fumes in the cockpit/cabin (over the big Pond) may have been doubly frustrating for them but they ... DID THE RIGHT THING ... and put the bird on the ground to ensure that their aircraft and their passengers were OK.

I can imagine the Captain's patience was tried a bit by the "revolt in the business class" of people demanding that he debrief them. I think they don't realize that he'd doubtless had ample comms with LH home base and had to debrief them, eh?

A crap event for everyone, except that all souls arrived, eventually, from Mexico City to Frankfurt.

Machaca
18th Mar 2013, 22:50
"It gives passengers no comfort that they appear to put cost-cutting in favour of safety."


So say the SLF that clamour for the cheapest fare...:ugh:

Huck
18th Mar 2013, 22:59
No reason not to get an AC cart while waiting, fully loaded with pax, for repairs.

None.

FlightlessParrot
18th Mar 2013, 23:26
Evidently a very unlucky flight. And I'm not surprised some people got rather nervous--is a reporter to censor that? But the chief point is that a difficult situation was handled extremely badly by Lufthansa cabin crew and ground agents, and the only hint of criticism of the flight crew is on the decision not to evacuate, on which neither the reporter nor I have the expertise to pass judgment; but a bit of frank disclosure might have helped there. This is nothing like "Shock horror OMG!!!1! we're going to die" reporting, just punched up a little bit.

It seems like LH passenger handling is still not what you'd expect.

Speed of Sound
19th Mar 2013, 06:10
.. it's a good article, by a smart reporter (I know him personally, as it happens),

Funnily enough I know the journalist too! :cool:

He is indeed a 'smart reporter' and wrote some of the most important reports from the Balkan conflicts in the early 1990s.

However he started on World in Action which was the TV equivalent of the Daily Mail and the piece does have a tabloid feel about it including some pretty pointless quotes.

It does however, have a good 'human interest; feel about it too.

SoS

RevMan2
19th Mar 2013, 07:41
Lufthansa's on-board communications can be quite dire.
Flight to BKK cancelled at 02:00 after various attempts to repair a technical fault failed. Off we shuffle to the Sheraton, back we shuffle next afternoon to a new aircraft and a new crew who appeared blissfully unaware that this was anything but a normal flight. I was traveling with someone who works for the company at a senior level and he mentioned to a flight attendant that it might perhaps be an idea to acknowledge the fact that they were flying 300+ pax who had all been inconvenienced to some degree or other.
Blank look, so he asked to speak to the purser who said - quote - "We didn't get a briefing from the previous crew so we don't know what happened" to which friend said "Look at your passenger list, you can see that you have staff on board, you can see MY status, you MUST be aware from that that I could brief you (which he proceeded to do), now make an announcement. I'll write it for you if you like...."

Dream Buster
19th Mar 2013, 08:26
"We have smoke in the cabin," he said. "We cannot find out the reason."

A repetetive, common feature of any smoke related incident is that the CAUSE of smoke can not be found.

Incident: Lufthansa A321 near Prague on Mar 14th 2013, odour in cabin (http://avherald.com/h?article=45f399a9&opt=1)

However the dangers of contaminated air from faulty bleed air systems is well understood from the 1950's; an accepted basic design flaw.

Surely it is long overdue to replace pilots noses with toxic air detectors - such that early action can be taken and prevent many others from being guinea pigs in the never ending debate as to 'Whether toxic oil fumes can cause serious ill health in a confined space?'

Who wouldn't want them installed?

Kerosene Kraut
19th Mar 2013, 08:29
Can't see anything wrong with a precautionary landing with a smoke indication like this. Even if it is uncomfortable for the passengers.

ManaAdaSystem
19th Mar 2013, 09:17
It boils down to communication and information. And how the crew manage to keep their cool when something happens.
If only 50% of the article is correct, they handled this situation very poorly.
They would never have landed in the Azores unless they though the situation was really serious.

Bernoulli
19th Mar 2013, 09:32
Offloading 50 pax: required by the regulations and Lufthansa wouldn't have had any discretion in the matter. The Cabin Crew members who operated that door bear the responsibility for that one.

Lufthansa personnel disappeared at Lajes: Well I'm guessing that, like just about every other airline crossing the Atlantic, Lufthansa doesn't have any people on the ground in the Azores. Having just landed the crew were most likely told by their Ops to get to a hotel ASAP for rest so that they could be available for duty after min rest. It would have been good PR if they had been able to hang around with the pax and wave the last one off on the bus but that would have delayed the return back to Frankfurt the following day.

Sounds like keeping the people on board was the correct thing to do. Clear evidence of fire is a no brainer, evacuate. Feel that the cause of smoke might be air conditioning? Well, statistics show that many people are injured during an evacuation down the slides (upper deck on a Jumbo?) and it would be a shame to break people's bones for the sake of a worn out oil seal. A judgement call that the Captain has to make at the time. Sounds to me like he got it right.

On the issue of Lufthansa communications, I was on a LH A320 trying to get out of Frankfurt at the end of a day which had seen snow and then freezing rain. Extremely difficult conditions for the Airport operator and the airlines. For several hours the airfield was closed. The Captain of this particular flight did a superb job of communicating with the passengers. Regular PA's and a wander up and down the forward cabin. We all knew what was going on in the wider world and our place in it. Mind you, his best efforts were snookered in the end when the local authorities refused an extension to the airport opening hours and a couple of thousand pax all began disembarking at once.

Old Grouch
19th Mar 2013, 11:12
My guess from the flight deck; it was a frustrating flight (see the Mx delays and pax having to be off=loaded), then having smoke and fumes in the cockpit/cabin (over the big Pond) may have been doubly frustrating for them but they ... DID THE RIGHT THING ... and put the bird on the ground to ensure that their aircraft and their passengers were OK.

A crap event for everyone, except that all souls arrived, eventually, from Mexico City to Frankfurt.

Exactly. It's clear that the entire situation was unfortunate; it's entirely understandable that the incurred delay may be frustrating, inconvenient and annoying and that a diversion may well be distressing, however, it seems that the situation was dealt with safely.

Sounds like keeping the people on board was the correct thing to do. Clear evidence of fire is a no brainer, evacuate. Feel that the cause of smoke might be air conditioning? Well, statistics show that many people are injured during an evacuation down the slides (upper deck on a Jumbo?) and it would be a shame to break people's bones for the sake of a worn out oil seal. A judgement call that the Captain has to make at the time. Sounds to me like he got it right.
Precisely right.


Lufthansa personnel disappeared at Lajes: Well I'm guessing that, like just about every other airline crossing the Atlantic, Lufthansa doesn't have any people on the ground in the Azores.

Moreover, passenger handling arrangements in case of diversions (or any non-standard situation, particularly for a 747's number of pax) take TIME and a lot of COMMUNICATION to be made. Arrangements are not magically and instantly made by themselves, and there may not have been any information to immediately communicate to the passengers. This would particularly be the case, given the nature of the airfield.

In short; an unfortunate sequence of events (which make a good newspaper story), in which the safety and overall interests of passengers were appropriately addressed, given the circumstances.

Piltdown Man
19th Mar 2013, 11:47
I wonder, does Mr Stewart have the impartiality to make such a comment?

Mr Stewart doesn't have the knowledge to make such a comment. Unless of course, he was one of the engineers working on the aircraft and knows for sure that the fault was not fixed and the aircraft wasn't released for service. But I suspect that wasn't the case so he was speaking out of his R's.

Another idiotic comment to this numpty was:

as airlines cut costs they enter what John Stewart of AirportWatch calls "a grey area between savings and safety".

I don't know of any large Western airline (and I'll include Ryanair) that allows aircraft to depart with an un-allowable, non-deferable defects. He is suggesting that someone (a controlling mind) is making an economic decision as to whether to repair or dispatch. Ignorant does not describe this t*rd. Airlines try their damnedest to get their passengers to their destination safely and on time. Lufthansa, like most other legacy carriers will not place undue pressure on crews to fly with unairworthy aircraft. Furthermore, any pressure to do so would get the LBA involved as quick as a flash.

And just because the guy says he is an avionics engineer, it does mean to say he that he doesn't drink the same thing as that knob Stewart.

...flame could spread as air temperature increased

What temperature? Rubbish! Remember, none saw flames, just smoke. But what happens as you descend is that the air pressure increases, as will the O2 concentration. It's the oxygen that allows the fire to breathe.

Now for the journalist:

Down we went, the plane shaking, overhead baggage-lockers swaying...

Erm... yes. Emergency descents in Boeings shake the airframe like this because of the location of the airbrakes (ie. on the wings).

Let's have a pop at the Boeing engineer now:

The former Boeing engineer was aghast: "So they're checking for fire WHILE we sit on the plane!? First, we'll make sure there's no fire, then you can get off? Isn't this the wrong way round?"

No it's not. As the smoke had stopped, someone decided to make sure that there's nothing smouldering whilst passengers disembark. Disembarkation takes in the order of 20 minutes, so to avoid an unnecessary evacuation, you check the aircraft first. Maybe this person only lives next door to a Boeing engineer?

And another go at Stewart:

"Lufthansa should not have flown that plane," says Stewart of AirportWatch. "Clearly, so much had gone wrong with it before takeoff … It's like your child bumping their head badly at the seaside, and you drive home to see your usual doctor, when you should go to the local hospital."

Erm... no again. Stewart is an ignorant bystander with no (or just a dangerous) knowledge of aviation. Licensed engineers decide what is appropriate in conjunction with the airline's maintenance control department. Remember, aircraft running late, missed connections, crews running out of hours cost a fortune (both in compensation and cash) and airlines will do all they can to avoid cost like these. Losing potential future passengers is even more expensive. And if you take the doctor analogy further, the surgeons were already on site looking at the patient. Stewart clearly needs drowning in a bucket of water.

I've insulted most of the people in the story, so let's have a go at the man in the street - the people who pay my wages. Firstly, aircraft fly because man has learned about the natural world, physics, metallurgy, properties of plastics, etc. It's science that puts aircraft in the air. But flying in them are Mk. I cavemen. Unreformed and in many cases, uneducated. Relying on information about the world of technology from red-tops, facebook and other such peddlers of sh!te. Proper understanding of what happens in the real world would help as would an acceptance that we have but three caveman like ways of dealing with threats: Fight, flight or freeze. The world has become so safe that the "freezers" are becoming more numerous. Gripping armrests, screaming, crying etc. won't help you when you are really threatened.

Lastly, I reckon, Lufthansa emailed their passengers in an attempt to try and improve their handling of similar events in the future. Unfortunately, muppets with MBAs write the dross that accompanies the survey questions.

I'll remember not to read any of Ed Vulliamy's future articles if he does so little research.

PM

Capn Bloggs
19th Mar 2013, 11:54
Go Piltdown Man, the fighting caveman! :D :ok:

Kerosene Kraut
19th Mar 2013, 12:06
So they pissed a journalist. Big news.

EDMJ
19th Mar 2013, 12:29
The crew went not into landing but panic mode: one, in tears, wrenched down the curtains between sections of the cabin,.... The voice of the purser was shaking and breaking as she spluttered instructions:...

Assuming this is true, I find this more worrying and relevant than any alleged gross injustice and inconvenience suffered by passengers and posters here alike.

KiloB
19th Mar 2013, 15:07
Is it possible that the Cabin Crew (who are standing up and moving about) were much more affected by the smoke than the Pax? The tears and the voice changes could both come from that; then you add a bit of 'artistic licence' to the telling and voila!

Speed of Sound
19th Mar 2013, 15:43
I'll remember not to read any of Ed Vulliamy's future articles if he does so little research.

Are you sure? :cool:

Granada Television's Foreign Correspondent of the Year Award for 1992.

James Cameron Award in 1994.

Foreign Reporter of the Year in 1993 and 1997.

As I said earlier, this guy is a serious political reporter who has won many awards and has written four acclaimed books on Bosnia and corruption in the UK political situation. He has also spoken out against powerful figures who tried to play down the murders at Srebrenica for which he took a hell of a lot of flak before eventually being proved right.

He is an outstanding journalist, writer and an outspoken humanitarian.

The only reason he has written this article is because he was actually on the flight and I guess he treated it as a light-hearted 'tabloid' piece compared to his usual fare, which is unpicking complex political situations. ;)

Not making excuses, just putting the piece in perspective.

oliver2002
19th Mar 2013, 15:56
We have two pax from the flight over at Flyertalk who reported a quite different story: LH499 MEX-FRA 07-Mar-2013 diverted to TER - FlyerTalk Forums (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/miles-more-lufthansa-austrian-swiss-other-partners/1446156-lh499-mex-fra-07-mar-2013-diverted-ter.html)

They were in business, no talk of a 'revolt'. The article is a farce and self contradicting a few times.

Basil
19th Mar 2013, 21:37
Someone mentioned putting ground air conditioning on. It is uncomfortable in warm weather to be stuck in an aircraft with no a/c and I guess, if it had been daytime the pax would have been disembarked.

I'm wondering if the reason for no a/c was that, with engineers in the u/c bay, they didn't want to pressurise the a/c and/or bleed air ducts.

As I've said many times before: "There's always a reason." It's just that finding it is sometimes difficult :)

Intruder
19th Mar 2013, 21:44
An air conditioning cart would do neither...

Dream Buster
20th Mar 2013, 17:21
Toxic Air Detector vs Human Nose.

Any comments on which might be expected to be used in passenger airliners - in 2013?


http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/AIRSENSE_flyer_AT_engl_09-05-2011.pdf

Or from mid WW2:

An extract from 'Fly for your life' a true story of Battle of Britain fighter ace Wing commander Robert Stanford Tuck D.S.O D.F.C and two bars by Larry Forrester. Tuck was renowned for his good luck. Tuck’s luck.

They were having a little teething trouble with the Hawker Typhoons; Carbon monoxide fumes were coming back from the stub exhausts into the cockpit, sometimes in sufficient quantities to nauseate the pilots. The boffins came and tinkered with the exhausts and said they thought they had reduced the amount of fumes. To make sure, they fitted in the cockpit of one machine a little box which could measure the exact percentage of carbon monoxide in the air inside the cabin. They asked for a number of test flights: Prosser Hanks did most, Tuck did a few. There seemed to be a definite improvement.

One day towards the end of the test programme, he was walking out to the test Typhoon with his parachute over his shoulder when an airman stuck his head out of the window and called “Telephone, Sir!” At that moment the ground crew finished their starting drill and the Typhoon’s huge Napier Sabre engine exploded into life: if she wasn’t taken off quickly she would overheat. He signalled that he couldn’t take the call and continued out to the aircraft, but the airman came running after him and bawled through cupped hands: “It’s the Station Commander, Sir. Say’s its very important!”
He groaned, dumped his chute and started back. At the door of the dispersal hut stood one of his best pilots, a young Argentinian named Dack. This boy had flown one or two of the tests. “Dacky, you take her. You know the drill.” The kid nodded, grabbed his gear and hurried out as Tuck lifted the phone.
Group Captain Mac Donald wanted to discuss arrangements for night flying during the coming week. It was important, but it could have waited an hour or so. They talked for perhaps ten minutes, then Tuck went out and sat in one of the cane chairs, smoking and looking out over the fields.
Out of the hazy blue he saw a Typhoon diving. It didn’t pull out. It disappeared behind some trees about a mile on the other side and raised a tremendous cone of flame and smoke.

He rode out with the crash trucks. A big, smoking crater and a field littered with scraps of metal. Twelve feet down in the brown earth: the remains of the big engine. Of the pilot: only little red lumps, half a shoe, scraps of clothing, part of a watch strap.
A check with control proved it could only be Dack. There had been no enemy activity all day, so he hadn’t been shot down. The cause of his death might always be a mystery, because there wasn’t enough left of his machine to give the technical experts a clue.

But the Aviation Medical people solved it. They found a piece of Dack’s liver and analysed the contents: enough carbon monoxide to kill an elephant.
Probably something had gone wrong with the Boffins little box. Instead of trapping the fumes it must have pumped out enough to make the pilot pass out."

Basil
20th Mar 2013, 22:11
Dream Buster, If it wasn't for your well known but, who knows, possibly absolutely justified fixation, that would have been a great little homily.
Not knocking your crusade - I admire whistle blowers - really!. I just don't know!

Intruder, Yes, a while since I flew the 74 and, although not averse to making comment did leave that stuff to the FE. Remind me - could you do it by stuffing hot air from a starter into the manifold?
Without climbing into the loft or, more simply (and probably ineffectually) looking at my old notes in the study I cannot remember.
(Ask me about building, insulating and trying to reduce humidity in a workshop and I'm now more up to date :) )

Dream Buster
20th Mar 2013, 23:05
Thanks Basil,

Just stick to the facts and you can't go far wrong...

Human health is worth fighting for - absolutely - to me anyway.

Pilot Union Boss Blows Whistle - YouTube

Anilv
21st Mar 2013, 05:55
The 3 air-conditioning packs on a 747 are in the middle of the fuselage, just ahead of the body-gears (inner pair). The heat from these is quite significant but more so is the noise.. All the noise you hear from a 747 as you board is from the air-con packs. The APU is too far away at the rear and only bothers the loaders and toilet service jocks!

OSH regs may have required the air-con packs to be off.

No reason for not using an air-con cart or bridge-air though.

TeachMe
21st Mar 2013, 06:23
Quote:
"It gives passengers no comfort that they appear to put cost-cutting in favour of safety."

So say the SLF that clamour for the cheapest fare...

Sorry all, but as SLF I am getting tired of hearing people say all we want is the cheapest fare. Some yes, many no. Many of us care about safety and quality. Personally I rarely ever pay the lowest fare available for a trip and there are many airlines I will not fly. To all people on this site, please stop insulting ALL passengers by saying all we ALL want a cheap flight.

Mark in CA
21st Mar 2013, 13:00
This is all very interesting. Travel of any kind, for many, is stress inducing, and getting on an airplane, where you literally put your life into the hands of many unknown and unseen people, only ratchets up the stress even more. People generally don't behave as well as they might when under stress, and there's no way of telling when someone might snap. And so I would think every flight has the potential to become quite unruly when things don't go according to plan. Delays are bad enough to get many people irritated and grumpy, but when you then add smoke and abrupt flight maneuvers panic isn't far away. Lack of information only makes matters worse, leaving too much to the imagination. Passengers, in general, are not well versed in airline procedures and are seeking reassurance.

In my reading of this article, this was all just a bad day for the airline and the crew and the passengers. I also suspect the article was written while the event was still quite fresh in the reporter's mind and emotions were still quite traumatized. In this kind of state, it's easy to want to vent, and the airline is the biggest target. Logic has nothing to do with it. While perhaps no one at the airline or in the crew did anything wrong, it appears they may have missed opportunities to keep the passengers informed and lower their anxiety.

Dream Buster
21st Mar 2013, 13:42
Passenger exposure to fumes - Right to know?:

Aviation: Air Quality: 28 Jun 2011: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-06-28a.385.1&s)

The known health effects of a fume event flight:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/testimonies/RMontmay.pdf