Thomson TOM6555 flaps problem at Cardiff

[chrissw]

Apologies if there is already a thread for this. I couldn't find one with the search function:

Thomson Airways flight carrying 200 people forced to make emergency landing at Cardiff Airport (http://www.theaviationnews.net/thomson-airways-flight-carrying-200-people-forced-to-make-emergency-landing-at-cardiff-airport/)

No drama, no injuries, looks like another fine job by the flight crew.

[anderow]

Passenger Sarah Rees spoke of her fear as they were told by staff what was happening, Wales Online reports.

She said: “We were coming down to land and getting lower and lower when we suddenly ascended again.

The pilot came on the loudspeaker and explained what was going on. He radioed Cardiff and said we were going to do an emergency landing.

He said,This is not a drill. Prepare for an emergency landing.It was awful.”

Sarah said an air hostess told passengers to remove shoes and glasses and the pilot circled above the city for 20 minutes trying to lose fuel.

“There was a very real chance of dying,” said the 46-year-old, who was flying with husband Tony, 48.

There's nothing like a passenger attempting to give a technical analysis of the situation....

[KBPsen]

There is only a thin door separating the cabin from the cockpit, but the distance is infinite.

[chrissw]

I do think it's a little unfair to have a go at passengers (and here I declare a particular interest, for I am just a passenger) for being worried/upset/frightened. Yes, there is a large gap in knowledge between them and the flight crew, and there is a large gap between myself and most others in terms of the things in which I specialise professionally.

[055166k]

Were passengers told to leave cabin baggage behind? It's been a discussion point recently.

[Piltdown Man]

chrissw - Passengers are fair game on a professional pilot's forum, as are we fair game on a passenger's forum. But the ill-informed, sensationalist "WE ARE GOING TO DIE!" rubbish is spouted by too many on every abnormal approach. But we still don't kill them. The only thing that is true is that the safety margins are less on one these approaches. But saying that were "marginally concerned because a slight reduction in safety margins and slightly dissatisfied that these might not be improved to a normal level due to the mitigation of extra measures" doesn't make the same impact with the Facebook generation. But maybe the people who spout this rubbish have such poor levels of professional competence in their own jobs that if they were faced with a similar problem, people would die?

Please judge us by our own standards, not those of the general public (who I agree pay our wages).

PM

[Basil]

"We take you to our on-the-spot reporter, Ollie Williams."
"What's wrong with the flaps, Ollie?"
"They stuck!"
"Thanks, Ollie; meanwhile . . . .

[chrissw]

Piltdown: point taken; I'll restrict myself to the SLF forum in future.

[reverserunlocked]

Sarah, who was flying with husband Tony, added: "There was no way to slow the plane down. I was terrified." We landed 20 metres from the end of the runway,"

20 metres? Good brakes on a 738...

[Simplythebeast]

Which end?

[Piltdown Man]

chrissw - I think you have over-reacted to my post. It is fair and entirely reasonable to comment and ask questions. But you'll have a hard job trying to defend the indefensible here. The problem is we can write the next lot of tosh to come out of passengers' mouths in advance of the next (non)event. If their thoughts were rational, considered and sensibly expressed we would certainly listen and take notice. But it's almost as if their scripts have already been written. Unfortunately, whatever we say is taken with same degree of contempt as a political speech. However, our passengers lives depend on us. They have to believe what we say and react accordingly. But it is clear that many passengers refuse to listen to us and do as they are told. When they do, they will gain our full respect.

PM

[Good Business Sense]

I'm probably guilty of speed reading again .... I guess I've missed something... all this for just no flaps !!?? ... happened a couple of times - never bothered telling the airport or the pax

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[ExXB]

Surely the industry shares some of the blame by the terms that it uses. In this case was it necessary to say "emergency landing" when it really wasn't?

An emergency is a situation that poses an immediate risk to health, life, property, or environment.

Precautionary could be used, as in "it is necessary to land at a higher speed than normal and we will be taking precautions to ensure your safety by: ..."

The media won't sell many newspapers with headlines like "airline follows precautions when landing, nobody hurt. As a passenger I'd be happier if the flight deck never used the expression "emergency".

Also, if time permits, a brief reminder of the safety demonstration would be helpful. IIRC Canadian airlines give a repeat of the safety demonstration before landing if it's been more than XX hours since take off.

[HeartyMeatballs]

An abbreviated safety demo takes place at my airline should there be non standard event with enough time to do so, with pax then asked to demonstrate the brace position and point out the nearest exits.

I must admit I flew with Zoom (RIP) and also had the misfortune of Air Canada long haul and neither did a recap before landing.

The only airline I've ever known to do any kind of recap as standard was United. And they reminded you to leave everything behind should an evacuation become necessary. This was 10 years ago when evacs were about saving ones life and not about one's fake Vuitton luggage whilst endangering the people behind you.

[chrissw]

Now that this thread has been moved to the SLF forum, I will say this in response to Piltdown:

Your attitude towards passengers disappoints me. You seem to hold them in very low esteem, and yes, some of them are guilty of meeting that particular standard, but by no means all.

Most people, I would guess, have little or no idea about how an aircraft even manages to get off the ground, never mind stay in the air with no obvious means of support. This does not mean they are ignorant, stupid and generally given to over-reacting.

Now while I have the very greatest respect for your professionalism and skill - things which in fact are demonstrated regularly here on PPrune, as well as in the air of course - I'm disappointed that you don't seem to have even a small understanding of other peoples' state of mind when they are necessarily depending on those skills that you have.

[HeartyMeatballs]

To be honest most minor issues are blown totally and deliberately out of proportion by passengers for their own gain. If they can show 'distress' and suffering, it will help them secure compensation. Then you have the Twitterati after their 15 seconds of fame. Sorry if that sounds controversial but that's my opinion.

Take the recent BA incident. There was an explosion, fire and smell of smoke. Yet somehow many managed to find enough time in their last minutes on earth to retrieve their luggage. Then you have the selfie brigade who get so petrified that they can't move, yet somehow manage to take a selfie (sometimes even with an oxygen mask on).

[Piltdown Man]

I can now have a real go as well. Heartymeatballs has summed up some of the things that really disappoints about passengers. But the major one to me is people's selfishness. An example of this that too many believe their toiletries and the contents of their carry-on trolley bags are more important than other people's lives.

This does not mean they are ignorant, stupid and generally given to over-reacting.

It certainly does mean they are ignorant. Too many have refused to learn in science lessons at school how technical things work. Despite this they will happily board a technological device, not knowing how is works - trusting that it will be alright. Worse, they ignore what they are told when they in a situation they don't understand. Then, from a basis of total ignorance, a badge many wear with pride, give us "technical" information which is so inaccurate it is risible. Unfortunately, too many believe they have to regurgitate the same worthless "panic" drivel after an event.

Fortunately, these labels don't apply to most people. Examples of passengers I respect and admire are those who manned the bottom of the slides of the Jet2 737 evacuation at Glasgow some time ago. They were not asked to help and even though they believed they were at risk, they continued to help others.

Regarding people's states of mind during emergencies I do believe I have an edge. I have seen what blind fear and panic does to people. Traditionally, they were into two main camps - Flight or Fight. But these don't work on an aircraft. You can't go anywhere, which leads to greater fear and panic. Then, when their have have a chance to do something, their own judgement is found lacking. This will only worsen as the years roll on. Darwinism no longer applies.

Therefore I'm fully prepared for the "I thought we were going to die" and the "We plunged thousands of feet before the pilots pulled it up" or the "I knew there wasn't enough runway" or "Everyone was screaming" etc.

But as I (like every other pilot I know) do care about all of my passengers, all of the time. I do not let my beliefs above change they way I do things. I'm always honest, I tell my passengers what is going to happen and what I want them to do. And I also believe we need to invest in emergency handling as an industry because what we currently do is clearly not applicable for the modern passenger.

PM

[HeartyMeatballs]

I'm waiting for the day personal non injury claims firms are advertising in baggage claim for those who have 'suffered' due to an incident onboard.

I do remember the GLA incident and recall passengers regailing of their terror that the over wing slides had failed to deploy on their 737 (!).

[Dont Hang Up]

It certainly does mean they are ignorant. Too many have refused to learn in science lessons at school how technical things work. Despite this they will happily board a technological device, not knowing how is works - and that makes then stupid.

I am prepared to accept that passengers are allowed to fly on planes without any prerequisite understanding of the technology. And I accept that this will often make them far more alarmed than they need to be when something untoward occurs.

It only becomes irritating when they then profess some degree of judgement in matters when discussing it with the press afterwards:
"The pilot was clearly struggling for control..."
"That other aircraft passed way too close..."
etc.

[chrissw]

Do they teach kids nowadays even the basics of how an aircraft manages to stay up in the sky? I can't answer that question myself. Comparing the content of today's combined science GCSEs with my separate-subject O-Levels, I suspect the answer is no.

Anyway, I'll just carry on trying to be the best passenger I can be, and I do know that I can count on the ladies and gents at the front to be the best they can be as well. At least in the overwhelming majority of cases.

[Dont Hang Up]

If you pursue the sciences than you will learn the basic principle of aerofoil lift at some point in your school education. However if you have the temerity (or scientific curiosity) to ask "so how do planes fly upside down then?" you will have almost certainly exceeded your teachers' understanding of the subject.

:rolleyes:

[ExXB]

The Montreal Convention 1999 applies to International flights (and all flights in the EU). The smart lawyers know this seriously limits the ability to claim for non-injury/death. That's why we never see them,