Another Ground incident at Pearson Airport [Archive]

PineappleFrenzy

6th Jan 2018, 04:02

From the CBC story, there are yet more reports of passengers trying to retrieve their carry-on items during an evacuation. I'm sorry folks. I know there are few practical ways to prevent unhelpful passenger behaviour. But stories like this infuriate me.

Transport Canada and airlines really need to do a better job emphasizing and enforcing fundamental standards of passenger behaviour. I think it's time for the public to wake up and recognize that everyone on board an airplane has responsibilities---including passengers.

If it were up to me, everyone witnessed trying to retrieve their bags during an evacuation would be charged under section 7.41(1)(c) of the Aeronautics Act:

7.41 (1) No person shall engage in any behaviour that endangers the safety or security of an aircraft in flight or of persons on board an aircraft in flight by intentionally:

(a) interfering with the performance of the duties of any crew member;

(b) lessening the ability of any crew member to perform that crew member’s duties; or

(c) interfering with any person who is following the instructions of a crew member.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both; and

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months, or to both.

hr2pilot

6th Jan 2018, 04:47

Excerpt from CBC News:

'It was chaos'

When the planes struck, amusement turned to panic on board WestJet's Boeing 737-800, according to passenger Gustavo Lobo.

"Out of nowhere there was an audible crunch and the plane rocked slightly," Lobo told CBC News. "We looked out the window and saw that the plane had backed up into us. Everyone was a little shocked and kind of chuckling at the situation."

They didn't laugh for long, he said.

"Panic set in when [we saw] what seemed to be fuel spewing from the crash. After a couple of seconds the entire thing ignited and it was chaos inside the plane. People screaming and panicking all while the flight attendants shouted to try and control the situation."

Lobo took a video of the fire, and said eventually everybody slid down the emergency slides to safety, though the process was slowed by passengers who insisted on taking their carry-on luggage with them.

Ali Alagheband, also on the flight with his wife and 12-year-old son, said a "big ball of fire" lit up the right-side windows just seconds after the plane rattled with the force of the collision.

"Everybody was saying the F-word and screaming," Alagheband said, adding that he mostly stayed calm until black smoke seeped into cabin.

"The flight attendants kept saying 'remain seated, remain seated,'" he recalled. Fearing they'd soon be gasping for air and stuck on the plane, he told his son to stay calm and wear an oxygen mask if they fell from the cabin's ceiling.

"There was fire and there was fuel in that wing," he said. A mechanical engineer by trade, he could tell "it wasn't a good situation."

Nobody knew an evacuation was underway until a passenger stood on his seat and yelled that a door had opened, he said.

But as the crowd moved toward the door, some passengers blocked his family's escape.

"I was yelling at people reaching overhead to get their bags. It was ridiculous," he said. "I was literally yelling, 'Get the F off the plane."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0grpjM3ulb4

headflight

6th Jan 2018, 07:45

Those overheads should be locked on landing. Pax should be given ample warning this will happen and if there is any small emergency item they may need they should keep it on their person. So passports, credit cards, keys, medication, phones, can all fit in a pocket. The rest can’t be used to risk lives. Once Pax are aware of this rule they can’t legitimately complain. If they don’t like it, take the bus.

Jet Jockey A4

6th Jan 2018, 11:48

Good call from the crew for an evacuation.

Airbubba

6th Jan 2018, 11:55

And probably an easy call with visible flames. This is what we train for, I agree, good job. :ok:

baggersup

6th Jan 2018, 11:57

Pineapple frenzy...I completely agree with you.

But every time this happens, no authorities ever do anything at all about it even though they always have extensive videos outside the plane showing exactly who the culprits are.

Then there are lengthy "discussions" on the board saying oh well you can't legislate common sense etc. (as though what they are doing is mildly annoying and just violating a teeny little "law" instead of putting people's lives in direct danger.)

I doubt this incident will change things, though I wish it could. If the federal authorities in the respective country arrested and tried them and they did some time with a huge fine for breaking all the aviation laws, it would focus people's minds very quickly. But it is never treated like the serious crime it is.

I was on a chute situation many, many years ago in the Midwest. When the crew said evacuate we did.

No delays, no retrieving our stuff --nothing. Just one guy who was seated away from his friend kept holding up the line near the front standing in the aisle looking back down the plane behind him for his friend, like he was at a night club.

He was lifted roughly by two pax who came up and didn't even pause as they tossed him aside and he ended up arse-up in the window seat. He recovered quickly and got his tail out into the aisle and down the chute.

I don't advocate rough justice but we had smoke and a wing that was just about to erupt and sparks were flying. So 2 male pax "solved" the problem with him in an instant. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

I suggested to a friend who is a captain that when on take off or approach there should be a locking mechanism on all the overheads and it is engaged when the landing seatbelt sign goes on and it's last call for landing. Then the only way it gets disengaged is manually by the crew after arriving safely at the gate. And also locked at push back until the seat belt light goes off on cruise.

But of course he said too expensive to solve the problem--it will take people dying when trapped by these morons before anybody cares. And even then I'm not sure they'd put teeth in the laws and prosecute.

It just seems to be a problem that has been allowed to go on forever and nobody seems to care.

People also don't realize that when they hold up the evacuation they also are putting cabin crews in danger! They are responsible for getting everybody out and a delay somebody causes could mean their deaths as the last trying to evacuate.

JammedStab

6th Jan 2018, 12:41

Hard to tell....do I hear engines spool down five seconds after the Evacuate call?

Kulverstukas

6th Jan 2018, 13:19

Meanwhile in US

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS2-PWqU0AYSmnH.jpg

A China Southern 77W and Kuwait Airways 77W have collided on the ground at JFK.

Capn Bloggs

6th Jan 2018, 13:27

Hard to tell....do I hear engines spool down five seconds after the Evacuate call?
Something winding down there...

WingSlinger

6th Jan 2018, 14:27

And probably an easy call with visible flames. This is what we train for, I agree, good job. :ok:

But the flames were on the other aircraft and letting people loose on the tarmac doesn’t sound like a good plan to me. Especially with all the emergency vehicules driving around in the dark. Remember the woman killed by a fire truck in San Francisco?

YRP

6th Jan 2018, 14:34

ATC audio recording here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTinHvVw7jo.

It seems like it took the ground controller a mental tick or two to realize what was happening, continuing to clear aircraft to taxi and standby to the problem aircraft after the mayday/evauate call. Possibly it is multiple ground frequencies on the same recording.

SMT Member

6th Jan 2018, 14:36

It's Sunwing's fault that someone towed their empty (no crew) plane into another plane ?

IF the Sunwing aircraft was towed into a correctly 'parked' stationary aircraft, then, yes it is. It's their fault whether it was a Sunwing employee doing the towing, or a 3rd party doing so under contract from Sunwing. The rules are such that you may outsource the work, but never the responsibility.

kit344

6th Jan 2018, 14:52

No apparent injuries among the passengers, But was it such a good idea to Evacuate 160+ people in the dark from an aircraft that was not on fire ?

There have been previous incidents where people have been struck and killed by Emergency Vehicles.

Did the Crew initiate the evacuation, or did a passenger panic when they saw flames coming from the Other Aircraft, and someone opened an Emergency Exit, everyone else followed ?

I have now Listened to the Audio of Post #8, 5 or 6 times, since I first posted yesterday.
At 0:00 seconds a male voice says "It's not our plane on fire."
At 0:12 seconds the PA chime is heard.
At 0:21 seconds the Captain comes on the PA "Captain, Captain, EVACUATE"

RHS

6th Jan 2018, 16:29

To be fair, you look out the window and see fire. It’s unclear if you’re going to be able to move away from the burning APU any time soon, you don’t even know it’s just the APU burning and your wing tank is full of fuel....

Retired DC9 driver

6th Jan 2018, 17:01

So at 32 seconds on the Audio recording above, West Jet 2425 says "Mayday, Mayday,Mayday West Jet 2425 we're evacuating". YYZ Ground answers " 245 standby. (with wrong call sign)"

Fortunately a more competent woman controller takes over..on Ground freq.

EEngr

6th Jan 2018, 17:06

Something winding down there...

Westjet's engines. Part of the evacuation procedure?

PineappleFrenzy

6th Jan 2018, 17:07

But was it such a good idea to Evacuate 160+ people in the dark from an aircraft that was not on fire ?
[...]
Did the Crew initiate the evacuation, or did a passenger panic when they saw flames coming from the Other Aircraft, and someone opened an Emergency Exit, everyone else followed ?

The ATC recording in post #17 makes it pretty clear that the Westjet crew (at least initially) believed that their aircraft was on fire, and that they initiated the evacuation.

The cold temperature notwithstanding, I can't think of a better place to initiate an evacuation than right next to the terminal, with plenty of marshaling staff nearby to shepherd passengers to safety. The crew made the right call.

Retired DC9 driver

6th Jan 2018, 17:16

Did the Crew initiate the evacuation, or did a passenger panic when they saw flames coming from the Other Aircraft, and someone opened an Emergency Exit, everyone else followed ? If you listen to the audio recording above, (post #17) at 32 seconds, the Captain (or F/O) says on Ground Freq,
"Mayday, Mayday, Mayday; West Jet 2425 we're evacuating.."

So the crew made a decision to evacuate based on information they had at the time. Not a passenger opening an Emergency Exit..

surely not

6th Jan 2018, 18:37

Every time there is a slide evacuation we have the same problem with passengers trying to take their luggage with them. It doesn't seem to matter which continent this happens on, or what passenger profile is travelling on the flight, a sizable percentage of the passengers will not leave their possessions behind.

Given that this reaction is unlikely to change, and no amount of fining dissuades drivers from speeding so we can discount that as ineffective, perhaps we need to get the manufacturers to look at how an evacuation can be made possible WITH hand baggage?

Dairyground

6th Jan 2018, 19:51

Two possible partial solutions to the problems caused by passengers who delay evacuations by taking items from the overhead lockers:

1) Recognise and allow for the propensity of passengers to reach for their hand luggage during an evacuation when determining the maximum number of occupants in a cabin. A benefit to passenger comfort, but not necessarily to airfares, could be a reduction in seat rows, with a corresponding increase in seat pitch.

2) Allow at least one hold bag on all fares and charge for anything more than minimal cabin baggage. Enforce the size rules rigorously, and demand payment at a high rate for anything too big that makes it to the gate.

cossack

6th Jan 2018, 20:18

The recording is a mish-mash of frequencies. Until Red5 calls, all the calls are on two different apron frequencies. When Red5 calls, he is on 121.9 and is responded to by a male controller. The female controller is working 121.65.
Apron gave the "pushback at your discretion" approval with Westjet directly behind the Sunwing aircraft. Discretion was not used it seems. The view from the Apron tower is limited but...

Grizzz

6th Jan 2018, 20:29

For the mentally challenged who feel the need to retrieve stuff from overhead bins there is a law in Canada which suits this act, "Reckless endangerment".

"An individual that engages in conduct that has a substantial risk of causing serious physical harm to others can be charged with reckless endangerment"

Whether a court would find such is entirely another issue!

PickyPerkins

6th Jan 2018, 21:06

From the CBC story, there are yet more reports of passengers trying to retrieve their carry-on items during an evacuation. I'm sorry folks. I know there are few practical ways to prevent unhelpful passenger behaviour. But stories like this infuriate me.

Transport Canada and airlines really need to do a better job emphasizing and enforcing fundamental standards of passenger behaviour. I think it's time for the public to wake up and recognize that everyone on board an airplane has responsibilities---including passengers.

If it were up to me, everyone witnessed trying to retrieve their bags during an evacuation would be charged under section 7.41(1)(c) of the Aeronautics Act:

I completely agree with you about the need to prioritize the preservation of life over the preservation of baggage.

However, the problem of applying 7.41(1)(c) seems to me (and I am not a lawyer) to be that in all these cases the aircraft is not in flight, its firmly on the ground and stationary,so that the regulation does not apply.

7.41 (1) No person shall engage in any behaviour that endangers the safety or security of an aircraft in flight or of persons on board an aircraft in flight by intentionally: .......
My emphasis on in flight.

Question for the legal experts:

(a) Are there laws which inhibit passengers in any public conveyance from actions which endanger the lives of other passengers (regardless of whether the action is to preserve baggage), and

(b) If so, would the applicable law be that of the country of registration of the aircraft, or be that of the country of location of the action?

DaveReidUK

6th Jan 2018, 21:38

However, the problem of applying 7.41(1)(c) seems to me (and I am not a lawyer) to be that in all these cases the aircraft is not in flight, its firmly on the ground and stationary, so that the regulation does not apply.

You don't need to be a lawyer. Just read a few lines further on in the Act:

"(3) For the purpose of subsection (1), an aircraft is deemed to be in flight from the time when all external doors are closed following embarkation until the time at which any external door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation."

Lancair70

6th Jan 2018, 22:05

So ..... once doors are opened for evacuation, is the aircraft no longer in flight ?

Bend alot

6th Jan 2018, 22:10

Chances are the emergency exits have opened when people start to open the overhead lockers.

ATA chapter 52 covers doors.

ATA chapter 52 sub chapter 20 covers emergency exits.

So it is clear Emergency Exits are doors.

PineappleFrenzy

6th Jan 2018, 23:25

So ..... once doors are opened for evacuation, is the aircraft no longer in flight ?

No! It says right in the regulation:
...until the time at which any external door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation."

The aircraft had not reached its disembarkation point (the gate) when the evacuation commenced. Since the doors were opened for a purpose other than disembarkation, the aircraft is still considered in flight for the purposes of the Aeronautics Act.

Bend alot

6th Jan 2018, 23:49

Not sure the Emergency Exits are opened for the purpose of embarkation ever.

Winemaker

7th Jan 2018, 00:37

Simple SLF here. I have NEVER heard cabin crew tell passengers they should not attempt to retrieve bags from the overhead in case of evacuation. Maybe that should be emphasized by crew during the briefing, possibly saying something like

"If there is an emergency evacuation do not attempt to retrieve bags from the overhead bins. Time to evacuate the aircraft is critical for passenger survival."

Maybe a bit explicit, but drives the point home.

Edited to add: When I'm seated I stand up (yeah, I know) and look around the cabin, specifically looking at the distance fore and aft to exits. I also try and look at the persons sitting in the exit rows and judge whether they look capable of doing their job. I also look at the aircraft emergency card to understand whether the exit hatches in particular locations are to be inboard or outboard disposed (if you get my drift). I also look over the seat backs and decide whether I am willing to climb seats rather than wait in the aisle. When my wife travels with me I advise her (with little effect) that she should just forget her purse and escape in the event of an emergency. I tighten my seat belt (used to race Formula Ford and wish they were six point) at the application of power. I also, if possible, check to see that flaps are lowered before take off and intend to shout loudly if they aren't. Call me paranoid, but I want to maximize any possibility of continuation in case of an accident. Some of us really care and actually think about things. There are studies about who survives in accidents and one of the critical attributes of survivors is the desire to live and persistence in escape. Count me in.

Passenger 389

7th Jan 2018, 02:53

Regarding problems inherent in evacations, how some pax behave or misbehave, what pax of all ages should know, and should or should not do, and being mentally prepared:

Interestingly, YouTube has barred anyone under their age minimum (18 or 21 or 50 or whatever) from viewing the video linked to on post #8.

Someone decided it did not meet their "community standards" - presumably because one can hear the "F-word".

The nannystaters apparently are more terrified a 16-year old might hear the "F-word" (surely he/she never has before) than that same individual -- one never knows when, for those 168 pax it was last night -- might suddenly encounter an emergency evac situation.

When that moment occurs, one must know what to do, to already comprehend the chaos that often accompanies emergency evacs, what happens when people insist on retrieving carry-on bags, and more.

Or would you rather bury your child, than let him or her hear the "F-word?" (or rather, to admit they probably already have - and surely would during the course of an evacation that goes badly.)

Sorry if a digression, but refusal to confront reality can be frustrating.

Bend alot

7th Jan 2018, 03:18

Could not agree more 389 - but censorship because of someone's not meeting their idea of "community standards" is common practice.

I have often said the evac should be a safety video that is played before take-off - one being the result of people stopping flow by grabbing bags - then the correct way with a happy ending. It would not need to be graphic but clear on the result.

Same for inflating life vest inside the cabin.

Aerodon

7th Jan 2018, 03:41

The airlines have made it very beneficial to try carry more on board and less in the hold. I have even heard an announcement to the effect 'no more checked bags or else the plane will be too heavy - carry on only please'. The regulators have turned a blind eye to the amount of weight in the overhead bins, and the quantity of 'missiles' in the event of a crash - laptops, duty free liquor etc.

I travel light and have a small bag that can easily fit under the seat or the overhead bin. I know I would spend less time screaming and swearing, and use that time to gather my goods and plan my exit. But I'm carrying one small shoulder bag, not a laptop bag, overnight bag and duty free bag.

The world has changed - you can do almost nothing without a drivers licence, passport and iPhone nowadays. Even an expired drivers licence won't get you on the next flight, never mind across the border. You try get a new passport in an overseas country. And the airlines are not known for really looking after their passengers after an incident. Now everyone is surprised that bags are a high priority in an event?

I watched the video - the flight crew is trying to get people to sit when it was pretty obvious it was time to bail? We've all seen fires like this consume an aircraft in seconds. If there was any time wasted, it was the 30 seconds or so that the crew finally decided to evacuate? Thats an eternity in a real event.

The only change I can see helping, is a 'can take' size bag and a 'must leave' size bag, and a whole lot of educating?

Capt Ecureuil

7th Jan 2018, 08:13

I watched the video - the flight crew is trying to get people to sit when it was pretty obvious it was time to bail? We've all seen fires like this consume an aircraft in seconds. If there was any time wasted, it was the 30 seconds or so that the crew finally decided to evacuate? Thats an eternity in a real event.

So you don't think the crew should take a few seconds to evaluate the situation before ordering an evacuation or even run through the QRH?

Capn Bloggs

7th Jan 2018, 08:30

I watched the video - the flight crew is trying to get people to sit when it was pretty obvious it was time to bail? We've all seen fires like this consume an aircraft in seconds.
Did this one? Are you an airline pilot? How long does it take you to run through the Evacuation procedure?

sudden twang

7th Jan 2018, 10:59

Most airlines I’ve flown with mention “ in the event of an evacuation leave all hand baggage behind”.
An evacuation command is a once in a career event, if that. Boeing have made it a read and do rather than a memory drill for good reason. Seeing fire and evacuating may or indeed may not be the correct response.
I have to say Pearson concerns me. I’ve seen a wing tip flash past the No1 window closer there than anywhere else in the world. Pilot of other aircraft was heads down which was a worry I appreciate he was probably a Pearson regular and had used that taxiway before with an aircraft parked where is was but it was uncomfortable.

evansb

7th Jan 2018, 12:28

Good point.

Solution(s)? None. A possible reduction to future incidents? Automation/robotics. I don't not see any human-based amelioration to the problem of night-time/cold weather/reduced visibily/weekend/Maple Leafs best season in over twenty years back-up/reverse towing scenarios at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, (CYYZ), especially pertaining to this incident. Ahem. (Cough, cough).

Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep.

Given the nature of recent ground collision incidents, federally mandated installation of state-of-the-art technology such as lane departure warning with auto correction, back-up and peripheral cameras with audible proximity warning, and automatic pedestrian/obstruction stop, (which is currently available on some mid-priced automobiles) would be welcome by the majority of the near-panicking and vacationing "we are all going to die" flying public, especially on multi-million dollar airliners. Especially at Toronto. Especially on Westjet, Sunwing and Air Canada. Air France also comes to mind. Oh heck, why not all carriers operating in and out of "Pearson"?.

The limits of human-based sensing, reaction and intervention on these incidents appears to be a possible factor. Go Go Gadget!

Automation creep anyone? Ground/Ramp Controllers and Apron Marshallers care to chime in with their thoughts? Pilots, of course, are always welcome to chime in.

infrequentflyer789

7th Jan 2018, 17:05

The aircraft had not reached its disembarkation point (the gate) when the evacuation commenced. Since the doors were opened for a purpose other than disembarkation, the aircraft is still considered in flight for the purposes of the Aeronautics Act.

However, the act does not actually define disembarkation (I think defining this has been a problem with aviation treaties/conventions as well) as far as I can see. Therefore it is the location/point or method of disembarkation is irrelevant and the common definition of "to leave a [ship, aircraft or train]" applies, and the doors have clearly been opened for this purpose, therefore the aircraft is not in flight.

If that isn't clear, consider that by your definition, i.e. "the aircraft had not reached its disembarkation point (the gate)" the pax would still be under the clause when back in the terminal building or back home (or now) - since we don't know at what point in time the aircraft reached the gate, if it ever did. That is clearly absurd, therefore your definition of disembarkation must be incorrect.

PineappleFrenzy

7th Jan 2018, 18:48

That is clearly absurd, therefore your definition of disembarkation must be incorrect.

You make a valid point. Yet, as you point out, the definition of disembark as used in the Aeronautic Act is ambiguous. Clearly "disembark" and "evacuate" have different meanings, otherwise we would use the same word to describe each event.

Neither term is defined in the Aeronautics Act.

And since the Aeronautics Act specifies that a flight ends when the doors open for the purpose of "disembarkation" and not "evacuation," we cannot automatically assume that evacuation and disembarkation are equivalent for the purpose of this section of the act.

This is why we have judges. We delegate to them the responsibility of resolving ambiguities such as these. But a judge can only do so if a case comes before him/her in court. That is why we need to start charging people under the Aeronautics Act when they try to retrieve their bags during an evacuation.

PAX_Britannica

7th Jan 2018, 21:09

So you don't think the crew should take a few seconds to evaluate the situation before ordering an evacuation or even run through the QRH?

Indeed. And they might want to have a quick word with the ARFF.

J.O.

7th Jan 2018, 21:33

The regulations also require passengers to obey the instructions of the crew, especially in an emergency. The shouted commands include the words “leave everything behind”, so the act of taking their belongings is a violation of that regulation.

Bend alot

8th Jan 2018, 00:02

PineappleFrenzy

Taking people to court and not winning cases would be a costly exercise.

During emergencies, some people handle it well others panic and not think straight or able to hear instructions - this can be used as a defences and a good ones.

I also think that during an evacuation, everyone must disembark the aeroplane because it became a place of danger.

Trying to prove people have not disembarked during an evacuation would take a costly Lawyer in my opinion.

Think better spend that money on education.

cossack

8th Jan 2018, 00:53

My post #27:
Westjet was waiting directly behind the Sunwing aircraft to park on the gate next to Sunwng. Apron authorized a "push your discretion" to the tow driver of the empty Sunwing with no reference made to the Westjet immediately behind him. Are wing walkers required to move an empty aircraft?
Yes it was dark, windy and -20C.

Capn Bloggs

8th Jan 2018, 01:07

Are wing walkers required to move an empty aircraft?
They will be now! :ok:

msbbarratt

8th Jan 2018, 05:09

People in general are not rational in the presence of fire. There's no changing that. We have to cope with it. It takes years of training and experience (and preferably a load of protective clothing and breathing apparatus) to be able to behave rationally in the presence of fire.

Prosecuting people who obstructed an evacuation by collecting their hand luggage will not change anything one little bit for the next evacuation. Locking the overhead bins is the only answer to that problem. And I would say that locking them individually with a key is important because everyone then knows that there's no hope of opening them. It's also cheaper to fit.

Fire on an aircraft is difficult to manage well when on the ground. If the aircraft is stationary and there is no visible progress towards evacuation, you're always going to be moments away from pandemonium. That's just human nature. Yes I know that doesn't square with people then stopping to grab their hand luggage; that is also human nature.

Here's an idea for discussion; I'm not anticipating universal acclamation! Perhaps there ought to be a mechanism that, if the aircraft is stationary and one of the doors is popped, cuts off fuel to the engines and sets the parking brakes. The guys at the front are normally in the worst place in the aircraft to evaluate the severity of a fire, and a means for the cc to take the matter out of their hands might make the difference between a successful evacuation and a total disaster.

Tech Guy

8th Jan 2018, 11:36

I generally wear "cargo pants" when flying. The pockets easily accommodate wallet, passport and house keys. my phone is in a belt pouch and I have a USB stick with copies of important documents attached to the keys. My bag is well insured and I am happy to let it burn if need be.

I am also quite happy to "lump" anyone faffing about with bags if they prevent my egress. :)

Espada III

8th Jan 2018, 13:10

I carry a small across the chest bag (about 6" x 4" x 2") with passport, phone, wallet, keys, charger plug/cable and Kindle. It is attached to me the whole flight. Everything else can be left behind and easily replaced. Important documents saved to the cloud. I used to wear cargo pants until my wife said NO!

blorgwinder

8th Jan 2018, 13:14

Tech guy, WELL SAID. If you ever had to evacuate this dress code covers it all. It also allows those idiots whose ego requires them to travel back from a sun destination to a cold climate wearing shorts an option.. Picking up a family member the other day, 02:40 - 20C and people coming out from Customs in shorts. You would die of hypothermia if you had to evacuate away from the terminal building.

Debate the legal stuff all you want, this is likely the first post that brings common sense to this thread.:ok:

RatherBeFlying

8th Jan 2018, 21:03

If the aircraft is stationary and there is no visible progress towards evacuation, you're always going to be moments away from pandemonium. That's just human nature...

Perhaps there ought to be a mechanism that, if the aircraft is stationary and one of the doors is popped, cuts off fuel to the engines and sets the parking brakes. The guys at the front are normally in the worst place in the aircraft to evaluate the severity of a fire, and a means for the cc to take the matter out of their hands might make the difference between a successful evacuation and a total disaster.
The cockpit crew tends to get busy with whichever checklist seems appropriate. Chimes from the cabin crew interphone may either not be heard or be deferred to after completing the checklist.

Fire or smoke in the cabin requires immediate attention. But as in many other similar accidents, there was a considerable delay communicating the cabin crew's appreciation of the fire and smoke danger to the cockpit. Delayed evacuation can and has cost lives. The accident reports commonly show that communication of the fire situation to the cockpit takes too much time.

We have alarms for engine, APU and cargo fires. Should we not also have a cabin fire alarm that can be actuated by the cabin crew?

golfyankeesierra

9th Jan 2018, 00:46

In the groundcontroller's defense, the mayday is done in a very casual way. How many times does it happen in one's career? I would be shouting it from the roof!
Key to situational awareness is communication; if you don't tell him properly he doesn't know.

armchairpilot94116

9th Jan 2018, 00:56

It is human nature to get one's bags ESPECIALLY when passengers know they are unlikely to see their belongings again. This is not stoppable no matter what laws are made or actions taken short of machine gunning any passengers exiting with luggage.

The ONLY way to stop this behavior is to :

1. Ban all carry ons larger then a coat, attache , purse, ipad, (child seat, wheel chair excepted). Basically non essentials.
2. Demand everything be checked in outside of above items. If passengers must pay, then they must pay.
3. Make these requirements uniform for all airlines carrying people.

Having minimum carry ons will also streamline customers going through security. And seating passengers will be much much faster as well.

MarcK

9th Jan 2018, 02:06

Happy to check (almost) everything as soon as airlines pony up insurance to cover the value of lost goods (jewelry, cameras, laptops).

Left Coaster

9th Jan 2018, 05:47

So what you're really saying is that your camera and precious phone is worth dying for as well as most likely putting others at risk for? Is that what it's worth? You'll for sure be the one with my boot marks on your ass if you stop in front of me to grab your crap during an evacuation...and once you go down the rest will run right over you. :=

Gove N.T.

9th Jan 2018, 05:54

The subject of restricting handbaggage allowance was discussed at a meeting I once attended at the IATA HQ in Geneva some years ago.US carriers at that meeting stressed that they would reject anything that restricted their right to compete with each other. - Commercial interest. Citing risk analysis, such incidents are rare. BA at Las Vegas was widely reported upon in 2015 but how many other incidents have occurred since then? Stressing more strongly the need to leave carry on behind in the event of an emergency will be the only way carriers will act I believe.

Car RAMROD

9th Jan 2018, 06:55

Left Coaster

I think what MarcK was getting at was that normally, non evac situations, he'd prefer to have the airlines cover valuables in the hold more than they do in the cabin in case of loss/damage etc. The airlines do generally tell us to take valuables as carry on.

He didn't say he wanted his camera etc as carry on so that he could evac with it.

Gove N.T.

9th Jan 2018, 17:21

Happy to check (almost) everything as soon as airlines pony up insurance to cover the value of lost goods (jewelry, cameras, laptops).

Not sure there's many companies still around that offer unlimited liability in today's litigious climate. Airlines have upper limits to their liabilities in their Ts & Cs of carriage.
There is a provision to increase their liability when checking in. It's called (as I recall)"Excess Valuation" and covers the difference of what the carrier's liability is and what "you" say the value of "your" item is.
2 issues
1) getting someone at the airline who knows what to do in this case and
2) proving the value to the airline's insurers.
Any sensible person will have taken personal responsibility seriously and will have taken out their own all risks / home insurance policy for their valuables.

ExXB

9th Jan 2018, 19:25

International (and all intra-EU) flights are protected by the Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) which limits an airline's liability for loss or damage to about SDR1300 per passenger. This is the extent of airline liability, unless you can prove that they did so intentionally.

While, in theory, you can get Excess Valuation - find me an airline employee that has any idea what you are talking about, I'll give you a free beer.

infrequentflyer789

9th Jan 2018, 20:12

I think what MarcK was getting at was that normally, non evac situations, he'd prefer to have the airlines cover valuables in the hold more than they do in the cabin in case of loss/damage etc. The airlines do generally tell us to take valuables as carry on.

He didn't say he wanted his camera etc as carry on so that he could evac with it.

It isn't just the airlines, it is also the (pax's) insurers who insist valuables must go in carry-on. Flights out of the UK did in fact go through a brief period of "everything in the hold" at the beginning of the liquid-ban - it was a fiasco. A lot of people lost valuables and were then passed back and forth between airline and insurer with each saying it was the other that was liable.

It is this lack of a joined-up approach that leads pax to distrust the whole industry/system and thence to grab their own stuff. As another example of this, Trump recently banned some devices (laptops, but also cameras) from cabin baggage while at the same time the FAA appears to have been working on (and still is I think) proposals to ban the same devices from checked baggage (and cargo too?). How does a camera crew actually fly then? Who in the industry is actually looking at the whole picture and standing up and saying "this doesn't work"?

I rely on medication to stay alive these days, and it won't fit in pockets (well, actually I could fit a weeks worth of pills in a large coat pocket, but I am not allowed to because various rules (non-joined up approach again) in numerous places require me to carry medication "in original packaging" - which is too big). I would happily hand over / check-in / leave my meds if I believed and trusted that the industry/system would replace them if I don't get them back at the end of the journey, but I don't (and with reason). Until that changes, my meds are in a bag that I can easily and quickly grab on evac (which will be bigger that it might be because it has to have other stuff that I could leave behind, because... only one bag allowed, sigh).