Passengers refuse to fly after tanks overfilled
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers refuse to fly after tanks overfilled
From PA:
BABlue
Dozens of passengers refused to fly home from a holiday in the sun after fuel spilled from their plane as it prepared for take-off.
People on board the FlyGlobespan aircraft from Alicante to Aberdeen demanded to get off the aircraft after becoming concerned when fuel overflowed from its wing.
One passenger described "hysterical" scenes at the Spanish airport which forced the aircraft to return to the terminal.
Forty-three of the 140 passengers then decided not to take the flight.
FlyGlobespan today insisted the plane had been perfectly safe to fly and apologised for the disruption.
The company is now making efforts to return the affected passengers to Scotland.
SNIP
A FlyGlobespan spokesman said: "The airline's position, which has been confirmed by Boeing, was there was absolutely nothing wrong with the plane, it was perfectly safe.
"Three of the passengers panicked and it spread a bit.
"The captain reassured them there was nothing wrong, but if people don't want to fly we can't make them fly.
The spokesman said two of the three passengers who had initially raised concerns had decided to stay on the flight.
He said instances of planes being overfuelled were "not infrequent".
"We apologise for the disruption that delay caused to the vast majority of the passengers on the plane who were happy to travel."
People on board the FlyGlobespan aircraft from Alicante to Aberdeen demanded to get off the aircraft after becoming concerned when fuel overflowed from its wing.
One passenger described "hysterical" scenes at the Spanish airport which forced the aircraft to return to the terminal.
Forty-three of the 140 passengers then decided not to take the flight.
FlyGlobespan today insisted the plane had been perfectly safe to fly and apologised for the disruption.
The company is now making efforts to return the affected passengers to Scotland.
SNIP
A FlyGlobespan spokesman said: "The airline's position, which has been confirmed by Boeing, was there was absolutely nothing wrong with the plane, it was perfectly safe.
"Three of the passengers panicked and it spread a bit.
"The captain reassured them there was nothing wrong, but if people don't want to fly we can't make them fly.
The spokesman said two of the three passengers who had initially raised concerns had decided to stay on the flight.
He said instances of planes being overfuelled were "not infrequent".
"We apologise for the disruption that delay caused to the vast majority of the passengers on the plane who were happy to travel."
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes British passengers can just be a total embarrassment. All this alarm probably came from one or two passenger 'loudmouths' egging the others on. The scenes of hysteria must have been excrutiating. Fuel draining out of vents is a not uncommon event. Whether it was overfueling or just draining out of the pipework, it was not dangerous. The fuel itself is pretty inert. You can stand in a puddle of jetfuel, light a match and drop it into the fuel burning, and it will not ignite. Until it is in spray form, it won't do anything. The 'danger' level was zero.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Constantinople
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the puddle you happen to be standing has reached 38 degrees C in which case the match would cause a quite different result. How hot is the tarmac at Alicante these days?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A similar incident ..... reported on PPRuNe as I remember ....
http://www.alphafloor.net/aviation/nouvelair/index.html
http://www.alphafloor.net/aviation/nouvelair/index.html
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, those professional firefighters seem to take fuel spilling from the wing quite seriously, didn't they Rainboe?
Is it maybe just possible for you to understand now why the 'ordinary joes' on the plane might have been just a bit spooked now?
Is it maybe just possible for you to understand now why the 'ordinary joes' on the plane might have been just a bit spooked now?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't deny that there were probably a few "loud mouths" about inciting the crowd.
However for others the sight of fuel pouring from the wing, the will question the structural integrity of the wing and if the a/c is going to run out of fuel.
This may seem to be bone for some people, however they do not do your job and flying hieghtens the tension for many people.
My good lady has a real apprehension of flying and yet she is the MD of a very successful company.
If you don't like the reactions of the people you are flying, then prehaps you should be flying freight.
However for others the sight of fuel pouring from the wing, the will question the structural integrity of the wing and if the a/c is going to run out of fuel.
This may seem to be bone for some people, however they do not do your job and flying hieghtens the tension for many people.
My good lady has a real apprehension of flying and yet she is the MD of a very successful company.
If you don't like the reactions of the people you are flying, then prehaps you should be flying freight.
Time Traveller:
I don't know Flyglobespan, but maybe they are one of those silly companies that believe in customer service and repeat business independent of said customers' IQ levels?
Per
Beyond the call of duty for Flyglobespan to return the passengers, I would have thought. If they choose to diregard the information and reassurance of the Captain, in the process delaying all the other pax, then they should have to deal with the inconvenience of getting home themselves.
Per
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 75
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a long-time lurker on this forum (former airline employee, currently regular offshore helicopter passenger) I have never felt qualified to comment on any subject, but in this case I most certainly can!
My wife and I were passengers on this particular flight (GSM032 25June 2007)). We checked in at the normal time at Alicante, and on passing through to departures found we had a 1 hour delay. Someone heard a rumour that the outbound flight ex ABZ had been forced to divert to Stansted to refuel - that didn't particularly bother me.
At about 2130 local we were invited to board the aircraft. At this time I noticed a fire engine with blue lights flashing in the vicinity of our aircraft, but didn't pay much heed. After settling into our seats, there was a short delay and then we were asked to unbuckle our seatbelts whilst the aircraft was being refuelled. After a further delay the captain came on the intercom and announced that due to a faulty fuel filter "about half a ton" of fuel had spilled onto the tarmac and that we should get off while this was cleaned up.
There was a further delay of about 1-1/2 hours, during which the only thing I was concerned about was the crew's flying hour limitations (I used to plan pilot rosters many years ago). At the time of reboarding, one family of passengers were seen to get off the aircraft and go back to the terminal on the bus, followed by a short delay while their baggage was removed - this was also announced over the tannoy.
The aircraft then departed the stand, and proceeded at what I thought was a slightly faster taxying speed than usual to the runway. It was at this time that the panic started - someone at the back shouted "whoa" and then all hell let loose. We were in seats 11A and B so we couldn't see the affected wing, but passengers on the other side of the aircraft were standing up, shouting "Stop the
plane, we want to get off!" One woman in particular was screaming hysterically (I will return to her later), young children were crying and passengers were pressing the call-buttons. The aircraft reached the end of the runway and paused - passengers were still shouting - "get this plane off the runway" and the screaming woman was still giving it plenty.
The Captain came on to the tannoy and told us that the overflow of fuel seen from the wing was a normal occurrence in this kind of situation, but it was obvious there was no way that everyone was going to sit down, so he stated his intention to return to the stand and let anyone who wanted to get off do so.
At least we were spared the tedium of having to deplane once more - we waited at the stand whilst all the baggage was removed, identified and split for travelling and non-travelling passengers. Finally, at about 0130 local time, we were airborne without any further fuss.
The points to note about this incident were how easily panic spreads - my initial reaction to the shouts was that something must have caught fire, and I was measuring the distance between myself and the overwing exit, but this was only for a second or so as it became obvious that it was the fuel problem. Personally if the pilot is happy to fly, so am I - he gets to the scene of the accident before I do so I might have time to call him a dreadful name before....
Also the cabin crew seemed as misinformed as the rest of us at the initial point of panic. Two of the stewards were at the rear of the aircraft and didn't know what was going on - I could not tell what was happening up front. We must have been holding on the runway for a good 2-3 minutes before the Captain announced what was happening.
My local rag (The Aberdeen Press and Journal) reports this morning that 43 passengers got off the plane - I didn't think it was that many actually. One of the passengers who stayed on board was the screaming woman, who had easily been the noisiest complainant at the time of the incident.
I felt really sorry for the crew overall - they had had one hell of a day (Stansted refuel, fuel spillage at ALC, panicking passengers) - I bet they were happy to get to ABZ and finish their duty early the following morning. For myself, the worst aspect of the whole flight was ending up at ABZ in the freezing cold and rain after the warmth of Spain, at 0430 in the morning and not a taxi to be seen
I'll fly with Globespan again, not a problem for me
TTFN
Mark
My wife and I were passengers on this particular flight (GSM032 25June 2007)). We checked in at the normal time at Alicante, and on passing through to departures found we had a 1 hour delay. Someone heard a rumour that the outbound flight ex ABZ had been forced to divert to Stansted to refuel - that didn't particularly bother me.
At about 2130 local we were invited to board the aircraft. At this time I noticed a fire engine with blue lights flashing in the vicinity of our aircraft, but didn't pay much heed. After settling into our seats, there was a short delay and then we were asked to unbuckle our seatbelts whilst the aircraft was being refuelled. After a further delay the captain came on the intercom and announced that due to a faulty fuel filter "about half a ton" of fuel had spilled onto the tarmac and that we should get off while this was cleaned up.
There was a further delay of about 1-1/2 hours, during which the only thing I was concerned about was the crew's flying hour limitations (I used to plan pilot rosters many years ago). At the time of reboarding, one family of passengers were seen to get off the aircraft and go back to the terminal on the bus, followed by a short delay while their baggage was removed - this was also announced over the tannoy.
The aircraft then departed the stand, and proceeded at what I thought was a slightly faster taxying speed than usual to the runway. It was at this time that the panic started - someone at the back shouted "whoa" and then all hell let loose. We were in seats 11A and B so we couldn't see the affected wing, but passengers on the other side of the aircraft were standing up, shouting "Stop the
plane, we want to get off!" One woman in particular was screaming hysterically (I will return to her later), young children were crying and passengers were pressing the call-buttons. The aircraft reached the end of the runway and paused - passengers were still shouting - "get this plane off the runway" and the screaming woman was still giving it plenty.The Captain came on to the tannoy and told us that the overflow of fuel seen from the wing was a normal occurrence in this kind of situation, but it was obvious there was no way that everyone was going to sit down, so he stated his intention to return to the stand and let anyone who wanted to get off do so.
At least we were spared the tedium of having to deplane once more - we waited at the stand whilst all the baggage was removed, identified and split for travelling and non-travelling passengers. Finally, at about 0130 local time, we were airborne without any further fuss.
The points to note about this incident were how easily panic spreads - my initial reaction to the shouts was that something must have caught fire, and I was measuring the distance between myself and the overwing exit, but this was only for a second or so as it became obvious that it was the fuel problem. Personally if the pilot is happy to fly, so am I - he gets to the scene of the accident before I do so I might have time to call him a dreadful name before....
Also the cabin crew seemed as misinformed as the rest of us at the initial point of panic. Two of the stewards were at the rear of the aircraft and didn't know what was going on - I could not tell what was happening up front. We must have been holding on the runway for a good 2-3 minutes before the Captain announced what was happening.
My local rag (The Aberdeen Press and Journal) reports this morning that 43 passengers got off the plane - I didn't think it was that many actually. One of the passengers who stayed on board was the screaming woman, who had easily been the noisiest complainant at the time of the incident.
I felt really sorry for the crew overall - they had had one hell of a day (Stansted refuel, fuel spillage at ALC, panicking passengers) - I bet they were happy to get to ABZ and finish their duty early the following morning. For myself, the worst aspect of the whole flight was ending up at ABZ in the freezing cold and rain after the warmth of Spain, at 0430 in the morning and not a taxi to be seen
I'll fly with Globespan again, not a problem for me
TTFN
Mark
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of people have already posted similar, but as someone who works for an oil company, I will just reiterate that it's the vapour that ignites, not the liquid (You can drop a lighted match into petrol and it wont ignite, its the vapour it reaches first that does) and aviation fuel sitting on hot tarmac would generate a lovely flashpoint for any source of ignition. Remember Buncefield? mmmmmm lots of warmed up aviation fuel helped that along!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much fuel came out anyway?
One man's slight drip is another man's gush! A small amount of fuel venting is not uncommon at all - even if there has been no mistakes in the fuelling process - if it didn't I would be much more concerned - where within the fuselage was it collecting
Most people wildly overestimate the volume contained in a puddle - especially when the liquid involved is emotive. (people can swear there are gallons of blood at an accident - the body only contains 8 pints and you would be unlikely to see all of those on the floor - even in a fatality.)
On the airbus with old school CFM engined there is an allowed 'drip rate' of fuel from the engine before even calling an engineer. As soon as the engines are running this seals itself up - still alarming to the the uninitiated.
Problems occur if people with very little knowledge of mechanisms involved take it upon themselves to make critical decisions - how often would you overule a surgeon if you were witnessing an operation which looked like it was going wrong?
Sometimes it is frustrating that people refuse to believe that you know what you are doing. I remember re-performing performance calculations in front of someone to prove that he couldn't take his mate as a spare pax while hot and high in a helicopter (in the army). It was the only way he would shut-up! The fact we took 2 people the previous week meant that he knew better than me and that I was lying to him
(The fact that it ws nearly 10 degrees hotter and the baro pressure had dropped meant nothing to him).
Would you initiate an evacuation if you saw liquid pouring from the belly of an aircraft - would you feel silly helping people into ambulances when it was poited out that one of the crew has simply emptied the coffee down the sink instead of down the toilet?
While I have sympathy with those who are not comfortable in the air it seems ridiculous that 40 people chose not to fly on a perfectly safe aircraft (especially as 2 of the 3 ringleadrers seemed to have no problem)
However good on Globespan for sorthing them out with flights - I can see absolutely no obligation for them to have done so. I assume those 43 pax all checked the tech log and the MEL to ensure that the aircraft was safe enough to operate home - since they have already proved that they are not willing to take the Captains word for it.
One man's slight drip is another man's gush! A small amount of fuel venting is not uncommon at all - even if there has been no mistakes in the fuelling process - if it didn't I would be much more concerned - where within the fuselage was it collecting
Most people wildly overestimate the volume contained in a puddle - especially when the liquid involved is emotive. (people can swear there are gallons of blood at an accident - the body only contains 8 pints and you would be unlikely to see all of those on the floor - even in a fatality.)
On the airbus with old school CFM engined there is an allowed 'drip rate' of fuel from the engine before even calling an engineer. As soon as the engines are running this seals itself up - still alarming to the the uninitiated.
Problems occur if people with very little knowledge of mechanisms involved take it upon themselves to make critical decisions - how often would you overule a surgeon if you were witnessing an operation which looked like it was going wrong?
Sometimes it is frustrating that people refuse to believe that you know what you are doing. I remember re-performing performance calculations in front of someone to prove that he couldn't take his mate as a spare pax while hot and high in a helicopter (in the army). It was the only way he would shut-up! The fact we took 2 people the previous week meant that he knew better than me and that I was lying to him
(The fact that it ws nearly 10 degrees hotter and the baro pressure had dropped meant nothing to him).Would you initiate an evacuation if you saw liquid pouring from the belly of an aircraft - would you feel silly helping people into ambulances when it was poited out that one of the crew has simply emptied the coffee down the sink instead of down the toilet?
While I have sympathy with those who are not comfortable in the air it seems ridiculous that 40 people chose not to fly on a perfectly safe aircraft (especially as 2 of the 3 ringleadrers seemed to have no problem
)However good on Globespan for sorthing them out with flights - I can see absolutely no obligation for them to have done so. I assume those 43 pax all checked the tech log and the MEL to ensure that the aircraft was safe enough to operate home - since they have already proved that they are not willing to take the Captains word for it.
Buttonpusher
I had some passengers offload themselves after we had to return to SJU, following a noise reported by one of the girls in the back. It turned out to be nothing after the mechanics looked at it for about an hour (none of the other crewmembers heard the noise, but better safe than sorry) I explained to our shortly to become ex-fellow passengers exactly what had been done and I was happy with the result and that no more seats would be available for six more days as it was over Christmas time, but the final choice was theirs. Six days later I did the same trip, and I did see some familiar faces.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem here seems to be one of communication. As professional aviators, whatever our machines, we are aware of the vagaries of 'open venting' fuel systems, pressurised fuel systems, cold soaked fuel, specific gravitys, fuel temperature and expansion and all the other variables that go with it.
We are aware that as the fuel expands in the hot temperatures of say ... Alicante, there is no longer enough space for it in the tank and it has to vent otherwise it ruptures the tanks.
Joe Public, on the way back from their annual package tour to Spain is not aware of any of this. If the fuel pours out of their car after re-fuelling it thats a BIG (and costly) problem. Call the RAC/AA sit back and wait. If they see fuel pouring out of a big complex flying machine then that is a BIG BIG problem.
Unfortunately in this day and age most people will see any kind of explaination, no matter how coherent, as spin in order to avoid the company having to pay out for something. They will disregard it and choose not to fly on the now big complex flying death trap.
Personally I would be quite happy to take those that stay onboard and say goodbye to those that don't and wish them well on finding an alternate way home.
You will not be able to change these peoples minds. They know better than we do and all we are trying to do is save 'the company' hassle.
Not worth arguing about, just not worth the heart ache.
We are aware that as the fuel expands in the hot temperatures of say ... Alicante, there is no longer enough space for it in the tank and it has to vent otherwise it ruptures the tanks.
Joe Public, on the way back from their annual package tour to Spain is not aware of any of this. If the fuel pours out of their car after re-fuelling it thats a BIG (and costly) problem. Call the RAC/AA sit back and wait. If they see fuel pouring out of a big complex flying machine then that is a BIG BIG problem.
Unfortunately in this day and age most people will see any kind of explaination, no matter how coherent, as spin in order to avoid the company having to pay out for something. They will disregard it and choose not to fly on the now big complex flying death trap.
Personally I would be quite happy to take those that stay onboard and say goodbye to those that don't and wish them well on finding an alternate way home.
You will not be able to change these peoples minds. They know better than we do and all we are trying to do is save 'the company' hassle.
Not worth arguing about, just not worth the heart ache.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Has anyone said anything about how much was pouring out? I've seen small amounts, and no panic, but this sounds like a whole 'nother matter. How much, do you think, would get people standing up and screaming?
All these elitist "passengers are sheep" comments have me baffled. I'm a musician (amateur), and since most people don't play an instrument, does that mean I can safely ignore any opinions they have about my music?
(Personally, I wouldn't have left the plane - but then I've helped friends refuel their private planes, and gotten soaked in avgas for my trouble, so it doesn't frighten me all that much.)
All these elitist "passengers are sheep" comments have me baffled. I'm a musician (amateur), and since most people don't play an instrument, does that mean I can safely ignore any opinions they have about my music?
(Personally, I wouldn't have left the plane - but then I've helped friends refuel their private planes, and gotten soaked in avgas for my trouble, so it doesn't frighten me all that much.)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Small dot in the Caribbean
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company is now making efforts to return the affected passengers to Scotland.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Communication
As a previous poster said, it's a matter of communication.
Airline pilots in particular seem to be a bit precious about their qualifications & no-one else may mention anything...
A certain tragedy at Kegworth WOULD have been averted if passengers listening to the PA - or the oh so knowledgable cabin crew - had spoken up when the pilot announced he was shutting down the opposite engine to the one on fire.
As a ' sitting there ' SLF / photographer on light aircraft I've noticed - Which the Test / CPL pilots hadn't - 2 out of 3 greens on line up for take-off, assymetric fuel, and near collisions too many to remember...
The fuel was 'spraying' & thus near vapourised before it pooled harmlessly on the ground - I rather doubt fire crews would shrug their shoulders at this, certainly not the ones I worked with.
Hopefully the aircraft was earthed - as for the Bulldog mentioned above, isn't that high octane ?!
I might not have screamed like a banshee, but I wouldn't have accepted being told "I know best " - a lot of people have been killed by someone else's ego, a sad list far too long for here... Aren't we supposed to learn from the past hard - earned lessons ?
Airline pilots in particular seem to be a bit precious about their qualifications & no-one else may mention anything...
A certain tragedy at Kegworth WOULD have been averted if passengers listening to the PA - or the oh so knowledgable cabin crew - had spoken up when the pilot announced he was shutting down the opposite engine to the one on fire.
As a ' sitting there ' SLF / photographer on light aircraft I've noticed - Which the Test / CPL pilots hadn't - 2 out of 3 greens on line up for take-off, assymetric fuel, and near collisions too many to remember...
The fuel was 'spraying' & thus near vapourised before it pooled harmlessly on the ground - I rather doubt fire crews would shrug their shoulders at this, certainly not the ones I worked with.
Hopefully the aircraft was earthed - as for the Bulldog mentioned above, isn't that high octane ?!
I might not have screamed like a banshee, but I wouldn't have accepted being told "I know best " - a lot of people have been killed by someone else's ego, a sad list far too long for here... Aren't we supposed to learn from the past hard - earned lessons ?
Firstly totally agree that whether or not the a/c is fit for flight is down to the Captain/Engineer(s) etc and not unqualified SLF.
However perhaps the mistake that is being made is to believe that we are in the "transportation" business. I believe this is a mistake the US airline industry made many years ago. In any business you are, actually, in the people business. These matters are very much a question of communication and how you treat the "customers". Obviously hysterical media coverage of minor events does little to help these situations.
"Establishment of rapport" starts well before the pax getting on the aircraft but as flightcrew we are very much the missing link when it comes to keeping pax fully informed. I do not think there are any simple answers to pax who behave in this manner but it is very much a question of how these incidents are handled (this is, I emphasise, no criticism of how this crew handled this situation) rather than the "logical" facts.
However perhaps the mistake that is being made is to believe that we are in the "transportation" business. I believe this is a mistake the US airline industry made many years ago. In any business you are, actually, in the people business. These matters are very much a question of communication and how you treat the "customers". Obviously hysterical media coverage of minor events does little to help these situations.
"Establishment of rapport" starts well before the pax getting on the aircraft but as flightcrew we are very much the missing link when it comes to keeping pax fully informed. I do not think there are any simple answers to pax who behave in this manner but it is very much a question of how these incidents are handled (this is, I emphasise, no criticism of how this crew handled this situation) rather than the "logical" facts.
I wish the airlines wouldn't pander to people who are ignorant of aviation yet feel better able than the professional flightcrew to decide what's acceptable and what's not.
They should be sued for the cost of the delay, prosecuted for disrupting the flight and blacklisted.
They should be sued for the cost of the delay, prosecuted for disrupting the flight and blacklisted.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: _
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bnt "Has anyone said anything about how much was pouring out?"
Probably the same amount by which it may have been overfuelled. If the a/c was on stand at 2100(L) I doubt thermal expansion would be a major cause, willing to stand corrected though. Given the operator & pax load it's reasonably safe to assume it's a 737 concerned, so the wing tanks were probably required to be at or very near full at least, hence increasing the chances of fuel venting. As for "elitist" comments, the crew who are trained to carry out that task explained it was perfectly acceptable for this to occur, as has been mentioned already they're first to the scene of the accident so why would they risk anything? bnt, music isn't such a black & white affair as this but if a professional musician had explained something contrary to my initial understanding then I'd take their word on it since I don't know better than them, is that not what the other posters were getting at?
Probably the same amount by which it may have been overfuelled. If the a/c was on stand at 2100(L) I doubt thermal expansion would be a major cause, willing to stand corrected though. Given the operator & pax load it's reasonably safe to assume it's a 737 concerned, so the wing tanks were probably required to be at or very near full at least, hence increasing the chances of fuel venting. As for "elitist" comments, the crew who are trained to carry out that task explained it was perfectly acceptable for this to occur, as has been mentioned already they're first to the scene of the accident so why would they risk anything? bnt, music isn't such a black & white affair as this but if a professional musician had explained something contrary to my initial understanding then I'd take their word on it since I don't know better than them, is that not what the other posters were getting at?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Whatever your view on whether the stupidity of the passengers or the crew was greater, the indisputable result is that this carrier has captured a great deal of unwanted attention from this incident. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but upsetting pax, however irrational they may be and unintentional your actions were, is never good for the bottom line, the one that pays the wages.
PS. Thread Creep Alert - I can show you pictures of the cremated remains of an Army Scout Helicopter, victim of 2 refuellers pondering the flammability characteristics of Avtur. "Did you know Avtur doesn't burn" was the phrase used before the unstoppable series of events was set in motion with a lighted match.
PS. Thread Creep Alert - I can show you pictures of the cremated remains of an Army Scout Helicopter, victim of 2 refuellers pondering the flammability characteristics of Avtur. "Did you know Avtur doesn't burn" was the phrase used before the unstoppable series of events was set in motion with a lighted match.