Pax Angry Over Calgary Alaska Air Ground Evac
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pax Angry Over Calgary Alaska Air Ground Evac
Aircraft passengers angry over response to fire
CTV.ca News Staff
Some Alaska Airlines passengers are furious they weren't evacuated sooner after fireballs erupted under the starboard wing before takeoff from Calgary.
Passengers told CTV Calgary on Sunday that it took several minutes for an emergency evacuation, even though the aircraft's cabin was filling with smoke.
"The back of the plane started to fill up with smoke. I was scared," said Connie Watkins through her sniffles and tears.
Ironically, a flight attendant was in the middle of the routine reading out of safety instructions for Flight 698 for Los Angeles when the incident started.
"A big ball of flame and then smoke started all outside the plane and ultimately, it started to come inside the plane," said passenger Dennis Cornish.
"I just yelled 'Fire! Fire!' and the attendant stopped her instructions and wasn't really sure if it was a hoax or for real," added Janette Cornish.
"And then there was another big ball of fire," Dennis said.
"And the stewardess yelled to another stewardess that there was a fire. She came back and looked, and then they both looked and then they all left. And then we didn't see nobody," Watkins said.
"We were all standing up in the aisles and there wasn't nobody there at all."
At this point, passengers were screaming to be evacuated, but the escape exits remained closed.
"The stewardess again ran up to the front, and that took time. Then she came running back again and she was on the phone," Dennis said.
"Everybody was scared," Watkins said. "Everybody was jumping up trying to get off because they weren't opening the doors or anything."
The cabin continued to fill with smoke. Children were screaming and crying, and passengers were begging to get off the plane.
Finally, the crew made the call to evacuate.
"And at that time she said, 'Leave everything. We are going to evacuate by chute'," Janette recalled.
An Alaska Airlines spokesperson said the crew followed procedure.
"The elapsed time that they estimated for that to occur was about two minutes," said Caroline Boren.
"And at that time, because of the smoke in the cabin, they determined that as a precaution, they should go ahead and deploy the emergency evacuation slides."
All 138 passengers slid down the escape chutes to safety.
"It was horrible. I just thank God we were on the ground, that's all," Watkins said.
Alaska Airlines gave everyone a five-dollar gift certificate for a coffee shop and said it would help people with accommodation and rebooking their flights.
The company also said that a condition known as "torching" isn't unusual. That's when residual fuel reignites, shooting out towards the rear of the aircraft.
The cause of this accident hasn't been determined yet.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories
CTV.ca News Staff
Some Alaska Airlines passengers are furious they weren't evacuated sooner after fireballs erupted under the starboard wing before takeoff from Calgary.
Passengers told CTV Calgary on Sunday that it took several minutes for an emergency evacuation, even though the aircraft's cabin was filling with smoke.
"The back of the plane started to fill up with smoke. I was scared," said Connie Watkins through her sniffles and tears.
Ironically, a flight attendant was in the middle of the routine reading out of safety instructions for Flight 698 for Los Angeles when the incident started.
"A big ball of flame and then smoke started all outside the plane and ultimately, it started to come inside the plane," said passenger Dennis Cornish.
"I just yelled 'Fire! Fire!' and the attendant stopped her instructions and wasn't really sure if it was a hoax or for real," added Janette Cornish.
"And then there was another big ball of fire," Dennis said.
"And the stewardess yelled to another stewardess that there was a fire. She came back and looked, and then they both looked and then they all left. And then we didn't see nobody," Watkins said.
"We were all standing up in the aisles and there wasn't nobody there at all."
At this point, passengers were screaming to be evacuated, but the escape exits remained closed.
"The stewardess again ran up to the front, and that took time. Then she came running back again and she was on the phone," Dennis said.
"Everybody was scared," Watkins said. "Everybody was jumping up trying to get off because they weren't opening the doors or anything."
The cabin continued to fill with smoke. Children were screaming and crying, and passengers were begging to get off the plane.
Finally, the crew made the call to evacuate.
"And at that time she said, 'Leave everything. We are going to evacuate by chute'," Janette recalled.
An Alaska Airlines spokesperson said the crew followed procedure.
"The elapsed time that they estimated for that to occur was about two minutes," said Caroline Boren.
"And at that time, because of the smoke in the cabin, they determined that as a precaution, they should go ahead and deploy the emergency evacuation slides."
All 138 passengers slid down the escape chutes to safety.
"It was horrible. I just thank God we were on the ground, that's all," Watkins said.
Alaska Airlines gave everyone a five-dollar gift certificate for a coffee shop and said it would help people with accommodation and rebooking their flights.
The company also said that a condition known as "torching" isn't unusual. That's when residual fuel reignites, shooting out towards the rear of the aircraft.
The cause of this accident hasn't been determined yet.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's when residual fuel reignites, shooting out towards the rear of the aircraft.
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
The urge was obviously to evacuate immediately. If both engines were running, it does cause a nasty red spray coming out of the back, and the ones pouring out of the rear door getting singed and blown off their feet. Quite possible the pilots were unaware as they had possibly turned the aircon packs on after start. Definitely a time to sit tight and wait for the word! Don't you just hate it when babes in arms either get sucked into the engine or blown out of mum's arms?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally Alaska employees are better trained than this and the 5 buks is kinda an insult.
I was once on a flight on America West where none of the FAs knew how to operate the emergency OX bottles. They were trying to get one on this poor bloke that was dying. I ended up grabbing one off the seat and getting it working before handing it back to the dumbfounded Head FA.
I was once on a flight on America West where none of the FAs knew how to operate the emergency OX bottles. They were trying to get one on this poor bloke that was dying. I ended up grabbing one off the seat and getting it working before handing it back to the dumbfounded Head FA.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like they first had to check with the Captain (usually emergency evac. is captains decision) and it might be hard to establish communication with the flight crew once they're behind locked doors...
And looking at Connie Watkins pic, I'd loved to help her out ;-))
And looking at Connie Watkins pic, I'd loved to help her out ;-))
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If smoke is billowing into the cabin as the article suggests then the cabin crew cannot initiate an evacuation there an then as the aircraft could still be moving or indeed the engines could still be running. The best thing to do is call the flight deck using the emergency call there and then and hope for proper instruction. HOWEVER....If fire is clear in the cabin, then I would seriously consider initiating an evacuation myself!!! But then, it all depends on the situation and to make a judgement on this particular case all I can say is that I would have had to be onboard to tell.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my previous airline, the procedure for Cabin Crew to initiate an evacuation initially allowed for 3 situations in which they could initiate it: 1) Ditching, 2) Aircraft broken up, or 3) Major self sustaining fire. They then chose to remove "Major Self Sustaining Fire" from the list of situations in which cabin crew could initiate an evac, as cabin crew would not be able to tell if a fire was self sustaining or not - and the flight crew would be aware of any fire that was self sustaining, and be able to call for the evac themselves.
I fought this decision strongly, making particular reference to British Airtours flight KTM28 (737-200 which had an engine failure and subsequent fire during the take off roll. The intitial engine failure made a sound like a large "bang" which the flight crew presumed was a tyre bursting, and initiated rejected take off procedures. Unfortunately though, the ensuing fire from the engine failure was catastrophic, and was unnoticed by the flight crew - who used reverse thrust to stop the aircraft - therefore fanning the flames, and to make matters worse the prevailing wind then fanned the flames directly onto the aircraft. My point was the Flight Crew are not neccesarily always going to be aware of a major self sustaining fire - more detail on that incident here)
In any case, logic should/does prevail - and I would presume in the Alaskan case it did, we just dont have all the facts yet. As a previous poster mentioned, the engines would most likely have still been running, hence the delay in the call for evacuation - but of course the punters dont know/care about these kinds of things...
I fought this decision strongly, making particular reference to British Airtours flight KTM28 (737-200 which had an engine failure and subsequent fire during the take off roll. The intitial engine failure made a sound like a large "bang" which the flight crew presumed was a tyre bursting, and initiated rejected take off procedures. Unfortunately though, the ensuing fire from the engine failure was catastrophic, and was unnoticed by the flight crew - who used reverse thrust to stop the aircraft - therefore fanning the flames, and to make matters worse the prevailing wind then fanned the flames directly onto the aircraft. My point was the Flight Crew are not neccesarily always going to be aware of a major self sustaining fire - more detail on that incident here)
In any case, logic should/does prevail - and I would presume in the Alaskan case it did, we just dont have all the facts yet. As a previous poster mentioned, the engines would most likely have still been running, hence the delay in the call for evacuation - but of course the punters dont know/care about these kinds of things...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chertsey, Surrey
Age: 41
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I flew as crew, we were trained to initiate an evacuation in the event that we considered the aircraft was in a 'clearly catastrophic' situation. This is obviously left open to interpretation, but anybody with a few brain cells should be able to work out what may require an evacuation and what wouldn't.
Assuming the situation is as was described in the report, it sounds like the Cabin Crew did exactly what they should do. The report doesnt say the fire was in the cabin, there was a bit of smoke. What would the pax rather, that the crew opened the doors with the aircraft moving? So that the slides at doors one disappeared through the engine?! The facts on this incident are not known, so lets not have the usual trial, verdict and sentence all at the same time.
My personal view is that the crew would have had no choice but to pass this sort of information back to the flight deck, not necessarily to seek permission to evacuate but at least to get the aircraft stopped and shut down!!
Assuming the situation is as was described in the report, it sounds like the Cabin Crew did exactly what they should do. The report doesnt say the fire was in the cabin, there was a bit of smoke. What would the pax rather, that the crew opened the doors with the aircraft moving? So that the slides at doors one disappeared through the engine?! The facts on this incident are not known, so lets not have the usual trial, verdict and sentence all at the same time.
My personal view is that the crew would have had no choice but to pass this sort of information back to the flight deck, not necessarily to seek permission to evacuate but at least to get the aircraft stopped and shut down!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
More terror in the skies of the Great White North:
Flames ground Ottawa flight
CALGARY -- Passengers on board an Air Canada flight experienced a few brief moments of terror after an engine on their plane burst into flames shortly after takeoff.
The fire was extinguished after only a few minutes, and the plane circled Calgary for about a half-hour to dump fuel before making a safe landing. Air Canada officials said late yesterday that the fire was the result of a bird being sucked into the engine of the plane, which was on its way to Ottawa.
Stephen Hazel, sitting in a seat directly beside the engine that caught fire, said the sight of the flames caused an immediate adrenaline rush.
"I thought 'I could well die here,' " Hazel said. "We were still climbing very steeply and there was a very loud bang and I thought 'the engine exploded.' The noise stopped but I looked down and the engine was clearly on fire - flames coming out the back, lots of sparks."
The Airbus A319 had 99 passengers and crew, Air Canada spokeswoman Isabelle Arthur said. She said no injuries were reported.
The fire forced the evacuation of more than 100 passengers and crew.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Albe...93853-sun.html
________________________________________
Fireball Seen Shooting out of Ottawa Bound Plane
Darren McEwen
Saturday, November 05, 2005 2:24 AM
Dozens of air passengers touched down at the Ottawa Airport Friday night with a story to tell.
They left Calgary in an Air Canada Airbus A319 Friday evening but their plane had to return to the airport just minutes later.
People all across Calgary reported a loud boom and seeing a ball of fire shooting behind the aircraft as it returned to the airport.
The airline says the pilot quickly turned the aircraft around and landed the plane safely. A spokesman says a bird was sucked into the engine just before the fireball was reported but the engine did not fully catch fire.
None of the 99 people aboard were hurt. The passengers were allowed to board another Air Canada flight bound for Ottawa later in the evening.
This was the second close call at the Calgary Airport in the past week. An engine on an Alaska Airlines jet caught fire on the tarmac just before takeoff Sunday morning. No one was hurt in that incident.
http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=1&nid=33606
Flames ground Ottawa flight
CALGARY -- Passengers on board an Air Canada flight experienced a few brief moments of terror after an engine on their plane burst into flames shortly after takeoff.
The fire was extinguished after only a few minutes, and the plane circled Calgary for about a half-hour to dump fuel before making a safe landing. Air Canada officials said late yesterday that the fire was the result of a bird being sucked into the engine of the plane, which was on its way to Ottawa.
Stephen Hazel, sitting in a seat directly beside the engine that caught fire, said the sight of the flames caused an immediate adrenaline rush.
"I thought 'I could well die here,' " Hazel said. "We were still climbing very steeply and there was a very loud bang and I thought 'the engine exploded.' The noise stopped but I looked down and the engine was clearly on fire - flames coming out the back, lots of sparks."
The Airbus A319 had 99 passengers and crew, Air Canada spokeswoman Isabelle Arthur said. She said no injuries were reported.
The fire forced the evacuation of more than 100 passengers and crew.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Albe...93853-sun.html
________________________________________
Fireball Seen Shooting out of Ottawa Bound Plane
Darren McEwen
Saturday, November 05, 2005 2:24 AM
Dozens of air passengers touched down at the Ottawa Airport Friday night with a story to tell.
They left Calgary in an Air Canada Airbus A319 Friday evening but their plane had to return to the airport just minutes later.
People all across Calgary reported a loud boom and seeing a ball of fire shooting behind the aircraft as it returned to the airport.
The airline says the pilot quickly turned the aircraft around and landed the plane safely. A spokesman says a bird was sucked into the engine just before the fireball was reported but the engine did not fully catch fire.
None of the 99 people aboard were hurt. The passengers were allowed to board another Air Canada flight bound for Ottawa later in the evening.
This was the second close call at the Calgary Airport in the past week. An engine on an Alaska Airlines jet caught fire on the tarmac just before takeoff Sunday morning. No one was hurt in that incident.
http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=1&nid=33606
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word of advice to anyone who is tempted to post what to most of us at the pointy end is fairly obvious. Please spare us the predictable posts about the A319 being unable to "dump" fuel. We already know and there is no need for the flurry of posts from the usual suspects about the journalists errors. Suggest we just ignore it and get on with our lives, assuming we have one! 
Should we brief flight attendants (I brief very little, except for pushback option/enroute time and to communicate anytime, unless we already know about mod. turbulence, weather [+ delay to the east coast] or a short taxi) to remember that they can sometimes see more problems than we can from c0ckpit indications? And not to assume that we always will have all problems indicated?
Incidentally, we started an engine a 2nd time weeks ago (after releasing start switch and pulling and resetting the r. oil press. circuit breaker-having seen no increase) and we noticed oil pressure coming up on the LEFT engine...but we were re-starting the RIGHT engine. Released start switch again.
We then started the left.
The left oil temp. gauge was already going crazy and then we never got either N2 or N1 on the right engine, after repeatedly knocking knuckles on gauge with very sticky, tiny needles. THREE engine write-ups at once! Have never seen that! We had a large number of "replacement" technicians and the aircraft had taxied from the hangar to the gate. This plane never left that gate-keep in mind that this airplane could have become airborne with hidden problems, which we never had a chance to discover. By contrast, we did have several odd problems after hangar work (our own...) on one flight years ago in the "good old days". Hint: any Captains without years as FO in the same type are wise to ask FO about an odd system indication before putting it in logbook. It might be a normal advisory (on RAT/EPR gauge) until all pneumatics are in normal configuration etc. This prevents a totally unnecesary serious delay (waiting for advisory about which gate has the spare aircraft) for the next crew and fare-paying passengers.
Even under normal circumstances, engine vibration, as happened onboard the 744-400 at SFO, can cause serious mis-interpretation, compunded by little time for actual hand-flying skills available to many FOs on tran-oceanic routes: Captain proficiency was priority, at least in the actual aircraft. Did vibration or mis-reading happen also at Kegworth, or was it elsewhere that the cabin crew never compared their observations with the pilots?
If flames are contained inside of engine's exhaust section but rest of plane is ok, you can have trucks spray it without requiring a risky evacuation.
Incidentally, we started an engine a 2nd time weeks ago (after releasing start switch and pulling and resetting the r. oil press. circuit breaker-having seen no increase) and we noticed oil pressure coming up on the LEFT engine...but we were re-starting the RIGHT engine. Released start switch again.
We then started the left.
The left oil temp. gauge was already going crazy and then we never got either N2 or N1 on the right engine, after repeatedly knocking knuckles on gauge with very sticky, tiny needles. THREE engine write-ups at once! Have never seen that! We had a large number of "replacement" technicians and the aircraft had taxied from the hangar to the gate. This plane never left that gate-keep in mind that this airplane could have become airborne with hidden problems, which we never had a chance to discover. By contrast, we did have several odd problems after hangar work (our own...) on one flight years ago in the "good old days". Hint: any Captains without years as FO in the same type are wise to ask FO about an odd system indication before putting it in logbook. It might be a normal advisory (on RAT/EPR gauge) until all pneumatics are in normal configuration etc. This prevents a totally unnecesary serious delay (waiting for advisory about which gate has the spare aircraft) for the next crew and fare-paying passengers.
Even under normal circumstances, engine vibration, as happened onboard the 744-400 at SFO, can cause serious mis-interpretation, compunded by little time for actual hand-flying skills available to many FOs on tran-oceanic routes: Captain proficiency was priority, at least in the actual aircraft. Did vibration or mis-reading happen also at Kegworth, or was it elsewhere that the cabin crew never compared their observations with the pilots?
If flames are contained inside of engine's exhaust section but rest of plane is ok, you can have trucks spray it without requiring a risky evacuation.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did vibration or mis-reading happen also at Kegworth, or was it elsewhere that the cabin crew never compared their observations with the pilots?
