Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Thomson Full Evac @ STN

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Thomson Full Evac @ STN

Old 28th Oct 2006, 14:59
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 549
Apparently the original plan was to deplane normally via steps. Steps were requested and you can guess the rest. The situation viz pax began to deteriorate and it was only a matter of time before somebody took matters into their own hands.

No, I wasn't there.

The introductory blurb in the 757 QRH sates that 02 and goggles should be used if neccessary. No idea about masks on anything other than 757/767 but they are a serious barrier to effective communications.

As an aside, only 2 of the 200 odd pax declined to continue their journey with TOM later in the day.
yeoman is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 19:28
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On my farm
Posts: 1,172
Did the whole "smoke and fumes" drill in the sim just last month. More difficult to communicate via mask than it is to contact Mumbai on the HF! Leaving the intercom column switch latched on makes it a lot worse. (the sound of someone breathing in/out and the swoosshhh of the flowing oxy)

Methinks the 787/7E7 ought to lead the way and give us some more effective means of communication with the oxy on. How about an inflatable bag with the same elastic tube thingy around the neck?

The coiled oxy line in the sim wrapped itself around the oxy door as I pulled it out. Not being able to see it through the 'smoke' meant that I wasn't able to get my head all the way back in the seat and I couldn't even get my head to an angle where I could look up to the pack switches. One for you to store away in the memory!!!
blue up is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2006, 07:34
  #43 (permalink)  
RMC
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 494
Not criticising the crew, as it seems they followed the Boeing drill to the letter.
As our fire service friend hints at though there are instances (and no one at the time is certain when they are) where any delay putting on your mask will result in incapacitation.
Have done the decompression chamber jigsaw (thinking everything was great) then been unable to execute the "now you can plug your oxygen back in" command (I just looked at the plug...looked at the instructor and laughed apparently. Really brings it home.
Hypoxia, narcosis etc all have a common symptom and that is "Impairs judgement and co-ordination and may create a false sense of security, cause disregard for safety and other foolish behaviour"
If you get into this state you are beyond the point of no return and all will be lost. The scary thing is you don't realise it is happening to you. So the "oxygen if required" statement has a fundamental flaw.
Our drill for any smoke odour or fumes in the cabin is....
Crew oxy masks....don 100%
Goggles...............don
Crew coms...........establish
Diversion..............consider
Most dangerous gases cannot be smelt and/or seen (carbon monoxide etc) there is no place for making gas conentration assessments which are only effectively made by caged budgies / canaries and carbon monoxide detectors (the latter would be easier to check in). My understanding is that carbon monoxide would be one of the gases given out by an engine seal failure.
If the Boeing procedure at least asked for one of the crew to don oxygen immediately it would make a lot more sense. Procedures like this, after all, should protect against the worst case gas scenario.
RMC is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2006, 10:14
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Road
Age: 49
Posts: 10
UK government guidelines as follows from the Hansard's





7th December 2004 Official Report (Commons Hansard), Vol.428, Col. 420W,
Air Passengers (Chemical Exposure)
Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether UK airline captains experiencing cockpit or cabin air contamination event serious enough for pilots to use emergency oxygen have a responsibility to inform passengers to which chemicals they might have been exposed. [202745]

Charlotte Atkins: Pilots are required to use oxygen as a precautionary measure in all cases of suspected cockpit air abnormalities irrespective of severity of event. Flight crew are not professionally qualified to verify the cause of air contamination or identify what chemicals if any, passengers may have been exposed to. The captain has discretion to inform passengers of an event.






Merv.
Mervyn's Clowns is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2006, 10:33
  #45 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,582
Clowns - in light of your posts #32 and #44 can you tell us exactly why you think the crew did not in fact follow the 'government guidelines'?

You do not appear to have replied to my request for you to state your credentials in commenting on this matter, but if you are indeed qualified, may I ask if your company approve of your operating your aircraft IAW
7th December 2004 Official Report (Commons Hansard), Vol.428, Col. 420W,
or do they expect you to follow the QRH?

In view of your silence and comments I will assume you are not qualified.
As far as I'm aware the Immediate actions on most Commercial aircraft these days is to don the O2 Masks and establish communications. I can post the relevant emergency check list/QRH if necessary.
We'd all be interested if you would. I suspect it is not universal if it indeed does exist as 'RMC' states, and remember that is a cabin crew drill, not a QRH action. Whether or not it SHOULD be is another matter.
BOAC is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2006, 20:11
  #46 (permalink)  
RMC
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 494
The drill I quoted was the EMB 145 QRH (flight deck memory items). It reflects the concerns shown by MC's last post.

As you say though...in a court of law we can only operate iaw the manufacturers QRH...which is what these guys appear to have done.

Would be interested to hear what the medics have to say about this...will see if anyone is home.
RMC is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2006, 20:50
  #47 (permalink)  

Scaredy-cat
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hochheim, Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 35
I had a similar experience in 1999 - see this thread.

But no one bothered whether we actually inhaled some of the potentially toxic stuff or not - no medical team was interested in us at all. The rubber jungle was released only after some time, when it was already difficult to see through the smoke. The smoke itself smelt of burnt electronics, though, not kerosene.
Interesting enough, there was absolutely NO panic. But there were more than just two people who refused to board another plane - it must have been at least ten.
iskandra is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2006, 22:14
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 64
Posts: 376
Iskandra,

Type 'aerotoxic $yndrome' into any $earch engine and you will be become aware of the be$t kept $ecret in aviation and find out all about what the Doctor$ have never under$tood and the politician$ don't want you to under$tand....$$$$$$$$$$!

What is right is often forgotten by what i$ convenient.
Dream Buster is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2006, 22:23
  #49 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,582
In line with the way this thread is going, http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=146733
BOAC is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.