Flybe E190 Incident At IOM
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: iom
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been an awful lot of over hyping of actual events and what happened. All that I will say is it was a professional follow up to an incident by all involved. The actual misrepoirting that occured in some of the local 'media' really was shameful! Causing panic among passengers helps nobody. Things like 'jet veers off runway' for example! 
Well done to all involved for the care of the passengers in IOM!
Well done to all involved for the care of the passengers in IOM!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: too far from home!
Age: 49
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does flybe fly into iom with the 190 normally.just asking as i thought it was a rather short runway and was wondering how they might get it out
regards and well done to the crew
ng
regards and well done to the crew
ng
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CGN
Age: 53
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does flybe fly into iom with the 190 normally.just asking as i thought it was a rather short runway and was wondering how they might get it out
regards and well done to the crew
ng
regards and well done to the crew
ng
Manchester-Belfast flight.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
195 doesn't normally fly into IOM, as most routes to/from Fraggle Rock are flown with the mighty Dash, but it has operated into there on numerous occassions.
Runway is plenty long enough for the kind of loads that are carried (not checked, but believe it is somewhere around 1600m - roughly the same as JER). Getting the old girl out of there will be no problem at all, it has masses of performance.
Runway is plenty long enough for the kind of loads that are carried (not checked, but believe it is somewhere around 1600m - roughly the same as JER). Getting the old girl out of there will be no problem at all, it has masses of performance.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does flybe fly into iom with the 190 normally.just asking as i thought it was a rather short runway and was wondering how they might get it out
IOM Take off distance available 08 = 2446m (TORA=1631m)
SOU Take off distance available 20 = 1805m (TORA=1650m)
There are 2 E190's based in SOU doing multiple flights per day without any problems.
You can actually carry an extra 1.8 tons off IOM as apposed to SOU due to the increased TODA.
Hope this helps,
PJ2
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the EMB190 does normally operate from IOM, some of the Saturday IOM-LGW services are on it. Also, to Flybe's credit, if there are problems with a/c or weather and they have to combine flights, as they did on Tuesday when Manx2 managed to close the airport with a burst tyre, they put the 190 on for the increased capacity and got everyone where they wanted to be. Well done Flybe
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ingerland
Age: 42
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@KingAir9 He didn't ask why there was an E190 he asked if under normal circumstances does an E190 do scheduled services here...He wasn't necessarily questioning this plane being on a scheduled service to here...
That flight might be doing MAN-BEL but their could easily be another flight that does MAN-IOM in this aircraft...maybe that was what he was asking...But anyways...in reply...I think it normally is an ATR or that other propeller one oh yeah Dash-8
That flight might be doing MAN-BEL but their could easily be another flight that does MAN-IOM in this aircraft...maybe that was what he was asking...But anyways...in reply...I think it normally is an ATR or that other propeller one oh yeah Dash-8
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How very refreshing indeed to have an entirely non-sensationalist interview with an articulate and intelligent passenger, who has been given the opportunity to relay what is very probably an accurate account of the incident without some dimwit TV reporter trying to make it sound like Armaggedon was narrowly averted. Well done that man (and the reporter for that matter).
Perhaps Fraggle Rock should be allowed to provide all news stations with reporters and editors instead of the plonkers that we have to endure at present.
Perhaps Fraggle Rock should be allowed to provide all news stations with reporters and editors instead of the plonkers that we have to endure at present.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stockport
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoke from an unknown source (later identified by engs as a 'burned out' ECS pack), immediate div to Fraggle Rock, a/c steered by crew into wind on landing. Evacuation ordered and executed. Job well done.
Engs replacing pack today.
Engs replacing pack today.
Flight deck windows closed
Maude Charlee,
Agree entirely with your comment on the interview: low-key, factual, no-big-thing.
But I'm curious as to why you might deduce from windows being closed that the crew exited via the chutes along with the passengers.
Agree entirely with your comment on the interview: low-key, factual, no-big-thing.
But I'm curious as to why you might deduce from windows being closed that the crew exited via the chutes along with the passengers.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any ill health to passengers and crew?
I expect that, as usual, the passengers and crew reported no injuries and that all is well.....
Here are a variety of quotes from previous official AAIB reports which suggest that smoke / fumes in the confines of an aircraft are not good for one; just like 'smoking' in any public place?
All of these official statements are from different flying incidents in recent years and maybe give an idea of the effect of the fumes on some flight crews.
Apologies for the long list, but it might help understand the extent of the problem.
It would be interesting to hear what medical advice was given and I have no doubt that some people appear to be totally unaffected by identical exposures.
DB
• The pilot in command, following the onset of these fumes, had difficulty in concentrating on the operation of the aircraft, and suffered from a loss of situational awareness.
• …the crew had difficulty explaining the urgency of the situation (Aircraft diverted to Paris due to fumes and a smell of oil in the flight deck) to air traffic control.
• During the first flight the purser experienced an unpleasant feeling of fainting. She told the other two cabin crew members about this and they stated they had experienced something similar. They did not recognise any special odour.
• During the subsequent flight one of the cabin attendants who was placed in the forward part of the cabin experienced an odd pressure in the head, nasal itching and ear pain. The other two colleagues in the cabin also felt discomfort and the feeling of “moon walk” while working.
• The third flight the same day was flown by the Commander. During the flight, which took place at a cruising altitude of FL 280, all three members of the cabin crew experienced similar discomfort as during the preceding two flights but more pronounced. During the first portion of the flight the pilots did not notice anything abnormal but shortly before they were to leave cruising altitude the Commander began to feel a mild dizziness.
During the approach into Malmo/Sturup airport when the aircraft was descending through FL 150 the Co Pilot suddenly became nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. Then, after an estimated period of ten seconds, the Commander also became very nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. After a few seconds of breathing in the oxygen mask the Co Pilot felt better and thereafter had no difficulty in performing his duties. However the Commander felt markedly dizzy and groggy for a couple of minutes.
He had difficulty with physiological motor response, simultaneity and in focussing. Finally he handed over control to the Co Pilot. After having breathed oxygen for a few minutes even the Captain began to feel better and landing on Runway 27 without problems.
This incident was caused by the pilots becoming temporarily affected by probably polluted cabin air.
• All four cabin crew members reported feeling nauseous following passenger disembarkation, but they did not realise that they all had been similarly affected during the descent until the matter was discussed between themselves after landing. In addition to nausea, they reported feeling light headed and hot, but neither the flight crew nor passengers reportedly suffered any ill effects. The aircraft was reported to have had a history of such events and, despite satisfactory ground tests after this incident, similar symptoms were reported two days later by a different cabin crew when working in the forward galley.
• During the climb, the Senior Cabin Attendant (SCA) entered the flight deck to report that two passengers towards the left rear of the cabin had informed that they had noticed an oily/petrol like smell. In addition, a cabin crew member of a Company BAe 146 positioning crew had also reported a similar smell.
He (First Officer) sat in his seat but began to feel progressively worse, although his work load was low. He felt ‘light headed’ and had difficulty concentrating. He was aware of a tingling feeling in his finger tips and his arms started shaking.
At about this time the Commander also began to feel nauseous and asked the First Officer how he felt. The First Officer replied that he “felt dreadful” and the Commander looked at him and saw his face was white and that his pupils appeared dilated.
When she (SCA) arrived, the First Officer was on 100% oxygen, his seat was well back from the aircraft controls and his hands were seen to be trembling.
The Commander was feeling progressively worse. He felt light headed and recalled considering three aspects: landing, declaring an emergency and putting on his oxygen mask. However he felt able to cope only with one decision and continued his approach.
…the Commander seemed to have ‘double vision’ and had difficulty in judging height.
The Commander noted afterwards that it was all he could do just to land the aircraft as by now he felt very light headed and tired.
He (First Officer) did not consider that being on oxygen had made him feel better only after he had left the aircraft. However, he still felt as if he was in a daze.
• The crew noticed an “oily metallic” smell on the flight deck during an outbound flight from London Heathrow to Copenhagen. The same smell was noticed on the return flight. Towards the end of the flight, on approach to Heathrow, the crew missed numerous ATC calls, which prompted the controller to ask “if everything was all right”. In addition the Commander did not reduce aircraft speed to configure the aircraft for landing until reminded by the controller when the aircraft was at 3.7 nm DME (Distance Measuring Equipment). It was only after landing that the crew considered a possible link between the smell and their performance. When the smell was first detected, the crew had discussed the use of oxygen masks, but had concluded that there were no side effects to justify their use.
Subsequently, neither crewmember experienced any further symptoms or adverse effects.
• After parking on stand, both flight crewmembers experienced headaches and eye irritation.
• .….the Commander found it very difficult to concentrate on completing the fuel check and R/T tasks. He reported that his throat was dry, that his eyes felt irritated, that he had a headache and was generally aware that all was not well. The SCA reported that she also had a ‘very dry throat and eyes’ and the other crewmembers also had headaches.
• The Commander stated that, following the incident, he developed blisters inside his mouth, around his left inner cheek, on the roof of his mouth and left lower rear gum. He also had a tight chest, sore throat and suffered from coughing. The source of fumes was subsequently traced to No 3 engine, which was replaced on the following day.
• ……when fumes entered the flight deck and reportedly caused ‘dizziness and irritation to eyes’
However the problem recurred on 22 February 2001 when an oily smell was reported to have persisted on the flight deck for the duration of the flight, causing nose, and increasing throat irritation in both pilots.
• In addition to headaches, both pilots suffered from irritation to their mouths and nasal passages. An oily film was subsequently wiped off the flight deck CRT displays and passed to the operating Company’s engineering department for analysis.
• Both flight crew were left with a metallic taste in the mouth; the Commander also experienced a tingling sensation on his lips and a sore throat for several days. The First Officer was left with minor eye irritation.
• During the climb the Commander noticed a metallic taste coupled with an increasingly strong smell. The commander began to feel light headed and “un-coordinated”. The effects were still evident after landing with some reported errors of judgement and garbled speech.
• During the turnaround, the Commander alighted the aircraft in order to breathe fresh air but, after a short time, he suffered a head ache, itchy eyes, nausea and a bad taste in his mouth. The same crew then prepared the aircraft for return sector but, when engines number 3 and 4 were started, the Commander and the cabin staff felt increasingly unwell and as a result, the flight was cancelled. The aircraft was inspected in accordance with Service Bulletin ISB 21 – 150 but this did not reveal any oil contamination. However, following an air test it was found that engine No 4 and the APU were both the source of the fumes.
• The fumes reportedly affected two cabin staff and several passengers.
• The cabin manager felt overwhelmed by these fumes, and was on the verge of passing out, when her colleagues became aware of the situation and administered oxygen to her. After 10 minutes, the cabin manager recovered but was unable to resume her normal duties. Subsequent blood tests revealed that she had been exposed to higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide. (CO).
• The crew began to feel nauseous and so donned their oxygen masks, declared a PAN and returned to Heathrow where an uneventful landing was made.
• Then he started to feel dizzy and so donned his oxygen mask.
• The co pilot was limited in his capability of acting during the approach and landing due to the effects of fumes.
The medical examination of the co pilot after the flight showed that during the flight toxic exposure took place.
The medical examination of the Commander after flight did not show any results.
• They described it as a ‘burnt’ or ‘exhaust’ smell, but it was not accompanied by any visible smoke. Soon after, both crew members began to experience symptoms of tunnel vision, loss of balance and loss of feeling in the hands and lower arms. They immediately donned their oxygen masks, breathing 100% oxygen, which improved their condition noticeably.
Here are a variety of quotes from previous official AAIB reports which suggest that smoke / fumes in the confines of an aircraft are not good for one; just like 'smoking' in any public place?
All of these official statements are from different flying incidents in recent years and maybe give an idea of the effect of the fumes on some flight crews.
Apologies for the long list, but it might help understand the extent of the problem.
It would be interesting to hear what medical advice was given and I have no doubt that some people appear to be totally unaffected by identical exposures.
DB
• The pilot in command, following the onset of these fumes, had difficulty in concentrating on the operation of the aircraft, and suffered from a loss of situational awareness.
• …the crew had difficulty explaining the urgency of the situation (Aircraft diverted to Paris due to fumes and a smell of oil in the flight deck) to air traffic control.
• During the first flight the purser experienced an unpleasant feeling of fainting. She told the other two cabin crew members about this and they stated they had experienced something similar. They did not recognise any special odour.
• During the subsequent flight one of the cabin attendants who was placed in the forward part of the cabin experienced an odd pressure in the head, nasal itching and ear pain. The other two colleagues in the cabin also felt discomfort and the feeling of “moon walk” while working.
• The third flight the same day was flown by the Commander. During the flight, which took place at a cruising altitude of FL 280, all three members of the cabin crew experienced similar discomfort as during the preceding two flights but more pronounced. During the first portion of the flight the pilots did not notice anything abnormal but shortly before they were to leave cruising altitude the Commander began to feel a mild dizziness.
During the approach into Malmo/Sturup airport when the aircraft was descending through FL 150 the Co Pilot suddenly became nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. Then, after an estimated period of ten seconds, the Commander also became very nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. After a few seconds of breathing in the oxygen mask the Co Pilot felt better and thereafter had no difficulty in performing his duties. However the Commander felt markedly dizzy and groggy for a couple of minutes.
He had difficulty with physiological motor response, simultaneity and in focussing. Finally he handed over control to the Co Pilot. After having breathed oxygen for a few minutes even the Captain began to feel better and landing on Runway 27 without problems.
This incident was caused by the pilots becoming temporarily affected by probably polluted cabin air.
• All four cabin crew members reported feeling nauseous following passenger disembarkation, but they did not realise that they all had been similarly affected during the descent until the matter was discussed between themselves after landing. In addition to nausea, they reported feeling light headed and hot, but neither the flight crew nor passengers reportedly suffered any ill effects. The aircraft was reported to have had a history of such events and, despite satisfactory ground tests after this incident, similar symptoms were reported two days later by a different cabin crew when working in the forward galley.
• During the climb, the Senior Cabin Attendant (SCA) entered the flight deck to report that two passengers towards the left rear of the cabin had informed that they had noticed an oily/petrol like smell. In addition, a cabin crew member of a Company BAe 146 positioning crew had also reported a similar smell.
He (First Officer) sat in his seat but began to feel progressively worse, although his work load was low. He felt ‘light headed’ and had difficulty concentrating. He was aware of a tingling feeling in his finger tips and his arms started shaking.
At about this time the Commander also began to feel nauseous and asked the First Officer how he felt. The First Officer replied that he “felt dreadful” and the Commander looked at him and saw his face was white and that his pupils appeared dilated.
When she (SCA) arrived, the First Officer was on 100% oxygen, his seat was well back from the aircraft controls and his hands were seen to be trembling.
The Commander was feeling progressively worse. He felt light headed and recalled considering three aspects: landing, declaring an emergency and putting on his oxygen mask. However he felt able to cope only with one decision and continued his approach.
…the Commander seemed to have ‘double vision’ and had difficulty in judging height.
The Commander noted afterwards that it was all he could do just to land the aircraft as by now he felt very light headed and tired.
He (First Officer) did not consider that being on oxygen had made him feel better only after he had left the aircraft. However, he still felt as if he was in a daze.
• The crew noticed an “oily metallic” smell on the flight deck during an outbound flight from London Heathrow to Copenhagen. The same smell was noticed on the return flight. Towards the end of the flight, on approach to Heathrow, the crew missed numerous ATC calls, which prompted the controller to ask “if everything was all right”. In addition the Commander did not reduce aircraft speed to configure the aircraft for landing until reminded by the controller when the aircraft was at 3.7 nm DME (Distance Measuring Equipment). It was only after landing that the crew considered a possible link between the smell and their performance. When the smell was first detected, the crew had discussed the use of oxygen masks, but had concluded that there were no side effects to justify their use.
Subsequently, neither crewmember experienced any further symptoms or adverse effects.
• After parking on stand, both flight crewmembers experienced headaches and eye irritation.
• .….the Commander found it very difficult to concentrate on completing the fuel check and R/T tasks. He reported that his throat was dry, that his eyes felt irritated, that he had a headache and was generally aware that all was not well. The SCA reported that she also had a ‘very dry throat and eyes’ and the other crewmembers also had headaches.
• The Commander stated that, following the incident, he developed blisters inside his mouth, around his left inner cheek, on the roof of his mouth and left lower rear gum. He also had a tight chest, sore throat and suffered from coughing. The source of fumes was subsequently traced to No 3 engine, which was replaced on the following day.
• ……when fumes entered the flight deck and reportedly caused ‘dizziness and irritation to eyes’
However the problem recurred on 22 February 2001 when an oily smell was reported to have persisted on the flight deck for the duration of the flight, causing nose, and increasing throat irritation in both pilots.
• In addition to headaches, both pilots suffered from irritation to their mouths and nasal passages. An oily film was subsequently wiped off the flight deck CRT displays and passed to the operating Company’s engineering department for analysis.
• Both flight crew were left with a metallic taste in the mouth; the Commander also experienced a tingling sensation on his lips and a sore throat for several days. The First Officer was left with minor eye irritation.
• During the climb the Commander noticed a metallic taste coupled with an increasingly strong smell. The commander began to feel light headed and “un-coordinated”. The effects were still evident after landing with some reported errors of judgement and garbled speech.
• During the turnaround, the Commander alighted the aircraft in order to breathe fresh air but, after a short time, he suffered a head ache, itchy eyes, nausea and a bad taste in his mouth. The same crew then prepared the aircraft for return sector but, when engines number 3 and 4 were started, the Commander and the cabin staff felt increasingly unwell and as a result, the flight was cancelled. The aircraft was inspected in accordance with Service Bulletin ISB 21 – 150 but this did not reveal any oil contamination. However, following an air test it was found that engine No 4 and the APU were both the source of the fumes.
• The fumes reportedly affected two cabin staff and several passengers.
• The cabin manager felt overwhelmed by these fumes, and was on the verge of passing out, when her colleagues became aware of the situation and administered oxygen to her. After 10 minutes, the cabin manager recovered but was unable to resume her normal duties. Subsequent blood tests revealed that she had been exposed to higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide. (CO).
• The crew began to feel nauseous and so donned their oxygen masks, declared a PAN and returned to Heathrow where an uneventful landing was made.
• Then he started to feel dizzy and so donned his oxygen mask.
• The co pilot was limited in his capability of acting during the approach and landing due to the effects of fumes.
The medical examination of the co pilot after the flight showed that during the flight toxic exposure took place.
The medical examination of the Commander after flight did not show any results.
• They described it as a ‘burnt’ or ‘exhaust’ smell, but it was not accompanied by any visible smoke. Soon after, both crew members began to experience symptoms of tunnel vision, loss of balance and loss of feeling in the hands and lower arms. They immediately donned their oxygen masks, breathing 100% oxygen, which improved their condition noticeably.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Broadreach, the flight deck DV windows are the primary emergency exit for the pilots although they can choose to use the main pax doors if they want, which does save the family jewels from being speared by a pitot tube.
If the DV windows are still shut this would suggest that they got out another way, the most obvious being the slides...unless there's another way I don't know about!
If the DV windows are still shut this would suggest that they got out another way, the most obvious being the slides...unless there's another way I don't know about!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: the flight deck windows.
As the pictures and video show the windows to be closed, it is unlikley that following the evacuation somebody re-entered the a/c, stowed the escape ropes back into the ceiling stowage and then shut the DV windows. Therefore, it would be a logical assumption that this was not the chosen route for the flight deck to evacuate.
From a personal point of view, unless the situation was clearly of immediate life-threatening severity (cast your mind back to the Chinese 737 fire on stand last year), not being either a monkey or an Olympic gymnast, I wouldn't choose to use the rope either as it is in my mind, far more likley to lead to me getting seriously injured than using the slides. Given that from ordering the evacuation, the flight deck have a short checklist to complete and that the cabin should be evacuated in less than 90 secs, it is also unlikely that any significant delay would occur in choosing to evacuate the flight deck via the cabin door rather than the window.
Entirely non-SOP, but a sensible option.
As the pictures and video show the windows to be closed, it is unlikley that following the evacuation somebody re-entered the a/c, stowed the escape ropes back into the ceiling stowage and then shut the DV windows. Therefore, it would be a logical assumption that this was not the chosen route for the flight deck to evacuate.
From a personal point of view, unless the situation was clearly of immediate life-threatening severity (cast your mind back to the Chinese 737 fire on stand last year), not being either a monkey or an Olympic gymnast, I wouldn't choose to use the rope either as it is in my mind, far more likley to lead to me getting seriously injured than using the slides. Given that from ordering the evacuation, the flight deck have a short checklist to complete and that the cabin should be evacuated in less than 90 secs, it is also unlikely that any significant delay would occur in choosing to evacuate the flight deck via the cabin door rather than the window.
Entirely non-SOP, but a sensible option.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Age: 39
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maude C
90 secs is the time required for a (trained) pax load to evacuate an aircraft, through half the available exits, for said aircraft to achieve certification. It has no bearing on the 'real life scenario' time which would depend on many variables.
I didn't know there was an SOP which required FD to use the windows/ropes.
Surely, depending on the conditions aboard, this could have been the time for a Precautionary Rapid Disembarkation - which Flybe haven't got as an option.
Thoughts?
90 secs is the time required for a (trained) pax load to evacuate an aircraft, through half the available exits, for said aircraft to achieve certification. It has no bearing on the 'real life scenario' time which would depend on many variables.
I didn't know there was an SOP which required FD to use the windows/ropes.
Surely, depending on the conditions aboard, this could have been the time for a Precautionary Rapid Disembarkation - which Flybe haven't got as an option.
Thoughts?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustard,
How would you conduct a rapid precautionary disembarkation in this scenario exactly? Are you really suggesting that with fumes in the cabin the crew should have stopped, deployed the forward airstair and evacuated the entire a/c down these steps onto the runway? Or maybe they should have taxied onto stand and requested the handlers to bring steps?
A precautionary rapid evacuation is only really an option when the a/c is already on stand, with either steps deployed/attached or with an airbridge attached.
How would you conduct a rapid precautionary disembarkation in this scenario exactly? Are you really suggesting that with fumes in the cabin the crew should have stopped, deployed the forward airstair and evacuated the entire a/c down these steps onto the runway? Or maybe they should have taxied onto stand and requested the handlers to bring steps?
A precautionary rapid evacuation is only really an option when the a/c is already on stand, with either steps deployed/attached or with an airbridge attached.
Chesty and Maude,
Pitot tube spearing and sprained ankles was precisely what passed through my mind. I had suspected Maude's comment of being just slightly tongue-in-cheek, even suggesting that the side windows might have been used since it seems (ok, 20-20 hindsight!) that the aircraft wasn't in imminent danger of becoming a fireball. Yes I remember the 737 fire, but wasn't that a complete surprise, during refuelling? Not quite the same thing. I would have thought the check list and a bit of snooping around the cabin to satisfy natural curiosity would have kept them busy for at least a few minutes.
Pitot tube spearing and sprained ankles was precisely what passed through my mind. I had suspected Maude's comment of being just slightly tongue-in-cheek, even suggesting that the side windows might have been used since it seems (ok, 20-20 hindsight!) that the aircraft wasn't in imminent danger of becoming a fireball. Yes I remember the 737 fire, but wasn't that a complete surprise, during refuelling? Not quite the same thing. I would have thought the check list and a bit of snooping around the cabin to satisfy natural curiosity would have kept them busy for at least a few minutes.