Southwest Airlines jet catches fire after landing in Houston
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unnecessary delay
Strongly disagree that the delay in evactuation was necessary or satisfactory. Read about the BA 737 accident at Manchester (UK) in the mid 80s (56 fatalities, from memory).
If it's a serious fire every single second counts. From the cockpit, you can't tell what's happening in the cabin - whether there's fire visible outside or not, how fast it's spreading. So you have to assume any reported fire is serious.
If someone you trust tells you that your aircraft is on fire on the ground, stop it and evacuate immediately. Think about your heading relative to the wind and the position of the fire, if known (in the Manchester accident they stopped in a position where flames from the burning fuel prevented use of at least one of the exits). I don't believe anyone on board an aircraft is in a position to make an educated judgement about the severity of a fire, and then use that judgement to delay evacuation on the ground.
I don't for one second believe that it takes several minutes to run the checklist for this occurrence.
I don't have any special knowledge of this incident, so I can't comment on what the causes for a delay might have been. Conceivably it may not be the pilots' fault.
I'm not a firefighter; but I've received a reasonable amount of firefighting training (for work in the offshore oil and gas industry). I've also been on platfroms/rigs where fires have broken out, and seen how quickly the situation goes from 'under control' to 'f**d up beyond belief'. If the delay in evactuation was elective, the situation wasn't being taken seriously enough.
Lucky this time...
If it's a serious fire every single second counts. From the cockpit, you can't tell what's happening in the cabin - whether there's fire visible outside or not, how fast it's spreading. So you have to assume any reported fire is serious.
If someone you trust tells you that your aircraft is on fire on the ground, stop it and evacuate immediately. Think about your heading relative to the wind and the position of the fire, if known (in the Manchester accident they stopped in a position where flames from the burning fuel prevented use of at least one of the exits). I don't believe anyone on board an aircraft is in a position to make an educated judgement about the severity of a fire, and then use that judgement to delay evacuation on the ground.
I don't for one second believe that it takes several minutes to run the checklist for this occurrence.
I don't have any special knowledge of this incident, so I can't comment on what the causes for a delay might have been. Conceivably it may not be the pilots' fault.
I'm not a firefighter; but I've received a reasonable amount of firefighting training (for work in the offshore oil and gas industry). I've also been on platfroms/rigs where fires have broken out, and seen how quickly the situation goes from 'under control' to 'f**d up beyond belief'. If the delay in evactuation was elective, the situation wasn't being taken seriously enough.
Lucky this time...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throroughly agree with BryceM
Check AAIB.gov.uk for B737-200 G-BGJL operating KT28M 22/08/85 @ MAN/EGCC. Has anyone learnt from this I wonder ?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chelan, WA
Age: 48
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, folks get killed in evacuations due to false fire alarms too.
http://www.flightsafety.org/ccs/ccs_nov-dec02.pdf
In some of these cases, note that smoke detectors went off because the overpressurization of the cabin caused false alarms there. (Basically, the smoke detectors measure the absorbtion of radioactive alpha particles as this causes a drop in voltage across the air gap-- as particulates enter the gap or as air density rises beyond a certain threshold, the alarm will sound.)
Secondly, even in the case of an actual fires too it is important to ensure that folks are not evacuated into the fire, or spinning engines, or the like.
http://www.flightsafety.org/ccs/ccs_nov-dec02.pdf
In some of these cases, note that smoke detectors went off because the overpressurization of the cabin caused false alarms there. (Basically, the smoke detectors measure the absorbtion of radioactive alpha particles as this causes a drop in voltage across the air gap-- as particulates enter the gap or as air density rises beyond a certain threshold, the alarm will sound.)
Secondly, even in the case of an actual fires too it is important to ensure that folks are not evacuated into the fire, or spinning engines, or the like.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.C. = Pilot did it (NTSB ignors MEL-deferMX as contributing)
SWA 519 / 12May09 Ldg HOU Rwy22 B737-3H4 N371SW,
CEN09IA294
DFW08IA087
Continental /27Mar08 B737-524, N23661, landing Houston IAH 26R,
USAirways 431 / 31Aug06 B737-400 N425US, lndg MIA
"... Prior to the flight, the flight crew and dispatcher were aware that the anti-skid system was inoperative...."
NTSB released the official P.C. on January 7th 2011 --CEN09IA294
"... Safety Board determines the probable cause ... :
"The pilot's inadvertent application of excessive braking after touchdown, which caused the right wheels to lock and several tires to blow and resulted in a subsequent brake fire."
Similar mishaps where the company dispatched MEL- ANTI-SKID INOP'"The pilot's inadvertent application of excessive braking after touchdown, which caused the right wheels to lock and several tires to blow and resulted in a subsequent brake fire."
DFW08IA087
Continental /27Mar08 B737-524, N23661, landing Houston IAH 26R,
“… departed … knowing that the anti-skid system was inoperative…. crew briefed the operational procedures for landing with an inoperative anti-skid system ...
MIA06IA133USAirways 431 / 31Aug06 B737-400 N425US, lndg MIA
"... upon landing a 'popping sound' was heard from the left side of the airplane. Shortly thereafter, the airplane settled ... flightcrew felt a series of bumps and vibrations. As the airplane slowed to a halt, the left main gear tires caught fire, and the captain initiated an evacuation ..."
Last edited by IGh; 11th Jan 2011 at 18:02.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the airline's inception in June 1971, an inop anti-skid was deferral was possible under the MEL. They didn't fail and get deferred all that often, but when they did, and it couldn't be repaired, the MEL relief was utilized, the performance penalties and various MEL-mandated provisos complied with, and off the aircraft went until it could be routed into MX.
All that changed post-incident. Although relief still exists in the MMEL, we've gone more restrictive and it's no longer deferrable.
All that changed post-incident. Although relief still exists in the MMEL, we've gone more restrictive and it's no longer deferrable.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: No. Cal, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that bothers me the most is that the guy with the papers going everywhere actually sends his stuff down the slide first, then goes down himself & then sits at the bottom while he collects everything. Even then he doesn't get it all & ends up chasing the papers towards the rear of the aircraft!!!
A $10K penalty for carrying an item out of an airplane during evacuation would discourage the act.
gog...
Doesn't matter where you live.
I'm often grumpy too and for a number of good reasons aside from the fact that I'm an old
, (George Carlin, "It's Bad For Ya).
The reason such individuals at the bottom of evacuation slides are so oblivious to others waiting for him, in this case, to gather his papers carried by the wind, is that we are an atomized society where "the commons" does not exist.
The "locus" of "rights" is, these days, oneself. Others have rights, "academically" but "mine are real." One listens to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc in the solitude of one's car or home, without the luxury of others around to perhaps question or disagree with us. Psychological isolation permits a host of notions to survive unchecked, permitting self-examination to pass by, endlessly, as one lives in a self-reifying world of one's own construction.
Even with many "close" friends with whom one shares comments about one sports team or one's job or whatever, one can still be alone with others. In an atomized society where we are psychically and even physically "cubicled" at home or in our cars, listening to media, where is the challenge to our nodding heads and notions of what's right and what's appropriate?
Such isolation, which, with social networking sites and the other crap that passes for "friendship", our fundamental selves are neither known, nor challenged.
Those self-same rights we proclaim by our many acts, in this case by gathering one's "important papers" at the bottom of an evacuation slide in an airplane accident, do not obtain in and for others, because "the Other", quite bluntly, does not today psychologically exist for us. "Our advantage" exists; "others' right to advantage will have to wait".
It is not merely the notion of, "every man for himself"; - it is far deeper, more philosophically serious than that; It is as though "the other" is not even a real entity which (not 'who') has those self-same collective rights and privileges which oneself enjoys and advantages him/herself thereby. In an atomized society, the legitimacy of "every man for himself" is complete only describes the behaviour we can observe; atomism goes to the bone.
The act of delaying an evacuation (or blocking a fire exit in a burning building), is not even in the realm of the notion of "selfishness" because for selfishness to be legitimate, two must be involved - the one who is taking advantage "inappropriately" and the other who is disadvantaged thereby. In this man's psyche, "the other" (likely at the top of the chute in the airplane, waiting), didn't even exist, but this man's briefcase and papers did.
Our society places such extreme importance on the legitimacy and the mock-importance of the individual and our individual rights that innate awareness (and therefor thought towards) the "other" is impeded, atrophied, the notion of "public manners" long since becoming anachronistic, a "fool's game".
Unbridled competition for advantage does this to people and they forget where they are and what they are doing, so psychologically atomized are they...are we.
The result of calling attention to such an act would be a shrug from the individual and perhaps a mildly hostile repost in some self-justifying manner. What public discourse legitimates such thinking? It is no longer existential anomie, but a curious self-righteousness and self-assuredness which invisibly motivates and guides one's public behaviour.
"How dare you", seems an abiding challenge in public life as though one's rights were themselves innate and somehow "god"-given, and without the slightest sense of reciprocation. And these are mature, adults not teens or twenty-somethings.
But...there it is, on video: one person gathering his important papers while others wait for his briefcase to be collected out of the way. Us old ask why is such an act even possible today?
I live in a small college community in the US and I see this behavior and attitude every day. Self-absorbed, oblivious to risks and utterly unconcerned about the welfare of others. We aren't all like this, but there's far too many that are.
I'm often grumpy too and for a number of good reasons aside from the fact that I'm an old
, (George Carlin, "It's Bad For Ya).The reason such individuals at the bottom of evacuation slides are so oblivious to others waiting for him, in this case, to gather his papers carried by the wind, is that we are an atomized society where "the commons" does not exist.
The "locus" of "rights" is, these days, oneself. Others have rights, "academically" but "mine are real." One listens to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc in the solitude of one's car or home, without the luxury of others around to perhaps question or disagree with us. Psychological isolation permits a host of notions to survive unchecked, permitting self-examination to pass by, endlessly, as one lives in a self-reifying world of one's own construction.
Even with many "close" friends with whom one shares comments about one sports team or one's job or whatever, one can still be alone with others. In an atomized society where we are psychically and even physically "cubicled" at home or in our cars, listening to media, where is the challenge to our nodding heads and notions of what's right and what's appropriate?
Such isolation, which, with social networking sites and the other crap that passes for "friendship", our fundamental selves are neither known, nor challenged.
Those self-same rights we proclaim by our many acts, in this case by gathering one's "important papers" at the bottom of an evacuation slide in an airplane accident, do not obtain in and for others, because "the Other", quite bluntly, does not today psychologically exist for us. "Our advantage" exists; "others' right to advantage will have to wait".
It is not merely the notion of, "every man for himself"; - it is far deeper, more philosophically serious than that; It is as though "the other" is not even a real entity which (not 'who') has those self-same collective rights and privileges which oneself enjoys and advantages him/herself thereby. In an atomized society, the legitimacy of "every man for himself" is complete only describes the behaviour we can observe; atomism goes to the bone.
The act of delaying an evacuation (or blocking a fire exit in a burning building), is not even in the realm of the notion of "selfishness" because for selfishness to be legitimate, two must be involved - the one who is taking advantage "inappropriately" and the other who is disadvantaged thereby. In this man's psyche, "the other" (likely at the top of the chute in the airplane, waiting), didn't even exist, but this man's briefcase and papers did.
Our society places such extreme importance on the legitimacy and the mock-importance of the individual and our individual rights that innate awareness (and therefor thought towards) the "other" is impeded, atrophied, the notion of "public manners" long since becoming anachronistic, a "fool's game".
Unbridled competition for advantage does this to people and they forget where they are and what they are doing, so psychologically atomized are they...are we.
The result of calling attention to such an act would be a shrug from the individual and perhaps a mildly hostile repost in some self-justifying manner. What public discourse legitimates such thinking? It is no longer existential anomie, but a curious self-righteousness and self-assuredness which invisibly motivates and guides one's public behaviour.
"How dare you", seems an abiding challenge in public life as though one's rights were themselves innate and somehow "god"-given, and without the slightest sense of reciprocation. And these are mature, adults not teens or twenty-somethings.
But...there it is, on video: one person gathering his important papers while others wait for his briefcase to be collected out of the way. Us old
ask why is such an act even possible today?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
how did this thread get active again after a year or so?
PBL
. You sum up today's society perfectly.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks PBL
dispatching without anti skid is just asking for trouble. it takes alot of THINKING to take it easy on the brakes with inop anti skid.
and SOUTHWEST always seems to hit the brakes hard to make that intersection...planning to roll to the end of the runway would have been more prudent.
and where inop anti skid REALLY GETS YOU, is if you reject/abort a takeoff with anti skid inop.
dispatching without anti skid is just asking for trouble. it takes alot of THINKING to take it easy on the brakes with inop anti skid.
and SOUTHWEST always seems to hit the brakes hard to make that intersection...planning to roll to the end of the runway would have been more prudent.
and where inop anti skid REALLY GETS YOU, is if you reject/abort a takeoff with anti skid inop.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: us
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it takes alot of THINKING to take it easy on the brakes with inop anti skid.
So now you have allowed for additional length due to inop-antiskid now you have to add an additional couple seconds for the wheels to spin-up before using the brakes with anti-skid inop when the gray matter says get on the brakes right away.
The spin up issue seems to be listed in the "what happened" reports by the NTSB but not tied to the MEL other than distance.
VFD
S.N.F.;
The post is off-topic I know, but, like millions of others, I'm trying to come to terms with last Saturday's tragedy in Tucson and the pattern of American public life, discourse and the values being expressed, and I guess it boiled over, here, as well as other dialogues elsewhere entered into. The man's behaviour seemed to epitomize that model of private and public life which we now carry around in our heads and which governs much of what passes for "rational" behaviour, which today is executed without the slightest sense or comprehension of grace under fire.
Just as it wasn't "selfish" in the usual sense of the term, it isn't even describable as "arrogant" - it was a man chasing his papers after leaving an airplane involved in a serious ground incident where fire was involved, a spectacle to be sure, but it was far, far more than that. Wth apologies to the thread's contributors for enduring the diversion, I thank you for asking if you can use it...of course you can.
The post is off-topic I know, but, like millions of others, I'm trying to come to terms with last Saturday's tragedy in Tucson and the pattern of American public life, discourse and the values being expressed, and I guess it boiled over, here, as well as other dialogues elsewhere entered into. The man's behaviour seemed to epitomize that model of private and public life which we now carry around in our heads and which governs much of what passes for "rational" behaviour, which today is executed without the slightest sense or comprehension of grace under fire.
Just as it wasn't "selfish" in the usual sense of the term, it isn't even describable as "arrogant" - it was a man chasing his papers after leaving an airplane involved in a serious ground incident where fire was involved, a spectacle to be sure, but it was far, far more than that. Wth apologies to the thread's contributors for enduring the diversion, I thank you for asking if you can use it...of course you can.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-Skid deferred-Mx
On the technical details, there were several problems exposed -- but IGNORED by the NTSB. Note they failed to mention prior cases. Several recent NTSB- P.C.'s (final rpts) demonstrate a lazy-IIC, or misinformed investigator, or lack of any management-oversight: More frequently, even after months & years of investigation, the Board finally releases a poor quality product, worse than a third-world country, & their disregard for detail is of increasing concern. Nothing has changed -- "reconsideration" is NEVER possible (claiming they lack resources to correct blatant errs); and their managers never face any review-checkride, or any investigative "professional-standards" committee.
There are several good thoughts posted above (this thread since the 12th).
SeniorD mentioned:
Re' the certificated- configuration, and permissible-exceptions (MEL- Antiskid Inop'), SevenStrokeRoll's COMMENT says it all:
There are several good thoughts posted above (this thread since the 12th).
SeniorD mentioned:
- "... an inop anti-skid was deferral was possible under the MEL ... that changed post-incident ... no longer deferrable..."
Re' the certificated- configuration, and permissible-exceptions (MEL- Antiskid Inop'), SevenStrokeRoll's COMMENT says it all:
"... where inop anti skid REALLY GETS YOU, is if you reject/ abort a takeoff with anti skid inop...."
sevenstrokeroll;
Echoing IGh...yes indeed, given that antiskid brakes are the only basis for the certification of performance during a rejected takeoff. While the MEL may provide numbers for longer distances, this would place most crews who actually had to reject without antiskid, in test-pilot territory.
Dispatching with anti-skid u/s is a serious matter which requires much thought before accepting the airplane and thorough briefings. Can't recall for the B727/B767 regarding brake pressure information but the Airbus series provides pressure indications which must be kept below 1000psi when the antiskid is u/s, which the PM monitored and called out if the pressure was getting close to the limit. Works well on the A330...
and where inop anti skid REALLY GETS YOU, is if you reject/abort a takeoff with anti skid inop.
Dispatching with anti-skid u/s is a serious matter which requires much thought before accepting the airplane and thorough briefings. Can't recall for the B727/B767 regarding brake pressure information but the Airbus series provides pressure indications which must be kept below 1000psi when the antiskid is u/s, which the PM monitored and called out if the pressure was getting close to the limit. Works well on the A330...