Monarch-Engine fire Birmingham UK
A Cobra isn't a big deal at Monarch but if I heard ANACONDA-ANACONDA-ANACONDA on the PA, then I'd be quite worried. Some other reptilian codes which can't be mentioned here for security reasons are also cause for concern when broadcast over the PA. Basically, snakes are aircraft related emergencies,
lizards relate to security issues and anything amphibian is a non-specific low level alert.
lizards relate to security issues and anything amphibian is a non-specific low level alert.
Last edited by ZeBedie; 7th Aug 2010 at 20:17.
snakes are aircraft related emergencies, lizards relate to security issues and anything amphibian is a non-specific low level alert.
Code words? utter rubbish IMHO.
Whats wrong with "CC prepare for landing/emergency landing"
Very straightforward, no chance of someone either side of the cockpit door getting confused regarding codewords to use and the proper response, PAX know what's happening etc etc.
Jeez guys, keep it simple.
Whats wrong with "CC prepare for landing/emergency landing"
Very straightforward, no chance of someone either side of the cockpit door getting confused regarding codewords to use and the proper response, PAX know what's happening etc etc.
Jeez guys, keep it simple.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the whole idea is that the passengers don't know that we are preparing for an emergency landing, until either the Capt or the No.1 tells them.
I would guess that as soon as as the pax know, a number of them are going to hit panic mode (l am going to die). Now this will mean that some of the cabin crew will have to deal with the panicking pax and not getting their station or area ready.
This is only how l see it, but as l am not aircrew l may be well off the mark.
I would guess that as soon as as the pax know, a number of them are going to hit panic mode (l am going to die). Now this will mean that some of the cabin crew will have to deal with the panicking pax and not getting their station or area ready.
This is only how l see it, but as l am not aircrew l may be well off the mark.
In my day we had the `NITS` briefing between the Flight Deck & the cabin Crew, rather than a coded PA message that all including pax can hear, is this no longer the case these days?
With no knowledge at all of this particular incident, I would have to suggest, yet again lots of sensationalist & over the top reporting by the media.
In the latest Monarch On Line news letter, there is a letter to the Company, written by a passenger on a ZB flight from BHX to TFS, which also had to return to the UK due to an en route problem. We can only wish the majority of pax are like this, unfortunately this may not be the case.
Take care folks.
With no knowledge at all of this particular incident, I would have to suggest, yet again lots of sensationalist & over the top reporting by the media.
In the latest Monarch On Line news letter, there is a letter to the Company, written by a passenger on a ZB flight from BHX to TFS, which also had to return to the UK due to an en route problem. We can only wish the majority of pax are like this, unfortunately this may not be the case.
Take care folks.
Last edited by kaikohe76; 8th Aug 2010 at 08:54.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@teamilk&sugar
It is always a pleasure to meet a fellow professional willing to openly debate aviation matters for their relative merits to achieve a safe and panic-free outcome. Whilst your obvious defence of the current (very mature) Monarch SOP of using codewords is laudable you are clearly blind to the ever changing world in which we live. I sense you are rather unreceptive to any idea that the Monarch codeword SOP may have become outdated.
I have no doubt that the Monarch incident was ably handled by two pilots who have my congratulations. Unfortunately the use of codewords inflamed the incident from an airborne return that was un-newsworthy.... to into a headline event that only serves to frighten even more potential passengers. Furthermore there seems to be a broad degree of support in many postings above for that notion.
- Use of codewords that passengers don't understand creates scared passengers.
- Scared passengers make headlines.
- Our industry needs all the help it can get right now, there are plenty of our colleagues on the dole who can bear witness to that. We simply do not need headlines.
I see from your profile that your age now poses certain licencing difficulties that we do not share. I would venture to suggest that despite your clear depth of experience... that the world of aviation has continued to move on and that we all need to rather more adaptable than in the days of yore.
It is always a pleasure to meet a fellow professional willing to openly debate aviation matters for their relative merits to achieve a safe and panic-free outcome. Whilst your obvious defence of the current (very mature) Monarch SOP of using codewords is laudable you are clearly blind to the ever changing world in which we live. I sense you are rather unreceptive to any idea that the Monarch codeword SOP may have become outdated.
I have no doubt that the Monarch incident was ably handled by two pilots who have my congratulations. Unfortunately the use of codewords inflamed the incident from an airborne return that was un-newsworthy.... to into a headline event that only serves to frighten even more potential passengers. Furthermore there seems to be a broad degree of support in many postings above for that notion.
- Use of codewords that passengers don't understand creates scared passengers.
- Scared passengers make headlines.
- Our industry needs all the help it can get right now, there are plenty of our colleagues on the dole who can bear witness to that. We simply do not need headlines.
I see from your profile that your age now poses certain licencing difficulties that we do not share. I would venture to suggest that despite your clear depth of experience... that the world of aviation has continued to move on and that we all need to rather more adaptable than in the days of yore.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh no
I think my deepest darkest fear has materialized, and 411A may have spawned..
magplug "come on Monarach, time to rethink SOPs!"
magplug "old boy..."
magplug "I stopped being a passenger 16,000 hours ago"
magplug "from your profile I think things have moved on a bit"
It's not what they say, it's the high handed hear speaketh godeth way some people talk on the Internet..
8-)
G
magplug "come on Monarach, time to rethink SOPs!"
magplug "old boy..."
magplug "I stopped being a passenger 16,000 hours ago"
magplug "from your profile I think things have moved on a bit"
It's not what they say, it's the high handed hear speaketh godeth way some people talk on the Internet..
8-)
G
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: France
Age: 60
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergency Codewords
Having read all previous contribution with great interest, the emergency « codeword » issue has caught my attention. I am a mere SLF and having spent way too many hours in metal tubes doesn’t make me an aviation expert. My field of expertise is crisis management and communications.
IMHO, as some of you have already pointed out, the use of code words to inform C.C. of technical issues immediately affecting a flight reflects an outdated approach and, in most cases, is likely to be counter productive. It relies on two basic erroneous assumptions:
1. Ignorance is bliss: the SLF probably won’t notice that something is amiss. Now, with “sheets of flames” (according to witness reports) emanating from an engine, shouts of “Cobra” (or any other herpetic equivalent) over the P.A. system and the C.C. brutally interrupting their routine, you’d have to be in a rather deep coma not to realise that something is wrong.
2. Truth is scary: If we tell the SLF what is going on, some will likely panic and complicate our task. Experience tells us that this is plain wrong. Faced with a real or perceived imminent danger, a properly informed /briefed group of people will always behave in a more coherent, rational and compliant manner than a similar group left outside the information loop.
With the codeword approach, you are likely to generate instead distrust and a misperception of the reality of the threat: “If they are not telling us, it must be real bad”. This form of infantilization runs against the expectations of any adult group under pressure/threat. They logically expect to either act according to clear instructions or, in a passive mode, be informed that another group is acting on their behalf. Not communicating amounts to leaving them facing an unknown –and often over-estimated- threat, potentially resulting in the most unpredictable personal behaviour, i.e. panic.
I fully understand that a flight crew under pressure has little time to deal with the niceties of providing SLF with a detailed brief but allow me to share a personal experience: Some years ago, on a flight from LHR to GVA, our DC-10 suffered a decompression at cruising altitude. The announcement was very short: “Decompression, starting emergency descent”. This, despite the “rubber jungle” and the subsequent automatic recording, was sufficient to put everyone on-board in the information loop. There may have been discomfort and fear but there was no panic. Had the Swiss flight crew shouted “Alligator” or “Fuzzy Teddy Bear”, results may have been different.
A few posts earlier, the healthy benefits of a good adrenaline rush was raised by one contributor in favour of the codeword practice. The argument is self-defeating: An adrenaline rush is a defence mechanism that essentially serves one purpose: Survival, at all cost. In the absence of clear information, guidance or training, you are likely to get exactly what you should want to avoid: A group of very alert and defensive people, ready to do anything they see fit to ensure their personal survival. Usually not a very pleasant social gathering.
Two last considerations, before I stop rambling. I am here considering technical issues that do immediately affect a flight; in cases less time-sensitive, a direct brief by the flight crew or through the C.C. would, in my opinion, yield the best results. Finally, the only circumstances which would, from my perspective, warrant the use of a codeword are high jacking or partial crew incapacitation.
Thank you for reading this ridiculously long first contribution, and, as a non-native English speaker, I beg in advance for your indulgence.
IMHO, as some of you have already pointed out, the use of code words to inform C.C. of technical issues immediately affecting a flight reflects an outdated approach and, in most cases, is likely to be counter productive. It relies on two basic erroneous assumptions:
1. Ignorance is bliss: the SLF probably won’t notice that something is amiss. Now, with “sheets of flames” (according to witness reports) emanating from an engine, shouts of “Cobra” (or any other herpetic equivalent) over the P.A. system and the C.C. brutally interrupting their routine, you’d have to be in a rather deep coma not to realise that something is wrong.
2. Truth is scary: If we tell the SLF what is going on, some will likely panic and complicate our task. Experience tells us that this is plain wrong. Faced with a real or perceived imminent danger, a properly informed /briefed group of people will always behave in a more coherent, rational and compliant manner than a similar group left outside the information loop.
With the codeword approach, you are likely to generate instead distrust and a misperception of the reality of the threat: “If they are not telling us, it must be real bad”. This form of infantilization runs against the expectations of any adult group under pressure/threat. They logically expect to either act according to clear instructions or, in a passive mode, be informed that another group is acting on their behalf. Not communicating amounts to leaving them facing an unknown –and often over-estimated- threat, potentially resulting in the most unpredictable personal behaviour, i.e. panic.
I fully understand that a flight crew under pressure has little time to deal with the niceties of providing SLF with a detailed brief but allow me to share a personal experience: Some years ago, on a flight from LHR to GVA, our DC-10 suffered a decompression at cruising altitude. The announcement was very short: “Decompression, starting emergency descent”. This, despite the “rubber jungle” and the subsequent automatic recording, was sufficient to put everyone on-board in the information loop. There may have been discomfort and fear but there was no panic. Had the Swiss flight crew shouted “Alligator” or “Fuzzy Teddy Bear”, results may have been different.
A few posts earlier, the healthy benefits of a good adrenaline rush was raised by one contributor in favour of the codeword practice. The argument is self-defeating: An adrenaline rush is a defence mechanism that essentially serves one purpose: Survival, at all cost. In the absence of clear information, guidance or training, you are likely to get exactly what you should want to avoid: A group of very alert and defensive people, ready to do anything they see fit to ensure their personal survival. Usually not a very pleasant social gathering.
Two last considerations, before I stop rambling. I am here considering technical issues that do immediately affect a flight; in cases less time-sensitive, a direct brief by the flight crew or through the C.C. would, in my opinion, yield the best results. Finally, the only circumstances which would, from my perspective, warrant the use of a codeword are high jacking or partial crew incapacitation.
Thank you for reading this ridiculously long first contribution, and, as a non-native English speaker, I beg in advance for your indulgence.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: N571
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"IFD to Flt Deck...Crew secure cabin"
I agree with Agnostique 75,using plain and simple english should work quite well.
Codes have their use...but are not the best fix for all situations.
With improved automation,A/c like the A321 are much easier to operate.
Not taking away from the great job done by the crew...however Airlines need to take advantage of this (and use the expertise available in new fields of crisis management and communications)rather than use the earlier SOP template borrowed from the milatary.
Codes have their use...but are not the best fix for all situations.
With improved automation,A/c like the A321 are much easier to operate.
Not taking away from the great job done by the crew...however Airlines need to take advantage of this (and use the expertise available in new fields of crisis management and communications)rather than use the earlier SOP template borrowed from the milatary.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: london
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The code word is only part of the response process to an inflight problem.
Once the problem has been dealt with, diagnosed and a plan of action devised by the flight crew, they then issue the 'code word' to the cabin crew to brief them on the situation. After this, an announcement is then made to the passengers to inform them of what has happened and what the plan is.
With this sequence, the cabin crew will then hopefully be able to answer as many questions from the passengers having been briefed by the flight crew as opposed to answering with 'I know as much as you'
The flight crew's priority is to fly the aircraft, everything else, including keeping the passengers informed comes second. There's no prizes for making a wonderfully informative PA to the passengers as soon as the problem has occurred and then fly the aircraft into a hill.
In practice, the PA to the passengers is made pretty much as soon as the cabin crew have been briefed by the flight crew so there would only really be a few minutes tops between the issue of the code word and an explanation of the situation to the passengers.
Mountains and molehills seem to spring to mind here.
Once the problem has been dealt with, diagnosed and a plan of action devised by the flight crew, they then issue the 'code word' to the cabin crew to brief them on the situation. After this, an announcement is then made to the passengers to inform them of what has happened and what the plan is.
With this sequence, the cabin crew will then hopefully be able to answer as many questions from the passengers having been briefed by the flight crew as opposed to answering with 'I know as much as you'
The flight crew's priority is to fly the aircraft, everything else, including keeping the passengers informed comes second. There's no prizes for making a wonderfully informative PA to the passengers as soon as the problem has occurred and then fly the aircraft into a hill.
In practice, the PA to the passengers is made pretty much as soon as the cabin crew have been briefed by the flight crew so there would only really be a few minutes tops between the issue of the code word and an explanation of the situation to the passengers.
Mountains and molehills seem to spring to mind here.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: France
Age: 60
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Codewords, again...
@sharpclassic
Quote
« The code word is only part of the response process to an inflight problem.
Once the problem has been dealt with, diagnosed and a plan of action devised by the flight crew, they then issue the 'code word' to the cabin crew to brief them on the situation. After this, an announcement is then made to the passengers to inform them of what has happened and what the plan is.
With this sequence, the cabin crew will then hopefully be able to answer as many questions from the passengers having been briefed by the flight crew as opposed to answering with 'I know as much as you' ”
Unquote
I don’t follow your logic: Codewords, in my perception, are devised to trigger an immediate and pre-planned response from the C.C., precisely to avoid a time-consuming briefing.
In the sequence you refer to, a problem will have been “dealt with” –presumably after and not before having been “diagnosed”- and the codeword seems to have as sole purpose to “brief the cabin crew” in order to enable them to better inform the passengers…. I fail to see the usefulness of a codeword to achieve this….
I equally fail to fully understand the next step of your reasoning,
Quote
“In practice, the PA to the passengers is made pretty much as soon as the cabin crew have been briefed by the flight crew so there would only really be a few minutes tops between the issue of the code word and an explanation of the situation to the passengers.”
Unquote
To be a bit blunt, if the flight crew has the time / opportunity to fully brief their cabin crew as to nature of an emergency, why bother with a public and strange “codeword” that will raise the level of anxiety ? The truth is that crisis management is mostly characterised by a lack of time. In “practice” as you said, you will need to communicate, to the best of your ability and almost instantly on situation that you are yourself in the process of analysing.
As you quite rightly put it –especially from my SLF point of view- “flying the plane” is the priority, drilled into you by many hours of training and practice…. If you have some time to spare in between dealing with the technical issues you are confronted with, why bother to issue a codeword, that would trigger in turn a brief of the cabin crew ?
Why not directly inform, in plain language, the C.C. and the SLF of the issue at hand ?
To be honest, I feel that no flight crew should ever have to be in a position to devise their own “ad-hoc “ crisis-management and communication plan. I understand that your respective SOPs are supposed to achieve just that… In this particular case, it was clearly a failure and those responsible for suggesting this approach should probably be held accountable, rather than the crew that did a flawless job.
Back to the point raised by “magplug”: Time to revise the SOP ?
For the time being, I will spare you the sociological explanation for the “codeword” approach, which dates back to the early 80’s and was common spread across all industrial branches…
Best regards,
A.
Quote
« The code word is only part of the response process to an inflight problem.
Once the problem has been dealt with, diagnosed and a plan of action devised by the flight crew, they then issue the 'code word' to the cabin crew to brief them on the situation. After this, an announcement is then made to the passengers to inform them of what has happened and what the plan is.
With this sequence, the cabin crew will then hopefully be able to answer as many questions from the passengers having been briefed by the flight crew as opposed to answering with 'I know as much as you' ”
Unquote
I don’t follow your logic: Codewords, in my perception, are devised to trigger an immediate and pre-planned response from the C.C., precisely to avoid a time-consuming briefing.
In the sequence you refer to, a problem will have been “dealt with” –presumably after and not before having been “diagnosed”- and the codeword seems to have as sole purpose to “brief the cabin crew” in order to enable them to better inform the passengers…. I fail to see the usefulness of a codeword to achieve this….
I equally fail to fully understand the next step of your reasoning,
Quote
“In practice, the PA to the passengers is made pretty much as soon as the cabin crew have been briefed by the flight crew so there would only really be a few minutes tops between the issue of the code word and an explanation of the situation to the passengers.”
Unquote
To be a bit blunt, if the flight crew has the time / opportunity to fully brief their cabin crew as to nature of an emergency, why bother with a public and strange “codeword” that will raise the level of anxiety ? The truth is that crisis management is mostly characterised by a lack of time. In “practice” as you said, you will need to communicate, to the best of your ability and almost instantly on situation that you are yourself in the process of analysing.
As you quite rightly put it –especially from my SLF point of view- “flying the plane” is the priority, drilled into you by many hours of training and practice…. If you have some time to spare in between dealing with the technical issues you are confronted with, why bother to issue a codeword, that would trigger in turn a brief of the cabin crew ?
Why not directly inform, in plain language, the C.C. and the SLF of the issue at hand ?
To be honest, I feel that no flight crew should ever have to be in a position to devise their own “ad-hoc “ crisis-management and communication plan. I understand that your respective SOPs are supposed to achieve just that… In this particular case, it was clearly a failure and those responsible for suggesting this approach should probably be held accountable, rather than the crew that did a flawless job.
Back to the point raised by “magplug”: Time to revise the SOP ?
For the time being, I will spare you the sociological explanation for the “codeword” approach, which dates back to the early 80’s and was common spread across all industrial branches…
Best regards,
A.
Mr @ Spotty M,
I did think this could have possibly been the same flight, thanks for confirming this. For me anyway, I would still go for the `NITS` briefing between F/D & CC, but obviously well out of the loop these days & procedures, SOPAs etc, do change as time moves on.
Thanks again & regards to all.
I did think this could have possibly been the same flight, thanks for confirming this. For me anyway, I would still go for the `NITS` briefing between F/D & CC, but obviously well out of the loop these days & procedures, SOPAs etc, do change as time moves on.
Thanks again & regards to all.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is still a NITS briefing!
The code is used to bring the No 1 to FD for the NITS, with his/her NITS briefing notepad and a pen.
On hearing the code the rest of the CC have specific actions to perform.
The code is a trigger for other actions, it is specific and can not be misinterpreted by any of the crew, in the same way that a plain english phrase could be.
It works, and works well.
The code is used to bring the No 1 to FD for the NITS, with his/her NITS briefing notepad and a pen.
On hearing the code the rest of the CC have specific actions to perform.
The code is a trigger for other actions, it is specific and can not be misinterpreted by any of the crew, in the same way that a plain english phrase could be.
It works, and works well.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of the River
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a slightly lighter note, I recall a Monarch Britannia skipper using the codewords "roost birdies" for cabin crew (in canary yellow and all female) seats for landing....don't suppose you would get away with it now though!
I was a passenger on a SK, B767 flight Beijing-Copenhagen sometime in the nineties when one of the engines shed a number of blades while climbing north of Beijing. The vibrations were incredible and I actually believed that some external panels were loose and flapping in the wind as I simply could not believe that a imbalanced turbine would be able to vibrate the whole aircraft to such an extend.
No information was given from the flight deck, but the vibrations and the speed of the CC as they shuttled up and down the ails were a clear indication of something being not entirely right. After what seemed like an eternity, probably a few minutes, the offending engine was brought down to idle and the vibrations subsided somewhat, indicating to me at least that the problem was engine related. Quite a bit later the Captain came on the PA to inform us that they had a bit of stalling, that he had reduced power on the concerned engine, that it was nothing to worry about and that we could, if he would continue to Copenhagen, but that he had decided to return to Beijing. Yeah, right.
Morale? When you finally decide to provide information, don't lie.
Per
No information was given from the flight deck, but the vibrations and the speed of the CC as they shuttled up and down the ails were a clear indication of something being not entirely right. After what seemed like an eternity, probably a few minutes, the offending engine was brought down to idle and the vibrations subsided somewhat, indicating to me at least that the problem was engine related. Quite a bit later the Captain came on the PA to inform us that they had a bit of stalling, that he had reduced power on the concerned engine, that it was nothing to worry about and that we could, if he would continue to Copenhagen, but that he had decided to return to Beijing. Yeah, right.
Morale? When you finally decide to provide information, don't lie.
Per
