emergency landing at gatwick

[Basil]

I posted the following last year:
Some time ago a colleague had smoke and commenced descent for immediate landing.
Smoke cleared but he continued for landing.
Afterwards, he seemed to me to be subjected to some adverse criticism for not re-assessing and continuing flight.
I have no doubt whatsoever that he made the correct decision.
It's easy to say, and it's an oldie, but in that situation if there's any doubt then there's no doubt.

[olivermbs]

Thomas Cook were having problems with the new meal packaging, so they went back to the old one in July. Very odd.

[RAT 5]

Perhaps someone in the know, on the inside, perhaps even the crew, could tell us what action the C/A's took to put out this fire. Was it meal packaging and not electrical? If so, and the fire was extinguished and the object islolated, and the oven disconnected, why return. What would they have done mid-Atlantic? As I've just done my SEP recurrent and Fire recurrent I'd be interested to know if what I'd been taught really works, or is it just theoretical blah blah.

[beamender99]

A press report from Gatwick local press

A spokesman for West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service said the smoke had stopped by the time the aircraft had landed, and no-one was injured.

He added: "The smoke had stopped when the plane landed, because on board they had used six fire extinguishers to put it out.

"Everyone was ok and no one was injured."
Plane makes emergency landing at Gatwick - Crawley Observer

[learjet50]

I get really pissed off with these comments by the IFIBA Brigades

If I haad been there I would haveThis

The Crew acted in a Proffesional manner as they have been trained to do

It does not matter where they went/How they got there They got the A/C on the ground NO harm to the A/C // PAX //Crew

So lets give this matter the end now before the Idiots in the Press make another Mountain of an event which was dealt with in a Proffesional manner

[pattern_is_full]

Even if a fire appears to be extinguished, there is always the chance that there is a hidden hot spot that can flare up again. Or that the apparent cause, as estimated by flight/cabin crew (well-trained - but not engineers) was just a symptom masking some other underlying problem or failure.

So you still land as soon as practicable.

Over the Atlantic - you also land as soon as practicable. "As soon as practicable" will take longer, and may involve more calculations - including the choice of "ditch in uncertain conditions vs. fall out of the sky in flames in certainty."

It seems like some people want to micromanage these events (after the fact) and parse the rules and options, or write new ones.

Any landing you walk away from is a good one. Any in-flight fire that is resolved with no casualties was resolved correctly.

[spanish no fly]

Surely, to my untrained personage with regards to MELs, if the CAs had used 6 extinguishers to contain the fire, that in itself would have necessitated a landing in order to replenish safety equipment? (Sorry about the long sentence).

[McBruce]

One must remember the Swiss aircraft that had an electrical fire and decided to dump fuel for max landing considerations... even a situation that appears to be under control can spiral in the matter of a couple of minutes, especially when fire/smoke is involved.

The crew were probably highly familiar with Gatwick and decided this was the better option given their FL and distance.

[cheekychappie]

I remember the Swiss incident, wasn't that down to a new entertainment system, crew made pan calls and from the ground it all seemed under control, then comm's went as the fire took hold at a rapid pace.

As said before, if there is any doubt there is no doubt, get down as quick as possible