UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai
ships compared
The minimum crew of a seagoing cargo ship of any size is 4, or more depending on the area the ship is certified for. Two officers and 2 sailors, which are (supposed to be....) trained in firefighting, and have a lot of FF equipment. With one on the bridge, all the others can fight fires. Which do happen, on ships as well as on airplanes.
And when things do get out of hand, they can still abandon ship and get into a raft or lifeboat.
Not so in an airplane.
I know of at least one instance where a deadheading (742-) Flight Engineer saved the day on an MD-11, when a fire had started on the Main Deck. An incorrectly installed cable clip (by MDD...) caused arcing from a cable to the fuselage, and melting insulation dripping onto a pallet was starting a fire. The FE went back to see where that smoke warning came from. A quick spray with a fire extinguisher solved the problem, and the flight continued. What if he hadn’t been there?
I always feel a lot safer when we carry deadheading crew, for precisely this reason.
I say lets at least get Main Deck fire extinguishing on freighters. Untill then; carry a trained SNY. And lets get EVAS right now.
And when things do get out of hand, they can still abandon ship and get into a raft or lifeboat.
Not so in an airplane.
I know of at least one instance where a deadheading (742-) Flight Engineer saved the day on an MD-11, when a fire had started on the Main Deck. An incorrectly installed cable clip (by MDD...) caused arcing from a cable to the fuselage, and melting insulation dripping onto a pallet was starting a fire. The FE went back to see where that smoke warning came from. A quick spray with a fire extinguisher solved the problem, and the flight continued. What if he hadn’t been there?
I always feel a lot safer when we carry deadheading crew, for precisely this reason.
I say lets at least get Main Deck fire extinguishing on freighters. Untill then; carry a trained SNY. And lets get EVAS right now.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is it safe to say all aircraft should carry an additional emergency trained crew member. Who's idea was the 2 pilot plane anyway. Could you imagine a incident in a A380 with just 2 pilots flying. Certainly that aircraft should require some sort of safety crew with proper first response equipment.
Who's idea was the 2 pilot plane anyway.
Cynic ? Wot me ?
Like I've said, Ansett demanded a mod. to the Boeing 767 to provide a flight engineers panel.
They went bust.
Maybe if they had just put the F/Eng. on as supernumary crew, to draw on his experience if something had gone wrong, and not spent mega-dollars demanding a re-design of the 767, they just might have survived. Maybe.
The only difference between a 2 -pilot Cessna Citation in trouble, and a 2-pilot A-380, is the number of deaths that will occur. The logic is the same.
And it'll happen. One day.
short flights long nights
Actually, the 767 first was designed as a 3 crew aircraft. "Mega millions" was not spent by Ansett for the 3 crew flight deck, it was offerewd as an option by Boeing.
Could you imagine a incident in a A380 with just 2 pilots flying. Certainly that aircraft should require some sort of safety crew with proper first response equipment.
Maybe there is a case for trained paramedics on board who also have had training in fire fighting etc? So as well as the fire risk they could attend to and diagnose sick passengers?
ships compared
If I remember correctly, a seagoing ship carrying over 12 passengers needs to have a doctor on board.
Interesting parallels between the Aviation and Maritime Industries....
Interesting parallels between the Aviation and Maritime Industries....
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: ESGG N57º38'58 E012º16'03
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVAS - for real, or a gimmick that just might work ?
I'm still a skeptic regarding the actual usability of the EVAS system. From the outset I must freely admit it's a new concept to me. Apart from the - quite naturally - self-serving sales footage on the manufacturer's website is there ANY empirical and more importantly independent evidence, military or civil-sourced, to support its real ability to tip the outcome in a "situation"? Call me a cynic, but it simply seems to be a little too much like a Dragons' Den invention for investment and balance-sheet purposes than actual bone-hard Flight Safety. Comments? PB @ ESGG
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVAS works in the simulator like all my other normal and emergency training. I dont really want to be in a position to try it out for real, like all my other emergency training.
It will probably be the smoke that will incapacitate a crew member.
It will probably be the smoke that will incapacitate a crew member.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Practicality of EVAS
I tried it in 2000 in an enclosed panel-van especially set up as a multi-engined cockpit. The concept is to quickly inflate a large clear conformal plastic bag (not orally however) and to thus give a clear line of sight between the pilot's eyes and the windshield as well as the pilot's eyes and his flight inst panel (including a side annexe to cover the centre panel instruments).
In dense smoke, that you were unable to pierce visually without the EVAS bag, it worked very well and gave unfettered visibility out front and to the flight and engine instruments. This was achieved wearing a full face mask (type that P-3 Orion drivers would be familiar with). The guy in the other seat had goggles and had no difficulty.
The inventor sells lots to bizjet operators and all the FAA-owned aircraft utilize them. They've never been made mandatory for airline use however. It's a vaguely similarly silly situation to the EVACU8 smoke masks for pax. These were banned for boarding after 911.
Many things don't make sense nowadays. Not having EVAS available when you need it, particularly for freight dawgs, is one of those latent nonsenses.
Google EVAS for history and details.
In dense smoke, that you were unable to pierce visually without the EVAS bag, it worked very well and gave unfettered visibility out front and to the flight and engine instruments. This was achieved wearing a full face mask (type that P-3 Orion drivers would be familiar with). The guy in the other seat had goggles and had no difficulty.
The inventor sells lots to bizjet operators and all the FAA-owned aircraft utilize them. They've never been made mandatory for airline use however. It's a vaguely similarly silly situation to the EVACU8 smoke masks for pax. These were banned for boarding after 911.
Many things don't make sense nowadays. Not having EVAS available when you need it, particularly for freight dawgs, is one of those latent nonsenses.
Google EVAS for history and details.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MNL ex CCR ex CLE
Age: 65
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Maybe there is a case for trained paramedics on board who also have had training in fire fighting etc? So as well as the fire risk they could attend to and diagnose sick passengers?"
While I agree that an additional, safety trained person is NEEDED.....as someone with both medical and flight experience, trying to diagnose in a noisy airplane is especially difficult. It's very hard to hear heart / lung sounds on an airplane, etc.
BUT....I DO agree that having someone with fireman (fire "person"??? I HATE PC cr@p!!) and as a paramedic would be a great idea. If this person also had some level of flight training....it would be PERFECT!
Having only a 2 person, long haul crew, to my way of thinking is criminal!
While I agree that an additional, safety trained person is NEEDED.....as someone with both medical and flight experience, trying to diagnose in a noisy airplane is especially difficult. It's very hard to hear heart / lung sounds on an airplane, etc.
BUT....I DO agree that having someone with fireman (fire "person"??? I HATE PC cr@p!!) and as a paramedic would be a great idea. If this person also had some level of flight training....it would be PERFECT!
Having only a 2 person, long haul crew, to my way of thinking is criminal!
Mariner
Would that "minimum crew requirement" also apply to a harbor repositioning that can be completed in a couple of hours?
If I remember correctly, a seagoing ship carrying over 12 passengers needs to have a doctor on board.
Interesting parallels between the Aviation and Maritime Industries....
Interesting parallels between the Aviation and Maritime Industries....
crew aboard
Lomapaseo,
Required crew needs to be on board when the ship sails. I.e. leaves the harbor. Repositioning within a harbor could be done with a skeleton crew of one watch perhaps - I've seen it done that way. But leaving port, even just to anchor in the roads, requires a full crew.
Why are you asking?
Required crew needs to be on board when the ship sails. I.e. leaves the harbor. Repositioning within a harbor could be done with a skeleton crew of one watch perhaps - I've seen it done that way. But leaving port, even just to anchor in the roads, requires a full crew.
Why are you asking?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trying to diagnose in a noisy airplane is especially difficult. It's very hard to hear heart / lung sounds on an airplane, etc.
Your lifeline at 35,000 feet - The National Newspaper
RDT | RDT Your life With care Anywhere
Mariner
Thanks for the answer.
For my thoughts, a required crew is what gets the job done at an acceptable risk. I don't see much need for having a doctor on board for a time frame that is unlikely to be needed. Thus comparing crews between mariners and aviation needs to have these thoughts in mind as well.
But thanks for the education on the mariner side of things
Lomapaseo,
Required crew needs to be on board when the ship sails. I.e. leaves the harbor. Repositioning within a harbor could be done with a skeleton crew of one watch perhaps - I've seen it done that way. But leaving port, even just to anchor in the roads, requires a full crew.
Why are you asking?
Required crew needs to be on board when the ship sails. I.e. leaves the harbor. Repositioning within a harbor could be done with a skeleton crew of one watch perhaps - I've seen it done that way. But leaving port, even just to anchor in the roads, requires a full crew.
Why are you asking?
For my thoughts, a required crew is what gets the job done at an acceptable risk. I don't see much need for having a doctor on board for a time frame that is unlikely to be needed. Thus comparing crews between mariners and aviation needs to have these thoughts in mind as well.
But thanks for the education on the mariner side of things
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Newcastle - United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first post here and not exactly the introduction I anticipated!
GobonaStick: I really do not think there is need for comments of this nature. As an ex Merchant Navy officer and now newly licensed pilot I see no sound basis for this comment at all. Both industries have their issues, that is a given, the fact is however though that they are not so different in application, nor are the safety principles / challenges world's apart. I think it would be nice to see respect when / where it is due, from both directions, I don't think stereotyping is productive here nor necessary.
FYI: I carried the worlds most expensive cargo in 2001, on a ship, glad to say is was also a successful one! Industries should not be judged by those that make the news. The aviation industry has not faired so well recently, and has had some 'lucky' escapes too. That is coming from a very proud new pilot and ex mariner too boot so I like to think it a somewhat informed opinion; if not 'the' opinion.
On another note, most certainly an excellent and knowledgeable forum, the amount of hours I have spent reading on here is a testament to a fascinating and skilled industry. Glad to be a new member (If I make probation after this
)
Mark
GobonaStick: I really do not think there is need for comments of this nature. As an ex Merchant Navy officer and now newly licensed pilot I see no sound basis for this comment at all. Both industries have their issues, that is a given, the fact is however though that they are not so different in application, nor are the safety principles / challenges world's apart. I think it would be nice to see respect when / where it is due, from both directions, I don't think stereotyping is productive here nor necessary.
FYI: I carried the worlds most expensive cargo in 2001, on a ship, glad to say is was also a successful one! Industries should not be judged by those that make the news. The aviation industry has not faired so well recently, and has had some 'lucky' escapes too. That is coming from a very proud new pilot and ex mariner too boot so I like to think it a somewhat informed opinion; if not 'the' opinion.
On another note, most certainly an excellent and knowledgeable forum, the amount of hours I have spent reading on here is a testament to a fascinating and skilled industry. Glad to be a new member (If I make probation after this
)Mark
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In some Marriott
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVAS
I'm still a skeptic regarding the actual usability of the EVAS system. From the outset I must freely admit it's a new concept to me. Apart from the - quite naturally - self-serving sales footage on the manufacturer's website is there ANY empirical and more importantly independent evidence
EVAS works in the simulator like all my other normal and emergency training.
In dense smoke, that you were unable to pierce visually without the EVAS bag, it worked very well and gave unfettered visibility out front and to the flight and engine instruments. This was achieved wearing a full face mask (type that P-3 Orion drivers would be familiar with). The guy in the other seat had goggles and had no difficulty.
It's simple and it works
. IIRC, the only ongoing maintenance is a monthly battery check and I think every five years it goes back to the factory for overhaul. For less than $30,000 per jet you've got a fighting chance of flying a jet with dense smoke in the cockpit.Best,
GC
We already have paramedics and firefighters onboard. They serve coffee and biscuits when they dont fight fires and resuscitate pax..
It's slightly off the thread but as sector times get longer I think there is a case for trained paramedics/fire fighters being on board. The paramedic aspect might save some unecessary en-route landings for pax who appear to be ill but their condition is not life threatening.