EY461 Toilet Fires
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Oi! spot the difference? You can post about any other airline.
So what? Doesn't change the fact that the name of the airline involved is, in this case, completely IRRELEVANT to the main thrust of the story. What IS relevant is that a person, or persons, lit fires on a commercial passenger flight.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what?
Some, like DR, do not see this 'fire' event as a problem (a mere 'drop in the ocean'........whoops, pun intended). I think professional pilots do, I trust pax do too, and we all would like this thread to continue and furnish us with more information. I cannot see how the name of the airline is relevant, but the event is.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The secret airline
Whole business is pathetic, and reeks of censorship. The idiots who demand it will attract much more negative attention than they expected. Serves the dogs right.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you have missed the way this thread is angled, HT
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the couch
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The name of the airline is very relevant for the simple reason that the way the incidents were handled have a direct bearing on the safety and security procedures of that airline.
The passengers and crew of that flight had their lives directly threatened by those same policies and procedures.
Probably the most questionable aspect is the airline agreeing to allow all passengers to reboard the aircraft without any serious attempt to find the culprit(s).
Access to the toilets remained perfectly free only until the last fire was set.
This can only be described as a high altitude version of Russian Roulette.
This airline is very fortunate (as are the occupants of the aircraft) that a disaster did not occur in the second half of the flight in particular, after reboarding the culprit.
The captains decision to proceed like this is also worth considering.
The apology for interrupting the meal service is commendable.
What about a word about gambling with peoples' lives?
Exposing this airline (union in Arabic) is of paramount public interest and importance.
Some people only learn after lots of people are killed. Anything prior to that threshold is a waste of time.
The passengers and crew of that flight had their lives directly threatened by those same policies and procedures.
Probably the most questionable aspect is the airline agreeing to allow all passengers to reboard the aircraft without any serious attempt to find the culprit(s).
Access to the toilets remained perfectly free only until the last fire was set.
This can only be described as a high altitude version of Russian Roulette.
This airline is very fortunate (as are the occupants of the aircraft) that a disaster did not occur in the second half of the flight in particular, after reboarding the culprit.
The captains decision to proceed like this is also worth considering.
The apology for interrupting the meal service is commendable.
What about a word about gambling with peoples' lives?
Exposing this airline (union in Arabic) is of paramount public interest and importance.
Some people only learn after lots of people are killed. Anything prior to that threshold is a waste of time.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not you that will be sued its PPRuNE. PPRuNE doesn't have money to fund expensive lawyers and court cases so you can understand why they comply rather than risking the future of the whole website.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what the secrecy is all about, when it's all over the Australian news scene.
Passengers detained after fires lit on Melbourne Etihad flight
Passengers detained after fires lit on Melbourne Etihad flight
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're making quite a few assumptions there Wild Goose! How much of what you allege is fact? Were you party to the reasons for the operational decisions made? Or are they based on the always acurate media reports you have read? Just curious.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the MEL?
Obviously Smoke Hoods/PBE's were used - i.e. useless afterwards?
Same goes for Halon / Water Extinguishers - i.e. also now not avail.!
What about the Toilet Waste Bin extinguishers - if they discharged then the toilet is also U/S?
Oh ya, the impact on the CC and were they safe to fly after such a series of events prior to diversion A/P departure? Ah, that falls under CRM I think?
So after the diversion - somebody must have read the MEL or was the "get home-itis" slash orders from OPS, so over powering that they left below the MMEL regarding toilets available, PBE's, extinguishers?
Seems very strange that with pax reporting flames, etc., the Waste Bins did not discharge in the first place? I would think after seeing the first bin failed to work (if the case) you'd block all toilets and then divert if the case? Since a "heavy crew" no mention of extra Cockpit surveying!
Seems unlikely that less then 3-5 fire extinguishers were used?
So at least 2-3 toilets were also U/S after the diversion?
How could they leave and continue?
Same goes for Halon / Water Extinguishers - i.e. also now not avail.!
What about the Toilet Waste Bin extinguishers - if they discharged then the toilet is also U/S?
Oh ya, the impact on the CC and were they safe to fly after such a series of events prior to diversion A/P departure? Ah, that falls under CRM I think?
So after the diversion - somebody must have read the MEL or was the "get home-itis" slash orders from OPS, so over powering that they left below the MMEL regarding toilets available, PBE's, extinguishers?
Seems very strange that with pax reporting flames, etc., the Waste Bins did not discharge in the first place? I would think after seeing the first bin failed to work (if the case) you'd block all toilets and then divert if the case? Since a "heavy crew" no mention of extra Cockpit surveying!
Seems unlikely that less then 3-5 fire extinguishers were used?
So at least 2-3 toilets were also U/S after the diversion?
How could they leave and continue?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor spot for the captain to find himself in; I don't envy him.
Just guessing, but it's easy to imagine that the local cops treated the incident with less interest than at any first-world airport. "Did you start the fires?" No. "Did you see anyone start the fires?" No. Next passenger. They obviously didn't deprive the perp of his/her incendiary material.
I suppose after the next in-flight fire I'd consider diverting to the nearest "suitable airport" being one stocked with a large contingent of TSA-like folks with nothing better to do than lock up people who like to mess with aircraft. Sure would be (alas much too) hard to convince ops to go along with that.
Just guessing, but it's easy to imagine that the local cops treated the incident with less interest than at any first-world airport. "Did you start the fires?" No. "Did you see anyone start the fires?" No. Next passenger. They obviously didn't deprive the perp of his/her incendiary material.
I suppose after the next in-flight fire I'd consider diverting to the nearest "suitable airport" being one stocked with a large contingent of TSA-like folks with nothing better to do than lock up people who like to mess with aircraft. Sure would be (alas much too) hard to convince ops to go along with that.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wild Goose, with the elements and witnesses stories (pax) we have, I find your comments very good. YES, after the Jakarta stop the flight shouldn't have taken off again with all pax, including the one starting fires! Well, he/she did again!
.
Very poor decision to take off from CGK by the captain with the problem unsolved. Even with strong pressure from management to return to base AUH , the captain must not depart if a safety or security problem on board is not solved!
It was very serious and could have ended tragically!
.Very poor decision to take off from CGK by the captain with the problem unsolved. Even with strong pressure from management to return to base AUH , the captain must not depart if a safety or security problem on board is not solved!
It was very serious and could have ended tragically!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jakarta is a base for the airline with full cover, double daily services so one would assume spares for replacement, if not can easily be acquired from pool spares partners
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: land of the long BLUE cloud
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the reports stated...The passengers were all put through thorough security checks, before re-boarding. How can the airline justify not continuing the flight, and penalising all passengers. I don't believe anyone was forced to re-board if they felt it wasn't safe.
If there was no way to identify who started the fires, what other decision could the Captain make?
Should ALL the passengers be banned from ever flying again?
If there was no way to identify who started the fires, what other decision could the Captain make?
Should ALL the passengers be banned from ever flying again?