Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

JetBlue return, evac

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

JetBlue return, evac

Old 23rd Sep 2014, 07:16
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,959
Am just wondering what the thinking is behind a coded PA from the flight deck instead of a command from the flight deck to evacuate?
fireflybob is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2014, 10:26
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 93
Would it be to ensure that cabin crew have a few seconds to get into position at their allocated stations before we SLF block the aisles in our haste to retrieve our carry-ons?
Allan L is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2014, 11:46
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by fireflybob View Post
Am just wondering what the thinking is behind a coded PA from the flight deck instead of a command from the flight deck to evacuate?
Has anyone done serious trials or any research on the relative merits of talking in code and keeping nervous pax in ignorance of what they are meant to do - or alternatively, in being completely overt and explaining to pax in simple terms this is what is about to happen/what has happened/what you are required to do ?

If you keep people in the dark on what they are meant to do - do not be surprised if there is considerable indeterminacy in what they do. Why not include pax in a 'CRM' type prebrief.

In this case it could have been:

"We have had a failure in one engine which is now shut down. We can fly perfectly well on one engine and will be landing in 5 minutes. There is some smoke in the cabin air from the hot shut down engine but it is not dangerous. After we land which should be a routine landing. we will stop on the runway for fire crews to check the engine. We do not expect to have to evacuate using slides but if we do - you must NOT take carry on bags with you. We can retrieve those later.
"

Repeated by cabin crew walking down the aircraft in the several minutes prior to landing....

Or just leave the SLF thinking the aircraft will explode into flames any second and they are next to exits they can open....
Ian W is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2014, 12:19
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,959
Would it be to ensure that cabin crew have a few seconds to get into position at their allocated stations before we SLF block the aisles in our haste to retrieve our carry-ons?
Surely after a landing in this case they would maintain station until advised by flight deck?

I know different airlines have different procedures but in all the companies I have flown for the Evac is commanded from the flight deck in simple language.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2014, 12:57
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
@Ian W

Why not include pax in a 'CRM' type prebrief.
As one of the SLF simpletons I would very much love this kind of inclusion into the problem, IF there is a problem.

So, this will be a post from an SLF kind of view.

Be aware that I am the kind of SLF that always make an effort to listen to CC during safety briefings and I am highly annoyed by ignorants. Alas, I try to get into the mindset that IF something were to happen at least I have some kind of planning ability and IF the excrements were to come in contact with the air conditioning system I could maybe be of some use to CC, if just only as someone who DON'T open a door. I hope you get the gist.

Yes, there is always the problem of rowdy, unruly and just plain stupid SLF. But if there is at least one with some common sense and survival instincts that person could be a great help in case of the aforementioned manure. Thus it really helps to include us pax in the briefing. Hopefully the briefing will have a sobering effect on the more.. wild persons in the cabin, too.

Ok, back to lurking for now.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2014, 10:50
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: KSTL
Age: 43
Posts: 1
Still not knowing all the details, I am wondering why they elected a return to KLGB with it's displaced 7,4xx runway in very busy VFR training traffic and not 12,xxx foot runway available at KLAX? LAX would likely be better prepped for an incident on the roll out. B6 does have a presence there as well, and it is only a bus ride between the two. But the route was south, and not knowing the aircraft condition it is hard to determine, but worth discussing.
kfly99 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2014, 12:50
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 822
kfly99

as the pilot was pretty smart, he knew his personal automobile was parked at the long beach airport parking lot and it would be much more dangerous to drive between LAX and Long Beach to retrieve it.

so, he did what we would all do, he realized he could safely (except for evac mistakes and oxygen use) return to departure airport and he did so.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2014, 14:08
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
R12 is 10,000 ft. LGB or ONT were probably the nearest suitable airports to return on one engine and they were probably more familiar with LGB than LAX or ONT. Operationally it was the best choice so why make it complicated? 25L VFR traffic would not be a factor because the tower would manage that.

Smoke in the cabin would require using the nearest suitable airport as well as a single engine approach with a twin engine aircraft.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2014, 15:02
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Agreed. The ability to stop the plane was not in doubt (landing distances are not predicated on thrust reversers.) The immediacy of the problem - engine failure with fire that took longer than expected to extinguish and smoke in the cabin - made LGB a viable option.

Also, looking at the flight track, they were already on a wide downwind and would have required a time-consuming course reversal and vectoring to get to LAX. They made the right choice to get it on the ground ASAP.

BTW - who here would not use the full 10,000ft of runway in an emergency?
AKAAB is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2014, 09:12
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Arroyo
Posts: 259
About carry-ons

Would it be an option (cost, additionnal weight, wiring, power supply, etc.) to have the overhead bins automatically locked in case of an evac?
The harder part would be to get the pax used to the idea that there is no point in trying to recover personnal belongings in an emergency, I guess.
To weight pro and contra, beside common sense, is there any facts, test or study about how much of an impairment, i.e. danger, it is when pax struggle for their stuff in the midst of an evac ?
ettore is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.