Runway excursion by DL MD-80
So we ban the elderly and fat from flying?
Goodbye air travel.
Goodbye air travel.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never had to evacuate an aircraft and hopefully never will.
I have been in charge of buildings and had to evacuate due to fire and bomb scares. It is hard enough to get people to multiple exits with wide corridors and to clear a building expeditiosly in those circumstances.
Those who keep banging on about collecting belongings and paperwork from an aircraft in extremis, because of problems that may arise after the event, should ask the airlines to have a tape made to be played just before the aircraft meets the ground.
"Passengers who wish to survive this event should, immediately the aircraft comes to a halt, leave the aircraft by the nearest available exit, checking first that their exit is not obstructed by fire and taking nothing with them Those that wish to gamble their lives because their possessions are more important than their continued existence should remain and assist those that want to have a chance of life to leave the aircraft. Once those passengers have left then, and only then, if you are still alive, may you collect your items and depart the aircraft."
Anyone who puts possessions and paperwork before life, whatever the problems that may arise later, is just plain dumb.
I have been in charge of buildings and had to evacuate due to fire and bomb scares. It is hard enough to get people to multiple exits with wide corridors and to clear a building expeditiosly in those circumstances.
Those who keep banging on about collecting belongings and paperwork from an aircraft in extremis, because of problems that may arise after the event, should ask the airlines to have a tape made to be played just before the aircraft meets the ground.
"Passengers who wish to survive this event should, immediately the aircraft comes to a halt, leave the aircraft by the nearest available exit, checking first that their exit is not obstructed by fire and taking nothing with them Those that wish to gamble their lives because their possessions are more important than their continued existence should remain and assist those that want to have a chance of life to leave the aircraft. Once those passengers have left then, and only then, if you are still alive, may you collect your items and depart the aircraft."
Anyone who puts possessions and paperwork before life, whatever the problems that may arise later, is just plain dumb.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne, Au
Age: 70
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Medications
I read with interest about carrying medications on board in a pouch. A thread hijack maybe but:
How do you get them aboard even with prescriptions?
In 2007 my son was released from three days in hospital and not allowed in cabin any prescribed liquids and post release meds. After arriving in Darwin his temperature was abnormal but no access allowed. In Alice Springs with a nine hour delay due to storms in Darwin, equipment could not depart, as Darwin airport closed, a three hour connection became nine hours, only after he collapsed and was bright red with a burning temperature was I allowed access to baggage to get his meds!
I need a liquid nitro lingual spray since 2012 and have scripts and carry heart scans, stent size and location but it has never been allowed in cabin and I now never try to get it in, based on previous attempts. Cannot afford ($) to keep having $ confiscated. I had three international (7.5hr) sectors in two days last week plus domestic sectors in foreign countries.
How do people get meds on board?
How do you get them aboard even with prescriptions?
In 2007 my son was released from three days in hospital and not allowed in cabin any prescribed liquids and post release meds. After arriving in Darwin his temperature was abnormal but no access allowed. In Alice Springs with a nine hour delay due to storms in Darwin, equipment could not depart, as Darwin airport closed, a three hour connection became nine hours, only after he collapsed and was bright red with a burning temperature was I allowed access to baggage to get his meds!
I need a liquid nitro lingual spray since 2012 and have scripts and carry heart scans, stent size and location but it has never been allowed in cabin and I now never try to get it in, based on previous attempts. Cannot afford ($) to keep having $ confiscated. I had three international (7.5hr) sectors in two days last week plus domestic sectors in foreign countries.
How do people get meds on board?
Many posts discuss an evacuation as though it was a precautionary or emergency event involving an intact aircraft. This was an accident, the aircraft was damaged and thus the issue is of post-accident survival. Greater damage could have involved incapacitation or trapped passengers, fire or even flooding given a few more yards or excursion.
The significance of this accident is as another warning of the hazards of runway overrun or excursion; this is being overlooked, it is a major safety issue. The accident is similar to several previous near-miss events; e.g. Midway, Jamaica, Jackson Hole. Why should we continue like this when there have been many indications of the risk.
Contaminated runway operations are one area where there are differences between Europe and the US. EASA now regulates performance and operation; the FAA has been hampered by operator interference in regulatory process and time taken to implement change, current safety activity is advisory and delegated to operators.
The FAA TALPA is a welcome initiative, but it is still some way from forcible implementation. Europe has embraced the substance of the TALPA safety activities, Airbus have published performance data based on contaminant depth and now aligns with airport reporting of braking action based on type and depth of contaminant. Many airports have changed to this type of reporting; not so in the US.
US operations depend extensively on visual conditions; IFR often restricts operations requiring use of non-ideal runways and tailwinds; tailwind and contaminant – NO, Never (no published data in Europe). There is less time to clear the runway, check contaminant, and report to crews. US operations appear complacent, sufficiently safe, or is there no other option because of commercial pressure, little appreciation the risks and reduced safety margins in contaminated operation?
Overrun accidents are not top of the safety list when comparing fatalities; one LoC accident with a wide body distorts the statistics. Alternatively overruns and excursions account for many more hull losses. Overruns with structural damage can impair evacuation; the industry may have been lucky – the hazard is just matched by design, but perhaps with little further safety margin.
Whereas there have been many LoC events where crew intervention recovered the aircraft, for contaminated operations once an aircraft is on the runway there is little more the crew can do to mitigate events for an unforeseen, unsafe situation.
How many of us have landed and thought – ‘that’s a bit close’ – did we learn. Who reports ‘Medium / Poor’ rather than admit inaccurate information, assessment, or judgement of a landing on a ‘Poor’ runway.
PIREPS are more of a hazard than a help, they provide little if any aid to the braking action and are a strong bias on judgement, as can be airfield and wind reports, - we hear what we wish to hear, we consider ‘how can we do this’ vs ‘should we be doing this’.
It’s time for the industry to reconsider the delicate balance of commerce vs safety, the apparent acceptance greater risks in US operations.
It’s time to stop and think about the safety issues particularly those where regulators and operators can intervene, but more often rely on the crew as safety margins reduce, and if transgressed then blamed.
The significance of this accident is as another warning of the hazards of runway overrun or excursion; this is being overlooked, it is a major safety issue. The accident is similar to several previous near-miss events; e.g. Midway, Jamaica, Jackson Hole. Why should we continue like this when there have been many indications of the risk.
Contaminated runway operations are one area where there are differences between Europe and the US. EASA now regulates performance and operation; the FAA has been hampered by operator interference in regulatory process and time taken to implement change, current safety activity is advisory and delegated to operators.
The FAA TALPA is a welcome initiative, but it is still some way from forcible implementation. Europe has embraced the substance of the TALPA safety activities, Airbus have published performance data based on contaminant depth and now aligns with airport reporting of braking action based on type and depth of contaminant. Many airports have changed to this type of reporting; not so in the US.
US operations depend extensively on visual conditions; IFR often restricts operations requiring use of non-ideal runways and tailwinds; tailwind and contaminant – NO, Never (no published data in Europe). There is less time to clear the runway, check contaminant, and report to crews. US operations appear complacent, sufficiently safe, or is there no other option because of commercial pressure, little appreciation the risks and reduced safety margins in contaminated operation?
Overrun accidents are not top of the safety list when comparing fatalities; one LoC accident with a wide body distorts the statistics. Alternatively overruns and excursions account for many more hull losses. Overruns with structural damage can impair evacuation; the industry may have been lucky – the hazard is just matched by design, but perhaps with little further safety margin.
Whereas there have been many LoC events where crew intervention recovered the aircraft, for contaminated operations once an aircraft is on the runway there is little more the crew can do to mitigate events for an unforeseen, unsafe situation.
How many of us have landed and thought – ‘that’s a bit close’ – did we learn. Who reports ‘Medium / Poor’ rather than admit inaccurate information, assessment, or judgement of a landing on a ‘Poor’ runway.
PIREPS are more of a hazard than a help, they provide little if any aid to the braking action and are a strong bias on judgement, as can be airfield and wind reports, - we hear what we wish to hear, we consider ‘how can we do this’ vs ‘should we be doing this’.
It’s time for the industry to reconsider the delicate balance of commerce vs safety, the apparent acceptance greater risks in US operations.
It’s time to stop and think about the safety issues particularly those where regulators and operators can intervene, but more often rely on the crew as safety margins reduce, and if transgressed then blamed.
The point that needs to be made is that current regulations, immigration and airline policy reward or at least encourage passengers to take their bags with them in an emergency. Examples I have read on this site over the years include:
1 - A crash landing with no fire (Asiana in SF????) where it took three days to return bags to passengers.
2 - A slide evac where passangers had to wait half a day in the terminal without any food / drinks provided to passengers who did not have any money / cards
Then, what happens when you are some nationality like Chinese or Indian and you land in the US and the plane does burn. Good luck proving anything to immigration!
The fact is if people are punished like this for doing the right thing, then nothing anyone can do will stop them from doing the wrong thing. That is human nature. The solution is to change the systems not just blame the people.
1 - A crash landing with no fire (Asiana in SF????) where it took three days to return bags to passengers.
2 - A slide evac where passangers had to wait half a day in the terminal without any food / drinks provided to passengers who did not have any money / cards
Then, what happens when you are some nationality like Chinese or Indian and you land in the US and the plane does burn. Good luck proving anything to immigration!
The fact is if people are punished like this for doing the right thing, then nothing anyone can do will stop them from doing the wrong thing. That is human nature. The solution is to change the systems not just blame the people.
Anyway, I agree with a previous poster that this is all worthy of it's own topic instead of here.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alf, I'm glad to see someone discussing the issue of whether the aircraft should have attempted a landing in those conditions. The photos at the scene showed the runway with a noticeable snow covering - I was taken aback that planes would land on that. Unless the conditions had deteriorated sharply between the last landing and the Delta's, previous flights much have encountered the same dodgy conditions.
How does ATC dedide whether the runway has gone beyond an acceptable limit? Is it down mainly to reports from landing aircraft? And is it a matter of professional pride to downplay a hairy moment rather than admit you were briefly terrified?
How does ATC dedide whether the runway has gone beyond an acceptable limit? Is it down mainly to reports from landing aircraft? And is it a matter of professional pride to downplay a hairy moment rather than admit you were briefly terrified?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montreal
Age: 53
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone exiting a crashed airliner carrying any item of clothing or hand baggage in their hands should be arrested and charged both with endangering the safety of the other passengers and disregarding the lawful instructions of the crew
Airbus have published performance data based on contaminant depth and now aligns with airport reporting of braking action based on type and depth of contaminant. Many airports have changed to this type of reporting
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone exiting a crashed airliner carrying any item of clothing or hand baggage in their hands should be arrested and charged both with endangering the safety of the other passengers and disregarding the lawful instructions of the crew
The reasons why it's unwise to get hand-baggage from lockers are a) time, b) blocking the aisle, and c) damaging the slides.
However, other characteristics of passengers affect these considerations. Clothes can hamper a person's manoeverability. Burkas, saris, thobes and other long voluminous garments are pretty much designed to catch on things and get in the way when you're clambering over seats, etc. Full-face burkas also reduce the capacity to see where you're going.
Aisles are likely to be blocked by families with young children, trying to get the brood together and shepherd them to the exit. It's still not uncommon for families to find themselves split up and sitting in different bits of the plane, because there aren't enough seats left in a block.
Accessories such as heavily studded belts must be just as good as stiletto heels for ripping slides. Some of the more extreme facial piercings look like they could do an amount of damage.
So do we forbid all passengers to travel unless they're in trousers and sneakers and their hair tied back, with nothing metal sticking out, travelling without children or elderly relatives?
At what point do we just make people strip off and put on orange jumpsuits?
Note: I think it would be sensible for airlines to require passengers to prepare for landing by putting their coats on and having vital documents / medicines in the seat pocket in front of them. But then, most economy seats barely fit a slim person in a t-shirt, never mind a large person in a parka.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Scotia, you really have little understanding of just how your ideas may play out.
Imagine the scenario when in an emergency the passengers are told to put on external clothing. Everyone stands up and tries to get into the overheads for coats and jumpers. The aircraft, possibly already in a partly unstable condition, may suddenly become out of trim as people push and shove to get their coats etc, in many cases not in an immediately adjacent bin, thus addingto the problems of the crew.
Then it maybe a landing on water is a possibility so life vests have to be donned. In your world where people can't even find the one hole in a life vest to put it over their heads, how on earth are they going to cope with two requirements, coats and life vests.
Admit it, sitting cosily and happily at your computer your only concern is to exit a crash scenario with everything you took on board. I dare say were you ever in a real evacuation you would be pushing and shoving with the rest to get out and as far away as possible before the situation deteriorated to one of unsurvivability.
Imagine the scenario when in an emergency the passengers are told to put on external clothing. Everyone stands up and tries to get into the overheads for coats and jumpers. The aircraft, possibly already in a partly unstable condition, may suddenly become out of trim as people push and shove to get their coats etc, in many cases not in an immediately adjacent bin, thus addingto the problems of the crew.
Then it maybe a landing on water is a possibility so life vests have to be donned. In your world where people can't even find the one hole in a life vest to put it over their heads, how on earth are they going to cope with two requirements, coats and life vests.
Admit it, sitting cosily and happily at your computer your only concern is to exit a crash scenario with everything you took on board. I dare say were you ever in a real evacuation you would be pushing and shoving with the rest to get out and as far away as possible before the situation deteriorated to one of unsurvivability.
The wing damage:
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admit it, sitting cosily and happily at your computer your only concern is to exit a crash scenario with everything you took on board. I dare say were you ever in a real evacuation you would be pushing and shoving with the rest to get out and as far away as possible before the situation deteriorated to one of unsurvivability.
However, not many travellers are as anal as me, and I fully understand why. They're sold a glossy service, not the idea that they're strapping themselves into a metal tube and allowing two people they don't know - at least one of whom may be barely more qualified than the occupant of seat 22D - to take them 40,000ft into the air. Stop selling the glossy service, and start reminding passengers that they're doing something potentially dangerous, and then they'll maybe start taking safety seriously.
You could stop giving them booze, while you're at it. That's not exactly a message that they might have to pay attention and get zippy, is it?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find tat most passengers fall into two main categories, the frequent flyer who knows what to expect and the occasional/first time flyer who may well have fallen for the hype.
It is the former that is more likely to be the problem, familiarity breeding contempt, or at least a relaxation of awareness. The infrequent flyer is far more likely to pay attention to the safety card, announcements and be aware of their surroundings.
I generally pay, especially on long haul, either for exit row or twin seats, not for any reason of safety but it is easier to get up for the toilet, to take a walk or just stand for a while without disturbing others. In buying an exit row seat I agree to assist in an emergency, that is why I know the door operations by heart and can don't a life vest blindfold. At going on 68 I'm totally able bodied but the minute I couldn't open an exit door or felt anyway infirm I wouldn't book an exit row seat,yet I have had crew seat people with mobility difficulties next to me and, on one trip from Rio refused to have a woman next to me who was retching when she boarded the aircraft.
It is the former that is more likely to be the problem, familiarity breeding contempt, or at least a relaxation of awareness. The infrequent flyer is far more likely to pay attention to the safety card, announcements and be aware of their surroundings.
I generally pay, especially on long haul, either for exit row or twin seats, not for any reason of safety but it is easier to get up for the toilet, to take a walk or just stand for a while without disturbing others. In buying an exit row seat I agree to assist in an emergency, that is why I know the door operations by heart and can don't a life vest blindfold. At going on 68 I'm totally able bodied but the minute I couldn't open an exit door or felt anyway infirm I wouldn't book an exit row seat,yet I have had crew seat people with mobility difficulties next to me and, on one trip from Rio refused to have a woman next to me who was retching when she boarded the aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the damage to the aircraft, it isn'just the wing but looking how it ended up it is almost certain the fuselage is distorted which would likely make it a write off. Given the age of the airframe it is certain to be broken up if that is the case.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF, if I'm in a crash, I'm not going to go digging around in the overhead bins. However, if I have small items under the seat in front of me, I'll probably grab them and take them with me - partly so that they don't become a trip hazard to others.
That said, if the landing was bad enough that the overhead bins came open and items fell into the aisle or on top of passengers, I will take whatever I can carry with me when I exit the plane - regardless of whether it's my stuff or someone else's - just to get it out of the way. However, when I get to the door I'm likely to hurl the items over the edge/out of the way rather than take them down the slide.
That said, if the landing was bad enough that the overhead bins came open and items fell into the aisle or on top of passengers, I will take whatever I can carry with me when I exit the plane - regardless of whether it's my stuff or someone else's - just to get it out of the way. However, when I get to the door I'm likely to hurl the items over the edge/out of the way rather than take them down the slide.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jugofpropwash, consider this. When you bend to pick up items from the aisle you have to slow down or stop. That causes an obstruction. When you carry anything like a bag or coat it will both add to your width and slow you down. When you bend over to pick something up you risk being trampled to the floor in the panic to evacuate, especially in smoke.
Throwing stuff out of the door is crazy. You don't know where it will land, you will have to pause, even momentarily to throw the item so you can try to avoid hitting anyone or the slide.
If items have fallen from the overheads into the aisle it is generally quicker to climb over or kick them aside if you can.
The same rule applies on a crashed aircraft as in a burning or bomb threatened building. Your job is to get out as fast and as unencumbered as you can.
Throwing stuff out of the door is crazy. You don't know where it will land, you will have to pause, even momentarily to throw the item so you can try to avoid hitting anyone or the slide.
If items have fallen from the overheads into the aisle it is generally quicker to climb over or kick them aside if you can.
The same rule applies on a crashed aircraft as in a burning or bomb threatened building. Your job is to get out as fast and as unencumbered as you can.
It seems like some of the posters here believe that people will behave in a rational manner during an emergency.
Some will, some won't, and based on experience professional training helps, but are no guarantee. To put any faith in what passes for a safety briefing or safety card, well good luck.
And to those who predict how they will behave in an emergency, post a report here when you have had one.
Some will, some won't, and based on experience professional training helps, but are no guarantee. To put any faith in what passes for a safety briefing or safety card, well good luck.
And to those who predict how they will behave in an emergency, post a report here when you have had one.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: entre ici et là
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do some pilots leave the seat belt sign on all the way from JFK to Shannon in calm air?
the airlines and their governing regulators need to get it across to passengers that when they enter an airplane they are entering a survival situation and they need to be prepared.
I have flown for 40 years (as a pilot) and as an example, even while deadheading in uniform, I pay attention to the Flight Attendant briefing and I re read the handy information card in the seat pocket ahead of you.
Another round of outrage and angst over passengers acting like idiots in an emergency.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts