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

Another Ground incident at Pearson Airport

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

Another Ground incident at Pearson Airport

Old 6th Jan 2018, 17:01
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: CYUL
Posts: 31
So at 32 seconds on the Audio recording above, West Jet 2425 says "Mayday, Mayday,Mayday West Jet 2425 we're evacuating". YYZ Ground answers " 245 standby. (with wrong call sign)"

Fortunately a more competent woman controller takes over..on Ground freq.
Retired DC9 driver is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 17:06
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 623
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Something winding down there...
Westjet's engines. Part of the evacuation procedure?
EEngr is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 17:07
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 12
But was it such a good idea to Evacuate 160+ people in the dark from an aircraft that was not on fire ?
[...]
Did the Crew initiate the evacuation, or did a passenger panic when they saw flames coming from the Other Aircraft, and someone opened an Emergency Exit, everyone else followed ?
The ATC recording in post #17 makes it pretty clear that the Westjet crew (at least initially) believed that their aircraft was on fire, and that they initiated the evacuation.

The cold temperature notwithstanding, I can't think of a better place to initiate an evacuation than right next to the terminal, with plenty of marshaling staff nearby to shepherd passengers to safety. The crew made the right call.
PineappleFrenzy is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 17:16
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: CYUL
Posts: 31
Did the Crew initiate the evacuation, or did a passenger panic when they saw flames coming from the Other Aircraft, and someone opened an Emergency Exit, everyone else followed ?
If you listen to the audio recording above, (post #17) at 32 seconds, the Captain (or F/O) says on Ground Freq,
"Mayday, Mayday, Mayday; West Jet 2425 we're evacuating.."

So the crew made a decision to evacuate based on information they had at the time. Not a passenger opening an Emergency Exit..

Last edited by Retired DC9 driver; 6th Jan 2018 at 17:36.
Retired DC9 driver is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 18:37
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,518
Every time there is a slide evacuation we have the same problem with passengers trying to take their luggage with them. It doesn't seem to matter which continent this happens on, or what passenger profile is travelling on the flight, a sizable percentage of the passengers will not leave their possessions behind.

Given that this reaction is unlikely to change, and no amount of fining dissuades drivers from speeding so we can discount that as ineffective, perhaps we need to get the manufacturers to look at how an evacuation can be made possible WITH hand baggage?
surely not is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 19:51
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 79
Posts: 278
Two possible partial solutions to the problems caused by passengers who delay evacuations by taking items from the overhead lockers:

1) Recognise and allow for the propensity of passengers to reach for their hand luggage during an evacuation when determining the maximum number of occupants in a cabin. A benefit to passenger comfort, but not necessarily to airfares, could be a reduction in seat rows, with a corresponding increase in seat pitch.

2) Allow at least one hold bag on all fares and charge for anything more than minimal cabin baggage. Enforce the size rules rigorously, and demand payment at a high rate for anything too big that makes it to the gate.
Dairyground is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 20:18
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 52
Posts: 518
The recording is a mish-mash of frequencies. Until Red5 calls, all the calls are on two different apron frequencies. When Red5 calls, he is on 121.9 and is responded to by a male controller. The female controller is working 121.65.
Apron gave the "pushback at your discretion" approval with Westjet directly behind the Sunwing aircraft. Discretion was not used it seems. The view from the Apron tower is limited but...
cossack is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 20:29
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lulu Isl.
Posts: 51
For the mentally challenged who feel the need to retrieve stuff from overhead bins there is a law in Canada which suits this act, "Reckless endangerment".

"An individual that engages in conduct that has a substantial risk of causing serious physical harm to others can be charged with reckless endangerment"

Whether a court would find such is entirely another issue!
Grizzz is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 21:06
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 229
Originally Posted by PineappleFrenzy View Post
From the CBC story, there are yet more reports of passengers trying to retrieve their carry-on items during an evacuation. I'm sorry folks. I know there are few practical ways to prevent unhelpful passenger behaviour. But stories like this infuriate me.

Transport Canada and airlines really need to do a better job emphasizing and enforcing fundamental standards of passenger behaviour. I think it's time for the public to wake up and recognize that everyone on board an airplane has responsibilities---including passengers.

If it were up to me, everyone witnessed trying to retrieve their bags during an evacuation would be charged under section 7.41(1)(c) of the Aeronautics Act:
I completely agree with you about the need to prioritize the preservation of life over the preservation of baggage.

However, the problem of applying 7.41(1)(c) seems to me (and I am not a lawyer) to be that in all these cases the aircraft is not in flight, its firmly on the ground and stationary,so that the regulation does not apply.

7.41 (1) No person shall engage in any behaviour that endangers the safety or security of an aircraft in flight or of persons on board an aircraft in flight by intentionally: .......
My emphasis on in flight.

Question for the legal experts:

(a) Are there laws which inhibit passengers in any public conveyance from actions which endanger the lives of other passengers (regardless of whether the action is to preserve baggage), and

(b) If so, would the applicable law be that of the country of registration of the aircraft, or be that of the country of location of the action?
PickyPerkins is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 21:38
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,491
Originally Posted by PickyPerkins View Post
However, the problem of applying 7.41(1)(c) seems to me (and I am not a lawyer) to be that in all these cases the aircraft is not in flight, its firmly on the ground and stationary, so that the regulation does not apply.
You don't need to be a lawyer. Just read a few lines further on in the Act:

"(3) For the purpose of subsection (1), an aircraft is deemed to be in flight from the time when all external doors are closed following embarkation until the time at which any external door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation."
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 22:05
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 48
Posts: 180
So ..... once doors are opened for evacuation, is the aircraft no longer in flight ?
Lancair70 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 22:10
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 178
Chances are the emergency exits have opened when people start to open the overhead lockers.

ATA chapter 52 covers doors.

ATA chapter 52 sub chapter 20 covers emergency exits.

So it is clear Emergency Exits are doors.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 23:25
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 12
So ..... once doors are opened for evacuation, is the aircraft no longer in flight ?
No! It says right in the regulation:
...until the time at which any external door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation."
The aircraft had not reached its disembarkation point (the gate) when the evacuation commenced. Since the doors were opened for a purpose other than disembarkation, the aircraft is still considered in flight for the purposes of the Aeronautics Act.
PineappleFrenzy is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2018, 23:49
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 178
Not sure the Emergency Exits are opened for the purpose of embarkation ever.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 00:37
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 42
Simple SLF here. I have NEVER heard cabin crew tell passengers they should not attempt to retrieve bags from the overhead in case of evacuation. Maybe that should be emphasized by crew during the briefing, possibly saying something like

"If there is an emergency evacuation do not attempt to retrieve bags from the overhead bins. Time to evacuate the aircraft is critical for passenger survival."

Maybe a bit explicit, but drives the point home.

Edited to add: When I'm seated I stand up (yeah, I know) and look around the cabin, specifically looking at the distance fore and aft to exits. I also try and look at the persons sitting in the exit rows and judge whether they look capable of doing their job. I also look at the aircraft emergency card to understand whether the exit hatches in particular locations are to be inboard or outboard disposed (if you get my drift). I also look over the seat backs and decide whether I am willing to climb seats rather than wait in the aisle. When my wife travels with me I advise her (with little effect) that she should just forget her purse and escape in the event of an emergency. I tighten my seat belt (used to race Formula Ford and wish they were six point) at the application of power. I also, if possible, check to see that flaps are lowered before take off and intend to shout loudly if they aren't. Call me paranoid, but I want to maximize any possibility of continuation in case of an accident. Some of us really care and actually think about things. There are studies about who survives in accidents and one of the critical attributes of survivors is the desire to live and persistence in escape. Count me in.

Last edited by Winemaker; 7th Jan 2018 at 05:20.
Winemaker is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 02:53
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 98
Regarding problems inherent in evacations, how some pax behave or misbehave, what pax of all ages should know, and should or should not do, and being mentally prepared:

Interestingly, YouTube has barred anyone under their age minimum (18 or 21 or 50 or whatever) from viewing the video linked to on post #8.

Someone decided it did not meet their "community standards" - presumably because one can hear the "F-word".

The nannystaters apparently are more terrified a 16-year old might hear the "F-word" (surely he/she never has before) than that same individual -- one never knows when, for those 168 pax it was last night -- might suddenly encounter an emergency evac situation.

When that moment occurs, one must know what to do, to already comprehend the chaos that often accompanies emergency evacs, what happens when people insist on retrieving carry-on bags, and more.

Or would you rather bury your child, than let him or her hear the "F-word?" (or rather, to admit they probably already have - and surely would during the course of an evacation that goes badly.)

Sorry if a digression, but refusal to confront reality can be frustrating.
Passenger 389 is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 03:18
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 178
Could not agree more 389 - but censorship because of someone's not meeting their idea of "community standards" is common practice.

I have often said the evac should be a safety video that is played before take-off - one being the result of people stopping flow by grabbing bags - then the correct way with a happy ending. It would not need to be graphic but clear on the result.

Same for inflating life vest inside the cabin.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 03:41
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1
The airlines have made it very beneficial to try carry more on board and less in the hold. I have even heard an announcement to the effect 'no more checked bags or else the plane will be too heavy - carry on only please'. The regulators have turned a blind eye to the amount of weight in the overhead bins, and the quantity of 'missiles' in the event of a crash - laptops, duty free liquor etc.

I travel light and have a small bag that can easily fit under the seat or the overhead bin. I know I would spend less time screaming and swearing, and use that time to gather my goods and plan my exit. But I'm carrying one small shoulder bag, not a laptop bag, overnight bag and duty free bag.

The world has changed - you can do almost nothing without a drivers licence, passport and iPhone nowadays. Even an expired drivers licence won't get you on the next flight, never mind across the border. You try get a new passport in an overseas country. And the airlines are not known for really looking after their passengers after an incident. Now everyone is surprised that bags are a high priority in an event?

I watched the video - the flight crew is trying to get people to sit when it was pretty obvious it was time to bail? We've all seen fires like this consume an aircraft in seconds. If there was any time wasted, it was the 30 seconds or so that the crew finally decided to evacuate? Thats an eternity in a real event.

The only change I can see helping, is a 'can take' size bag and a 'must leave' size bag, and a whole lot of educating?
Aerodon is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 08:13
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Aerodon View Post
I watched the video - the flight crew is trying to get people to sit when it was pretty obvious it was time to bail? We've all seen fires like this consume an aircraft in seconds. If there was any time wasted, it was the 30 seconds or so that the crew finally decided to evacuate? Thats an eternity in a real event.
So you don't think the crew should take a few seconds to evaluate the situation before ordering an evacuation or even run through the QRH?
Capt Ecureuil is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 08:30
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,734
Originally Posted by Aerodon
I watched the video - the flight crew is trying to get people to sit when it was pretty obvious it was time to bail? We've all seen fires like this consume an aircraft in seconds.
Did this one? Are you an airline pilot? How long does it take you to run through the Evacuation procedure?
Capn Bloggs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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