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 7th Jan 2018, 10:59
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 174
Most airlines Iíve flown with mention ď in the event of an evacuation leave all hand baggage behindĒ.
An evacuation command is a once in a career event, if that. Boeing have made it a read and do rather than a memory drill for good reason. Seeing fire and evacuating may or indeed may not be the correct response.
I have to say Pearson concerns me. Iíve seen a wing tip flash past the No1 window closer there than anywhere else in the world. Pilot of other aircraft was heads down which was a worry I appreciate he was probably a Pearson regular and had used that taxiway before with an aircraft parked where is was but it was uncomfortable.
sudden twang is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 12:28
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 5,923
Good point.

Solution(s)? None. A possible reduction to future incidents? Automation/robotics. I don't not see any human-based amelioration to the problem of night-time/cold weather/reduced visibily/weekend/Maple Leafs best season in over twenty years back-up/reverse towing scenarios at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, (CYYZ), especially pertaining to this incident. Ahem. (Cough, cough).

Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep.

Given the nature of recent ground collision incidents, federally mandated installation of state-of-the-art technology such as lane departure warning with auto correction, back-up and peripheral cameras with audible proximity warning, and automatic pedestrian/obstruction stop, (which is currently available on some mid-priced automobiles) would be welcome by the majority of the near-panicking and vacationing "we are all going to die" flying public, especially on multi-million dollar airliners. Especially at Toronto. Especially on Westjet, Sunwing and Air Canada. Air France also comes to mind. Oh heck, why not all carriers operating in and out of "Pearson"?.

The limits of human-based sensing, reaction and intervention on these incidents appears to be a possible factor. Go Go Gadget!

Automation creep anyone? Ground/Ramp Controllers and Apron Marshallers care to chime in with their thoughts? Pilots, of course, are always welcome to chime in.

Last edited by evansb; 7th Jan 2018 at 13:16.
evansb is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 17:05
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by PineappleFrenzy View Post
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.
However, the act does not actually define disembarkation (I think defining this has been a problem with aviation treaties/conventions as well) as far as I can see. Therefore it is the location/point or method of disembarkation is irrelevant and the common definition of "to leave a [ship, aircraft or train]" applies, and the doors have clearly been opened for this purpose, therefore the aircraft is not in flight.

If that isn't clear, consider that by your definition, i.e. "the aircraft had not reached its disembarkation point (the gate)" the pax would still be under the clause when back in the terminal building or back home (or now) - since we don't know at what point in time the aircraft reached the gate, if it ever did. That is clearly absurd, therefore your definition of disembarkation must be incorrect.
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 18:48
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 12
That is clearly absurd, therefore your definition of disembarkation must be incorrect.
You make a valid point. Yet, as you point out, the definition of disembark as used in the Aeronautic Act is ambiguous. Clearly "disembark" and "evacuate" have different meanings, otherwise we would use the same word to describe each event.

Neither term is defined in the Aeronautics Act.

And since the Aeronautics Act specifies that a flight ends when the doors open for the purpose of "disembarkation" and not "evacuation," we cannot automatically assume that evacuation and disembarkation are equivalent for the purpose of this section of the act.

This is why we have judges. We delegate to them the responsibility of resolving ambiguities such as these. But a judge can only do so if a case comes before him/her in court. That is why we need to start charging people under the Aeronautics Act when they try to retrieve their bags during an evacuation.
PineappleFrenzy is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 21:09
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by Capt Ecureuil View Post
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?
Indeed. And they might want to have a quick word with the ARFF.
PAX_Britannica is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 21:33
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 926
The regulations also require passengers to obey the instructions of the crew, especially in an emergency. The shouted commands include the words “leave everything behind”, so the act of taking their belongings is a violation of that regulation.
J.O. is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 00:02
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 177
PineappleFrenzy

Taking people to court and not winning cases would be a costly exercise.

During emergencies, some people handle it well others panic and not think straight or able to hear instructions - this can be used as a defences and a good ones.

I also think that during an evacuation, everyone must disembark the aeroplane because it became a place of danger.

Trying to prove people have not disembarked during an evacuation would take a costly Lawyer in my opinion.

Think better spend that money on education.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 00:53
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 52
Posts: 518
My post #27:
Westjet was waiting directly behind the Sunwing aircraft to park on the gate next to Sunwng. Apron authorized a "push your discretion" to the tow driver of the empty Sunwing with no reference made to the Westjet immediately behind him. Are wing walkers required to move an empty aircraft?
Yes it was dark, windy and -20C.
cossack is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 01:07
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,732
Are wing walkers required to move an empty aircraft?
They will be now!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 05:09
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 333
Regarding Passengers Reaction to Fire

People in general are not rational in the presence of fire. There's no changing that. We have to cope with it. It takes years of training and experience (and preferably a load of protective clothing and breathing apparatus) to be able to behave rationally in the presence of fire.

Prosecuting people who obstructed an evacuation by collecting their hand luggage will not change anything one little bit for the next evacuation. Locking the overhead bins is the only answer to that problem. And I would say that locking them individually with a key is important because everyone then knows that there's no hope of opening them. It's also cheaper to fit.

Fire on an aircraft is difficult to manage well when on the ground. If the aircraft is stationary and there is no visible progress towards evacuation, you're always going to be moments away from pandemonium. That's just human nature. Yes I know that doesn't square with people then stopping to grab their hand luggage; that is also human nature.

Here's an idea for discussion; I'm not anticipating universal acclamation! Perhaps there ought to be a mechanism that, if the aircraft is stationary and one of the doors is popped, cuts off fuel to the engines and sets the parking brakes. The guys at the front are normally in the worst place in the aircraft to evaluate the severity of a fire, and a means for the cc to take the matter out of their hands might make the difference between a successful evacuation and a total disaster.
msbbarratt is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 11:36
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 89
I generally wear "cargo pants" when flying. The pockets easily accommodate wallet, passport and house keys. my phone is in a belt pouch and I have a USB stick with copies of important documents attached to the keys. My bag is well insured and I am happy to let it burn if need be.

I am also quite happy to "lump" anyone faffing about with bags if they prevent my egress.
Tech Guy is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 13:10
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North West UK
Posts: 517
I carry a small across the chest bag (about 6" x 4" x 2") with passport, phone, wallet, keys, charger plug/cable and Kindle. It is attached to me the whole flight. Everything else can be left behind and easily replaced. Important documents saved to the cloud. I used to wear cargo pants until my wife said NO!
Espada III is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 13:14
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Down a little lower and to the left. Right there baby right there
Posts: 16
Tech guy, WELL SAID. If you ever had to evacuate this dress code covers it all. It also allows those idiots whose ego requires them to travel back from a sun destination to a cold climate wearing shorts an option.. Picking up a family member the other day, 02:40 - 20C and people coming out from Customs in shorts. You would die of hypothermia if you had to evacuate away from the terminal building.

Debate the legal stuff all you want, this is likely the first post that brings common sense to this thread.
blorgwinder is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 21:03
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,188
If the aircraft is stationary and there is no visible progress towards evacuation, you're always going to be moments away from pandemonium. That's just human nature...

Perhaps there ought to be a mechanism that, if the aircraft is stationary and one of the doors is popped, cuts off fuel to the engines and sets the parking brakes. The guys at the front are normally in the worst place in the aircraft to evaluate the severity of a fire, and a means for the cc to take the matter out of their hands might make the difference between a successful evacuation and a total disaster.
The cockpit crew tends to get busy with whichever checklist seems appropriate. Chimes from the cabin crew interphone may either not be heard or be deferred to after completing the checklist.

Fire or smoke in the cabin requires immediate attention. But as in many other similar accidents, there was a considerable delay communicating the cabin crew's appreciation of the fire and smoke danger to the cockpit. Delayed evacuation can and has cost lives. The accident reports commonly show that communication of the fire situation to the cockpit takes too much time.

We have alarms for engine, APU and cargo fires. Should we not also have a cabin fire alarm that can be actuated by the cabin crew?
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 00:46
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 543
In the groundcontroller's defense, the mayday is done in a very casual way. How many times does it happen in one's career? I would be shouting it from the roof!
Key to situational awareness is communication; if you don't tell him properly he doesn't know.
golfyankeesierra is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 00:56
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 499
It is human nature to get one's bags ESPECIALLY when passengers know they are unlikely to see their belongings again. This is not stoppable no matter what laws are made or actions taken short of machine gunning any passengers exiting with luggage.

The ONLY way to stop this behavior is to :

1. Ban all carry ons larger then a coat, attache , purse, ipad, (child seat, wheel chair excepted). Basically non essentials.
2. Demand everything be checked in outside of above items. If passengers must pay, then they must pay.
3. Make these requirements uniform for all airlines carrying people.

Having minimum carry ons will also streamline customers going through security. And seating passengers will be much much faster as well.
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 02:06
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 245
Happy to check (almost) everything as soon as airlines pony up insurance to cover the value of lost goods (jewelry, cameras, laptops).
MarcK is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 05:47
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: out there somewhere...
Posts: 759
So what you're really saying is that your camera and precious phone is worth dying for as well as most likely putting others at risk for? Is that what it's worth? You'll for sure be the one with my boot marks on your ass if you stop in front of me to grab your crap during an evacuation...and once you go down the rest will run right over you.
Left Coaster is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 05:54
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 90
Commercial Interest

The subject of restricting handbaggage allowance was discussed at a meeting I once attended at the IATA HQ in Geneva some years ago.US carriers at that meeting stressed that they would reject anything that restricted their right to compete with each other. - Commercial interest. Citing risk analysis, such incidents are rare. BA at Las Vegas was widely reported upon in 2015 but how many other incidents have occurred since then? Stressing more strongly the need to leave carry on behind in the event of an emergency will be the only way carriers will act I believe.
Gove N.T. is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 06:55
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 433
Left Coaster

I think what MarcK was getting at was that normally, non evac situations, he'd prefer to have the airlines cover valuables in the hold more than they do in the cabin in case of loss/damage etc. The airlines do generally tell us to take valuables as carry on.

He didn't say he wanted his camera etc as carry on so that he could evac with it.
Car RAMROD 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.