Condor squawks 7700 mid Atlantic
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no smoke without fire old chap!
Smoke in the cockpit/airplane? Every second and I mean second counts, time to put the airplane on the ground pronto. self-diagnosing severity has shown in the past terrible outcomes that quite possibly could have been averted had this rule been applied, false alarm? A damned small price to pay, 2 hours out? I'd be sh*tting myself.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had smoke in the Atlantic (at low level) I can assure you it's not fun and not something you dick about with. In my case it was a windshield heating controller which I eventually found but when there are only two flight crew and no access to some of the equipment bays then the sound and airman like decision is to land immediately at the nearest suitable. And use all your skills to make immediately as soon as it can possibly be.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoke in the cockpit/airplane? Every second and I mean second counts, time to put the airplane on the ground pronto. self-diagnosing severity has shown in the past terrible outcomes that quite possibly could have been averted had this rule been applied, false alarm? A damned small price to pay, 2 hours out? I'd be sh*tting myself.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Happily, in my forty or so years flying, I never had the problem, but uncontrolled fire in the air was always my most worrying point. Most other things you can sort out, but.... the least hint of smoke/fire, get the thing on the ground. Good decision
Had you read my post more carefully you'd see I made no suggestion nor implied one was required. I merely made a factual statement.
Almost 900 miles out in the Atlantic - Then takes 2 hours to get back to SNN - not nice at all when you are smelling burning...120 Mins of ETOPS would be quite enough for me.
What exactly has the number of engines got to do with this? The outcome would have been the same in a tri jet or a quad.
Are you suggesting that ETOPS is unsafe?
Are you suggesting that ETOPS is unsafe?
It is quite extraordinary how some people manage to invent so much extra content from a simple sentence that simply isn't there, ony in their heads!
With no ETOPS and 3-4 engines they'd have been even further away so number of engines is clearly relevant. Prefer 3 hrs of worry with a smoke emergency than 2 do you? Strange.
Equally if it were only say a theoretical 90 minutes ETOPS they'd have been closer.
If ETOPS didn't exist for twins they'd be out in the middle 3 hrs away too.
So how can you say number of engines is irrelevant when it (via ETOPS) determines how far from a diversion you are?
Meleagertoo
I hate to appear to be a sensitive soul but for the sake of clarity would it be possible to clarify who exactly you are responding to when you state:
“ Again, had you troubled to actually read my post you'd realise I made no mention nor implication re safety - you invented that!”.....
I hate to appear to be a sensitive soul but for the sake of clarity would it be possible to clarify who exactly you are responding to when you state:
“ Again, had you troubled to actually read my post you'd realise I made no mention nor implication re safety - you invented that!”.....
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“So how can you say number of engines is irrelevant when it (via ETOPS) determines how far from a diversion you are?”
How close should a twin be then?
What difference would it have made to a crew with three, four or even 8 engines? In this scenario, the engines are irrelevant.
How close should a twin be then?
What difference would it have made to a crew with three, four or even 8 engines? In this scenario, the engines are irrelevant.
