Delta evacuation in Tampa

[newswatcher]

Report from ABC news

This report contains a photo which shows the "open" emergency exits above wing, complete with chutes deployed!

http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories...3jetfire.shtml

[PaperTiger]

The US media is (not unexpectedly) giving different accounts of what went on. Descriptions of '20-second torching', 'giant fireball' etc. should be viewed in the context of frightened eyewitnesses and/or news editor hyperbole.

One report even suggested the evacuation was initiated by a 'screaming stewardess' so unless a rational pax who was aboard can post here (unlikely), we'll never know.

FAA isn't much help - this from their Preliminary Accident Reports:

DESCRIPTION
DELTA AIRLINES DAL1036, B757, DURING PUSHBACK, A FIRE WAS REPORTED IN THE
RIGHT ENGINE, 155 PASSENGERS EVACUATED VIA CHUTES, 8 PASSENGERS REPORTED
UNKNOWN INJURIES, OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, TAMPA, FL

[Basil]

C'mon, boys, lets stop scoring points. We all make mistakes and have assumptions which turn out to be incorrect - Yes! even ol' Basil; I know it's a shock to y'all but he too has been less than totally correct on occasion
Ref hot starts: they sure do vary. I saw a beaut in the 80s at Jeddah; a Saudia with flames going vertically about 15ft from the jetpipe - just imagine a Primus stove (if you can remember them) 2ft wide which hasn't quite reached vapourising temperature. It was extremely impressive and judging by the slightly high-pitched call of "Pulling back onto stand." to ATC I guess the EGT indication must have been equally awe inspiring.

Although I referred to that event as a hot start it could have been more accurately classified as a tailpipe fire (still not a reason to evacuate).

[unruly]

uhm, excuse me a bit guys, but isn't the problem here more of uncommanded pax evacuation?

I was just wondering, would we be seeing more of these situations where passengers are taking it upon themselves to correct an abnormality or situation inside the aircraft? Especially with the post 9/11 way of thinking, overzealous passengers may be creating more dangers to themselves than would have been presented.

[HotDog]

Good job it wasn't a Bristol Britannia! A six foot flame out of the exhaust was a fairly common sight on engine start.

[DasaniMan]

overwing

Just flew on a Delta 757 last week in emergency exit over the wing. After opening the exit, a handle would be exposed to pull to deploy the chute from the wing

[prim1]

As far as I know a hot start is when the temperature inside the chamber exceeds a certain threshold because adequate fluid flow has failed to develop.

Flames emitting from aft engine would tend to suggest a tailpipe fire which could arise from excess fuel condensation overnight as mentioned above.

[av8boy]

Ahh... unwarranted passenger-initiated evacuation. A subject near and dear to my heart. For instance...

On January 1, 1994, about 0659 eastern standard time, N648UA, a Boeing 767-322, operated by United Airlines Inc. as flight 984, scheduled, domestic, passenger service from Miami, Florida, to Chicago, Illinois, experienced a passenger initiated emergency evacuation on the ramp at the Miami International Airport. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an IFR flight plan was filed. The airplane was not damaged and the airline transport-rated captain and first officer, 5 flight attendants, and 162 passengers were not injured. The flight was originating at the time of the incident.

NTSB Identification: MIA94IA043 .
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of UNITED AIRLINES INC.
Incident occurred Saturday, January 01, 1994 in MIAMI, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 2/14/95
Aircraft: BOEING 767-322, registration: N648UA
Injuries: 169 Uninjured.

Historically, the majority of these events are prompted by 727 APU torching. The fact that the 727 APU is in the wing root and visible to pax prompted the NTSB to issue a recommendation to the FAA that 727 operators be made to warn pax about the possibility (and innocuous nature) of APU torching, and do so prior to APU start. The FAA agreed and suggested to carriers that this PA be made part of the APU starting procedure. In the US the subject of APU torching is a required part of the 727 flight attendant curriculum (wonder how much of that remains these days?). The FA’s know about it and are prepared to deal with pax when it happens, but are pretty much powerless against the mob once somebody screams “fire.” Of course, in that, as a general rule, commercial aircraft tend to have engines in addition to APU's, a similar recommendation covering all potential episodes of turbines becoming momentary attention-getters might be problematic… I mean, what the heck to do say? How about, “Folks,” (and you see right off the bat I’m doing my Delta impression…) “we’re gonna start the engines now, and sometimes when we do that, a little bit of the fire that usually stays inside the engine might sneak out the back. If that happens, don’t worry about it. It’s perfectly normal and it won’t hurt you as long as you stay in your seats. However, if it burns for a long time, comes out anywhere but the back, or if it starts to consume the wing, we’d ask that you go ahead and push that flight attendant call button in the overhead…” I just don’t know that this is the right way to go. Even the FAA has pointed out the possibility that when you provide passengers with too much information you run an even bigger chance of unwarranted, passenger-initiated evacuations—something I believe NoD echoed in his posting.

However, and in my humble opinion, this is just one of a number of pax-related, human behavior issues that have no easy answer. For instance, I was recently talking with an L1011 FA about a planned evac she went through in the last year or so. On departure a couple of tires (or “tyres” to many of you) exploded and chunks went through the wing of the aircraft. No fire, but crew decided to plan for an emergency evac and return to the airport. FA’s briefed pax for arrival and evac. You know the drill: “don’t take anything with you…” Well, as soon as the aircraft was down, and before it even came to a stop, pax were up and emptying the overhead baggage compartments. She said that five seconds after the aircraft came to a halt the aisles were impassable for bags, etc., that had been dragged out. Turned out they didn’t have to do the emergency evac, but if they HAD needed to do it, there would have been no clear path to the exits.

Sorry about the rant, but this kind of stuff really peeves me… There’s more (much more), but I’ve gone on far too long as it is…

Dave

[Cyclic Hotline]

Really, Prim 1?

I did not know that.

It has become apparent that I will need to be completely retrained to ensure that I understand how all this works, as I was totally unaware of this!

Maybe someone can point me toward the reference material that everyone else seem's to be reading and referring to, that I am obviously missing?

Must have just been lucky troubleshooting these things in the past!

[30/30 Green Light]

Cyclic Hotline,I too have been labouring under a number of misapprehensions for all these years.Obviously the theory and operation of gas turbines is different in the northern hemisphere.Better go back and re-sit my Basics.Well,maybe not !

[Few Cloudy]

Uncommanded pax Evac.

When Pax or even Cabin Crew do things like that, they get into seriously uncharted territory. It happened at least twice at Swissair in the past:

On push back from DCG some fumes from a truck entered the cabin and set off the toilet smoke alarm. The girl at the back thought it was the evac signal and started an evacuation. The ship was moving... The other cabin crew members cought the action and selected the real evac signal on (it sounded similar on the SR MD-80, so I used to demo the two before pax boarding to the crew). The first the two pilots (guest crew from SAS at that time) realised of this was the door open lights and the evac signal repeater in the cockpit.

You can't stop a rush like that very well and the result was a shambles - fortunately with no major injuries.

Next case was an Airbus 310 which had had a smoke alarm in the belly while at the stand. While the Capt, who was on his walk round investigated, a precautionary announcement was made by the FO to halt further boarding and for pax to keep their seats. One strong minded individual opened the overwing door and got out onto the wing, followed by about ten other sheep. There they stood, far above the ground and needed a lot of persuasion to get back in...


Now if that happened in one airline, it probably has happened elsewhere too.

Moral? Lots of them but primarily:

Brief between Cockpit and Cabin Crew should periodically include evac procedures - communications - need to check with cockpit before starting an evac - need to make sure aircraft is stopped - what the cabin crew should know about cockpit actions in evac (that the engines run until actions have been performed, etc.)

Briefing of pax - here there are huge differences in standard between airlines. Actually easyJet are the ones who make damn sure that the pax are listening and give a special brief to the OW pax. Some other airlines run an automatic briefing and serve coffee/Newspapers and even chat to the Pax at the same time...

Last point - some airlines did reserve an overwing seat for crew for TO and LDG (I still have a seat sign in my car) but economics won the day and now the pax sits there - able bodied but not trained.

[PaperTiger]

now the pax sits there - able bodied

If only I have lost count of the number of times (as SLF) I have seen these rows occupied by obese people, children, non-English speakers etc.

[Cyclic Hotline]

30/30,

I have worked primarily in the Northern hemisphere, with only the occasional incursion South.

It is quite apparent that we are obviously lacking some kind of basic instruction in either hemisphere.

If you find the answers, maybe you could e-mail me the answer, as I am really embarrased about my lack of basic knowledge. In fact, I fear for my job should any of this become public knowledge, as I obviously am totally oblivious to the real cause of these problems.

Worse still, I've been teaching hundreds of people the wrong technique to fix these problems, and they will probably lynch me if they ever read PPRuNe!

[Few Cloudy]

What's it all about?

So on a ratio of about 2:1, we have people trying to address the problem and others demonstrating their grasp of sarcasm. Kinda holds up the flow...

[lomapaseo]

There has been more than a few self evacuations in the event of tailpipe fires.

UAL had one in NRT on a B744 where the passengers interfered with the cockpit crews procedures to control the fire when the passengers slid down rthe chutes in front of the engines.

No need for me to get in the definition argument of hot starts, hung starts or tailpipe fires. The FCOM covers these quite adequately for the cockpit crew.

The problem comes in when the cockpit crews normal reaction is to discontinue fuel while leaving the engine on the starter. The reason for leaving it on the starter is to continue airflow sufficient to blow the flame horrizontal out the tailpipe.

The greater problem is when the airflow through the engine ceases and the flame goes vertical up into the wing. Lots of damage has occured under the latter.

The problem is compounded when the crew fears for keeping the engines motoring on the starter with passengers milling about the inlets.

Thus all evacuations need to be coordinated between front and back pronto!

[galley-wench22]

Brief between Cockpit and Cabin Crew should periodically include evac procedures - communications - need to check with cockpit before starting an evac - need to make sure aircraft is stopped - what the cabin crew should know about cockpit actions in evac (that the engines run until actions have been performed, etc.)

Now I am sorry............... As cabin crew, if I needed to start an evac myself I would not mess around asking the flight deck if it is ok to evac or not!! If events in the cabin are clearly disasterous, such as thick smoke and or flames entering the cabin we will start an evacuation regardless of what the flight deck instructions are. After all, the pilots can not see what is happening in the cabin. The airline I work for trust the cabin crew with this responsibility, we have always been taught to start an evac if events in the cabin are clearly disasterous!

Obvouisly if smoke and flames are not present in the cabin, then it maybe safer to stay in the cabin. The last thing you would want is to be hit by a fire truck on the ramp after evacuating the aircraft.

[YYC F/A]

I've flown as both cabin crew and purser for both UK and Canadian airlines, and procedures and training vary slightly.

In Canada, Transport Canada mandates that cabin crew members are trained on recognising and effectively handling 'Positive Panic' - the term when passengers panic or distress leads them to try and take control, over-ride crew member instructions etc.

It has to be said though that stopping pax at an unmanned overwing exit from opening and starting an evacuation is very difficult for cabin crew members. On the 757-200 that I flew on, their wasn't even a direct view of the cabin from either doors 2 or doors 4, so the first you would know of the evacuation is when you hear a commotion, panic, or notice people getting up from their seats - by then a bit too late once the evac has started. Second - given the confusion of suddenly noticing an evacuation in progress, If I were in that situation, it would probably be hard at that point to tell if a pax had initiated it, or if it was another crew member, and as per the relevant CARS, I would follow on and start evacuating from my relevant door.

Unsupervised exits are a thorny issue. While I always try to give a full and relevant briefing to overwing exit pax prior to departure, it is difficult when some passengers (often frequent business travellers) do not want to hear what you are saying, or just brush me off.

As a final note, as a cabin crew member, the first I knew about the phenomon of a 'torching' was actually when training for a Canadian carrier, and the subject was covered in detail. I was not taught about 'torching' during initial training for a British carrier.

[lomapaseo]

YYC/FA

Great and informative post.

Just in case others would like to see what torching looks like.

[Final 3 Greens]

Few Cloudy

Actually easyJet are the ones who make damn sure that the pax are listening and give a special brief to the OW pax

Having flown easy on 8 sectors recently, I regret to have to inform you that there was a special brief on 4 (2 of these by the same FA, who was young and taking her responsibilities very seriously.)

On the other 4, there was no brief. I know because I was in an overwing exit row on each flight.

This is not an anti easy dig, but a statement of the facts as experienced.

[newswatcher]

I have just re-read sections of the report on the British Airtours(BA, not Airtours/Mytravel) 737 incident at MAN in 1985. This certainly underlines the need for a quick response to a fire incident.

The command to evacuate was given 25 seconds after the "thud" of the uncontained failure was heard, and it took a further 20 seconds before the aircraft came to a complete stop. A further 25 seconds elapsed before the first emergency exit was opened.

The report indicates that it was only too clear to the pax that this was a major incident, and some of them left their seats before the evacuation command was broadcast.

It is not clear why, after the evacuation command had been broadcast, the purser opened the flight deck door to ask the captain to confirm that the evacuation order had been given("Say again?"). Is this still a requirement?

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/gb...l.htm#Findings