Admiral 346:

That applies to all 121 oceanic ops, at least as to decompression. No "wet footprints" allowed for ETOPS, nor L1011s or 747s, etc.

I wonder if it was a window heat wiring issue again ?



The 757 has had more than one instance of this :eek:

From the Maui news article: "The cabin filled with "foul-smelling, thick smoke," and alarms blared while the crew searched frantically for the fire..."

If this is an accurate report, then one needs to wonder why the plane did not descend. If accurate, then this was a scarier incident than it seemed from the scant info on the initial reports.

This from an internet forum:

We went to Maui on this flight to celebrate my husband's 65th birthday and to renew our vows of 25 years. This flight turned into a nightmare with smoke not just in the cockpit but in the whole plane, very piercing loud noise for over a hour. Luckily they decided to lower the altitude but most of us had severe problems with breathing etc. We were told that a flight would be waiting for us from Phoenix, we lost a whole day, evening, problems with getting to our hotel in early AM etc. US Airways told the media that a flight was waiting for us which did not leave until 11:15AM. The stewardess tried there best but this was one of the most scarient flights we have ever taken. We were told we would all be given a call but still have not received a call. Please advise what compensation will be given as there were many pictures taken of the smoke in the plane. I have been having severe chest pains since this flight. I can be reached at xxx-xxx-0718. We thank God that we are still alive from this flight. Please advise of calls to all passengers and compensation.
Barb Hughes

Compensation, chest pains, God

:D

"Compensation, chest pains, God
....."

Presuming this is a tongue in cheek comment.....they probably were heaping praise on the crew after landing safely at SFO.....and shortly after arriving at their hotel, the calls from 'lawyers' began.....! :ugh:
Surprised? ....NOT!!! :mad:

What an incredible story from that "internet forum"...

After landing at SFO, they should have hugged and kissed the crew...

And after getting "some compensation" by " I dont know who" they should forward it to the crew!

Sorry, SLF question....Would it be of any difference in this special incident, if you flew with a say 744 and descent and cut two engines off....more fuel left for getting to the next available airport?

Thank you!
Peter

Piercing noise? Was the stuff really smoke? Did they have a de-compression? Did a recirc fan, equipment cooling system or pack fail?
Trying to associate noise with smoke (and rambling).

Piercing sound = whining passengers about the unscheduled turn and long reroute to SFO, will I be compensated? My vacation! Who will pay for my taxi? Ohooo, whine and complain but forget how lucky they are to be walking around. Sh1t happens. :ugh:

Kapton wiring strikes again?

Never mind Kapton, it sounds like a galley issue.

There is a passenger side to any event like this.

The airlines make oceanic flying sound like a "done deal." But, it is not. Stuff like this happens. We have no idea how the crew (cabin and flight deck) interacted with the passengers during this event.

Maybe the airlines should be required to provide every oceanic passenger with a letter that they must read and sign, which explains the issues involved with oceanic flights in general and ETOPS in particular.

Why not? It's their butts that are on the line right along with the crews.

Kapton not used after 1990 in 757s. Some of you may be interested in a concept known as Electrical Wiring Interconnect Systems (EWIS) which covers the spectrum of design, maintenance planning, maintenance inspection, wiring, connectors etc. Required training under Part 145 and has a lot of its root in SFAR 88.

The "piercing noise" was an alarm.

I find the crew's decision to proceed to the nearest airport to be the exemplary call. They were about in the middle of the flight, and might have elected to fly to destination, but chose to go direct to the nearest airport. Good on them.

When smoke and/or fire show up, getting on the ground ASAP is the overriding factor. If you can get it on the ground in 2 hours, versus 2 hours and five minutes by continuing to destination, the right call is to choose the 2 hours option.

When you're on fire, or if you have smoke, find the best, most immediate concrete you can. If I've learned anything over the years, it is that. Seconds matter.

In that case, maybe it was a toilet smoke detector? Can't think of any other aural warning that would be audible in the cabin?
Anyway, I'm indulging in the speculation I usually decry.

Well to be honest I'm not so sure that it really mattered...

Either they had a real non containable fire and the only option was to ditch ASAP

...or they had some relatively minor problem in which case flying to destination or to the nearest airport did not make any material difference.

Quite frankly if your are faced with an actual fire emergency the difference between flying 180 or 240 minutes is irrelevant...

I don't think this was an etops issue as the engines kept running.

it also gives one pauze to think about all aviation safety items. fire aboard a plane is right up there with structural failure and mid air collision.

anyone figure out what caught on fire?????

I know I'm not a pro and may be talking out of turn but!

That would be fine if the problem was positively identified as minor. But I'm not sure an extra hour is irrelavent if you can't identify the issue. A fire emergency may not be an actual fire but just the smell of one.

Isn't it possible that you could have an issue that calms down after you unload all the non essential buses etc, but is still slowly degrading unoticed? Then isn't it possible that it could rapidly escalate, leaving you with the feeling that, maybe you wish you had taken the shorter option.

As always its up to the flight crew to determine whats safe in their particular case.

aterpster
 

Lawyers are generally a pain in the a*ss, but are not wrong when saying that flying with two out is safer on a quad than on a twin.

QED.