Pilots didn't know about evacuation
 

Plane evacuated by cabin crew at Glasgow without pilots knowing.
BBC News - Pilot unaware of plane evacuation at Glasgow Airport

After detecting "a pungent burning smell" througout the cabin, cabin crew instigated an evacuation without pilot permission or knowledge.

I have never worked at a company that has required the cabin crew to seek my permission to evacuate. Nor have they been required to let us know they were going either. One shouldn't assume but one will that there is a fair chance that we would realise. Loud PA, doors opening, stamping of feet, screaming(!).

It must have been the quietest, most orderly, evacuation ever for the flight deck not to have noticed.

3 cheers for that. You don`t think the captain should have had an input ?
Oh well, as long as it`s done in an orderly fashion, just leave him running his checks like an old bowser at a bus stop.

lf l may ....

At what point in your training did you become divorced from the boss ?

Agree that cabin crew do not need to get permission for an evacuation. I'm sure that whoever initiated the evacuation had a very good reason for doing so. There will be an AAIB report into the incident which will be made available when it is completed.

addition: The report is out and a link to the pdf is available at Air Accidents Investigation: Boeing 757-204, G-BYAT (having trouble opening pdf but that's probably my computer and not the AAIB's fault).

I have and it's a very good idea to keep the FD crew informed.
Then again, some CC have a mind of their own...such as it is:rolleyes:

lt smacks of stuff from the AAIB, oh by the way, log a new fire extinguisher needed in the rear galley, the No1 said to the captain on leaving.
"What?" a cabin fire had been discovered and dealt with in flight with no input to the skipper. None.

Of course any crew member can initiate an evacuation to save lives.

Sounds like the normal power struggle to me. Do c/a have licences yet ?

Super VC-10, no it isn`t working but full marks for being on boil.

I agree that it is a good idea to keep everyone in the loop, even those behind the locked door. However, it has never been a requirement where I've worked.

Overun, to answer your question, yes it is nice for the Captain to have some input but there will always be situations where there isn't time to communicate with him/her, flash fire in the cabin comes to mind. Our cabin crew are empowered by the company to make an executive, unilateral decision to evacuate should they think it's necessary. They have to be bloody sure it is though.

I always ask in the pre flight brief if they'd let us know before they pop off. The answer is invariably 'if they have time'. It's one of the reasons that I always have the PA volume on in the background, that way I can hear what's going on in the back.

The wording of the AAIB report suggests that the flight crew were informed (my emphasis) -

The SCCM then returned to the forward cabin and contacted all the crew using the Alert Call on the cabin interphone.

Fine.

Was there a flash fire ? l do know that in the event of an unplanned landing ( and l`ve had a few - just call me Lucky ) my first priority - after safeguarding the aircraft - is to notify the No1.

At this point we will start agreeing l know. l don`t know the facts and l should have held fire, but if something is grey, four legs, ten feet tall, with a very long nose l will bet it`s an elephant....... a quid to a pinch of sh*t.

LSM
 

Your first sentence of your last post sets the scene mate.

Overrun - I managed to access the full Feb bulletin and read the report that way.

Air Accidents Investigation: February 2011

Very well done Super VC-10. Sounds patronising, please forgive that.

They were lucky, someone may have had a broken back.

A couple of questions spring to mind on this one:
1. Who was directly responsible for the injuries suffered by the passengers? I'll answer that one, the SCCM.
2. With smoke in an aircraft, why was the airbridge attached with door open? I thought we had learnt the lessons from this one.
3. With a conscious, functioning flight crew, who is (still) in charge?
4. Is the attitude "She added that given similar circumstances, with no rear steps in place and with the very distinct smell of burning in the rear of the aircraft, she would again consider initiating an evacuation." the correct one!

I think she should look for another job, say in Poundland or Aldi. This smacks of "I'll do whatever I want, I'm in charge!" and these sorts of people are a serious threat to the lives of passengers.

PM

PM.. I know little of crew regs, but it strikes me that if there is a suspicion of fire or toxic fumes then full marks to whoever gets the pax out....

Speaking as one-time SLF I think the lady deserves a medal and the churlish remarks about Poundland and Aldi are totally out of order.

PM,

1. The captain. Although the SCCM may be part of the cause of the injuries. All orders given by any member of the crew are given using the captains authority.
2. There was no smoke. There was a strong smell of burning which became apparent after arrival on stand and after disembarkation had begun.
3. The captain.
4. Yes, having received an unsatisfactory response from the flight deck what would you like her to do? Wait? For how long? Saudia 163 ring any bells with you?

I think four people were injured getting out. How many people would have been injured or worse had she not ordered an evacuation?

I have never worked for a company where the crew couldn't initiate evacuation, but ONLY if the situation was CLEARLY CATASTROPHIC or after a severe incident where the CC was unable to get in contact with the FD.

For anything else, it is the Captains decision, and there might very well be factors internal or external that the CC don't know about, but that would endanger evacuation (eg running engines, fire, other aircrafts ect)

But of course, we don't want to be too harsh to our crew for taking initiative :\ :{

If the Captain hadn't been informed / consulted and the situation was not clearly catastrophic, then the SCCM is to blame for all injuries. The Captain has been bypassed and had no saying, and he might have chosen a very different and better informed decision had he been consulted about the situation.

Poor decision to disregard the Captain and give a **** about CRM, when there were time to make a proper decision by the right people. The Captain might only have needed 5-10 seconds to make his mind up, and injuries might have been avoided completely.

Aldi seems like a more safe place to work for some people!!

Tricky one!
In my experience, CC were authorised to initiate an evacuation without a command from the captain or FO in a CATASTROPHIC situation.
In their particular circumstances, whether or not a smell of smoke/burning with no obvious evidence of fire constitutes a catastrophic situation - well??
(p.s. Crossed with CP)

Edited to say that I would not wish to discourage CC from using their initiative in a life-threatening situation.

Each company will have their own instructions for the crew of which this is one example. It is not from the company concerned and shouldn't be used as such:

Normally, the Captain will give the command, "EVACUATE", repeated 2-3 times.
If no Flight Crew member has provided the necessary direction, the purser/CCM should attempt to contact the flight deck by interphone to obtain instructions.
An evacuation must not be initiated while the aircraft is moving. However, any Crew Member may initiate evacuation in cases of extreme/catastrophic emergency.

The obvious question here is: what do you define as extreme/catastrophic?

IMO this was not extreme/ catastrophic.

Not only that, it appears that the Flight Deck were more than aware of the situation and were busy dealing with it?

Having said that - it's very difficult to predict actions under stressful conditions. We always need some luck!

But surely the flight deck crew should have been informed, to safeguard their safety too?

From the AAIB report it is clear that, while CC have the authority to order an evacuation, the company policy is that they should only do so in an extreme/catastrophic situation. My airline has similar wording in the manuals.

The situation on that aircraft was clearly not extreme/catastrophic. The flight crew were concious, aware and able to communicate. The cabin crew member acted outside their remit.

In SEP refresher training it is always interesting to ask CC to describe examples of what they consider a catastrophic situation. The answers are often illuminating.

None at all, they had a knackered recirc fan. The company's evacuation guidance (which is reproduced in the report) was unfortunately not followed, people got needlessly injured as a result.

They most certainly are.

Oh please no! I find myself agreeing with 411a. Except of course for his last sentence starting then again...

The reason that the flight deck should be informed/responsible for the decision to evacuate is beautifully put by McBruce. The burning smell may be the passengers going through the engines!

I have worked for one airline in which the cabin crew could make an independent decision, witout informing the flight deck to initiate an evacuation. The chance of an uncoordinated accident as a result, always frightened me.

In my present company, normally the Flight deck make the decision, the Capt. initiates it but there is provision for the cabin crew to ascertain that the flight deck are capable of making the decision; i.e haven't become incapacitated. Then they would take over. Key word there is of course normal - specious really, as normal and evacuation make for strange bedfellows, to say the least. Still not perfect perhaps but better methinks.

Interesting report though, we all live and learn and hopefully make things better as a result.

BSD.

I was wondering that too. I can appreciate any crew member being able to order an evacuation, but surely everyone on board, including the flight crew, would be included?

Did the cabin crew know that?

I'm not condoning any actions merely trying to see it from the hosties point of view.

Just because you can't see flames doesn't mean there aren't any.

If the Senior had stuck her head through the door and just said quite simply, "Captain, I'm going to start an evacuation." That would have been enough to get the Flight Decks attention. From the AAIB report she hardly tried to tell them, it sounds like she made her own decision and that was that. Told the rest of the Cabin Crew and off they went.

A quick sentence and that would have given enough time for the flight crew to say either "NO! STOP! We have it under control!" or "Ok, if you think it's that serious, take your station and we'll commence it, under my authority."

Once again, lack of communication, from both sides of the door have led to an event which COULD have led to more serious injuries. SEP refresher training for all I think.

IMHO as humble SLF, the CC played it safe, which is the correct thing to do. I thought the whole ethos of flying was safety first, not protocol.

Talking in hindsight about any crew communication issues..... communication goes both ways... maybe the FD crew could have told the CC that the problem had been identified and was being resolved ?

If you can't see flames but only limited amount of smoke (hence not so dense you can't see through it), then it's hardly clearly catastrophic and there is time to think. - You don't come across as a pilot, but i can inform you that the pilots won't use half hours assessing a situation with smoke, just seconds. But thats also enough to - as in this case - establish if it is something that is under control and well known or something more serious and then take the appropiate actions.

THAT is the reason the Captain should have been informed, and passenger injuries would most likely have been non-existent.

In reality i don't think it is the CC that fails here, but the company for not training them well enough to do the job they do.

It is not "playing it safe" when people get injured for no reason at all, and the protocol is there for exactly that reason: "Play it safe"

How could the FD communicate that the problem was under control when they were never involved in the process from the CC? we don't tell them about every little technical fault for a various of reasons, but they probably would have been told if they took the interphone and informed that "we have some smoke development in the rear", what do you want us to do? - and take it from there.

Presumably they are expected to use their judgement in a potentially catastrophic situation. Fires can develop rapidly, such as the recent one in Russia.

In whose opinion? Her's or the Captain's? It's NOT her call. The flight crew were not incapacitated and were working on the problem. Passengers were disembarking so we are not talking about a Flight 163 scenario. The doors were open, there was no smoke.

To me, it appears that even with the flight deck door open and being fully aware that the crew were working on the problem, the SCCM still decided to order an evacuation. At that point, she was then NOT part of the crew and effectively a loose cannon and certainly not working under the Captain's authority. Her actions actually undermined it. Maybe it was panic or even poor training. The AAIB report states "However, the flight crew were not incapacitated and it is evident that verbal communication with them would have been possible had the member of cabin crew persisted." No medals should be awarded for unnecessary and dangerous decisions taken in isolation. But it was the SCCM's statement after the event saying she'd do the same again that suggests she is doing the wrong job. So I'll stick with my "churlish" remarks.

And I'll pose another question to those who think the SCCM did the right thing. Would it have been acceptable for any of the other cabin crew or even a passenger to have initiated the evacuation? If not, why not? So why didn't they?

For what it is worth, recycling fans small horrible when they fail. I have had several fail in flight and the acrid, pungent, electrical burning smell takes ages to dissipate. Similar to smoke, the odour appears to get into fabric and soft furnishings and stay for ages. The smell lingers long after the source expires. Returning to this incident, I can understand the cabin crews' distress because to them it would appear that either no action has been taken or what has been done was ineffective. Unfortunately, this is one of those occasions where over-reaction has caused unnecessary injuries.

From the report: Air Accidents Investigation: Boeing 757-204, G-BYAT

(Emphasis mine.)

Not a very clear command - perhaps she intended the passengers to simply hasten disembarking via the (already open and in use) forward door and aerobridge?

Always understood the authority for cabin crew to commence an evacuation on their own initiative was envisaged for a situation where urgent action was clearly necessary - e.g crash landing. This does not appear to have been the case in these circumstances.

Her's. Obviously. Which is why she reacted as she did. She made it her call. Again, I am not condoning her actions just trying to see it from her point of view.

And if she had taken NO action and people had been injured or killed because the situation was worse than it appeared how would you be reacting now? She'd would still be getting a slating from you no doubt.

I mentioned that scenario to highlight how quickly situations can get out of hand.

I'm not trying to. I am trying to see this from the perspective of the cabin crew. Try it sometime and you might realise why people react the way they do.

How can you say that with any kind of certainty? How would the cabin crew know? They wouldn't.

What materials burn without smoke? Have you heard of flashover?

It's easy to sit in the comfort of your armchair with full knowledge of what has happened. But try and put yourself in that situation, honestly, and tell me how you would react.

How quickly could it have gone out of control?

MM,
Many years ago my *airline changed from separate FC & CC SEP training to combined exercises.
Great idea! We both discovered that we held some misconceptions of each other's thought processes and both benefited from the combo - as, of course, did flight safety.

* Can't remember if same one as yours.

Its easy to speak (post) after you read the article. But if you are at the back of the plane with that strong burning smell, hving no info/PA from the FD I bet many of you would have a different opinion.

IMO CC did the right thing. They had no ideea whats going on, they played it safe. Purser tried to get more info, couldnt, so she got everyone out. Better be safe than sorry.

situation wasnt catastrophic? well, there's a fine line here. what should they hv done? wait for the flames? many of you say now that it wasnt catastrophic but you werent there at that time to make the judgment without knowing whats wrong.
same old story. we are all brave and bright in front of the computer.

I had exactly the same failure on a B757 at MAN about 10 years ago. We were boarding at the time, strong electrical burning smell in the flight deck and cabin. We stopped the boarding and disembarked those already on board. No fuss, no drama. Certainly no need for slides.

"If you can't see flames but only limited amount of smoke (hence not so dense you can't see through it), then it's hardly clearly catastrophic and there is time to think"

Ever been in a fire?

I was in an office (in London) once and a few whisps of smoke came through the floor - within 10 seconds the place was so full of smoke you couldn't see your hand in front of your face

if you see smoke GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE

I suspect in this case the pilots where wrapped up trying to figure out what might be wrong and just didn't pay the CC any attention when she poked her head around the door

Sure, she should have said something to get their attention but she was down back and they were up front - better to have 4 minor injuries than a blazing plane full of people

The fumes from this non-catastrophic failure are like all combustion byproducts -- toxic. Keeping people in a confined space with toxic fumes is not conducive to their health. People with asthma, allergies and other respiratory pathologies are at particular risk.

Many fires do self-extinguish, but without clairvoyance there is nothing to distinguish the first waft of smoke/fumes between a small release of toxic fumes or the beginnings of a conflagration that will in the next several seconds consume the entire aircraft.

If the CC waits for visible flames or heavy smoke, lives will be lost.

....and what would they do if your aircraft is moving along taxiway or runway ? Sometimes it can take quite looong....

If I were you I would "rather never been flyıng", nor even using a car or a bus either.

Green Guard,

They are trained to check outside. Hopefully that's what they'll do!