Royal Air Maroc B763 evacuation at Montreal
 

A Royal Air Maroc B763 was evacuated at Montreal yesterday due to a fire in a baggage conveyor vehicle under the aircraft.

Accident: Royal Air Maroc B763 at Montreal on Nov 4th 2013, cargo belt loader caught fire

It LOOKS quite spectacular, but were the pax in GREATER DANGER by staying aboard or "rapid disembarkation"?

Fire burning under stationary airliner.
 

Not to evacuate? Stupid question from non-pilot.

Let's see - in the aircraft with a fire underneath, or out of the aircraft and getting away from the fire?

I know where I'd rather be. IMHO, the decision to evacuate was correct. :ok:

Naturally the decision to evacuate was sensible.

Alas in my experience the call "hazard on xxx side" seems to have been written out of the manuals for some obscure reason (lawyers?).

So whilst it's reasonable to throw them down the slides, is it reasonable to allow or encourage some to arrive straight into the source of the problem, be it burning baggage conveyors or smoking/burning brakes?

All I'm hoping for is some considered thought in a rapidly changing situation and not the mentality of "Someone said FIRE, so I was justified in calling evacuation!"

In the last (pax) airlines that I worked for, the Commander called the Evacuation and the cabin crew executed it. Part of the cabin crew Evacuation drill was to check outside for a hazard prior to opening the door and blowing the slide - and to redirect pax where necessary. Seems sensible to me.

Wow, quite a statement. So it would seem ALL fires equals evacuate, according to unequivocal expert RoyHudd.

As a pilot (and, for Roy's sake, a captain on this very aircraft type) I WOULD question the need to evacuate, versus 'rapidly disembark'. The fire is offset to the side of the aircraft, not directly underneath and even if it was the aircraft is not going to suddenly explode as in some Hollywood movie. The conveyor belt is at the bulk cargo door and away from anything that's easily ignited. The passengers have a pretty decent cocoon of metal etc to protect them and they're not going to be baked alive, even if their forward progress was not as rapid as would be desired. The jetty was attached and the passengers were already disembarking, so it's quite a reasonable question to ask if a rapid disembarkation would have been a viable option i.e. there's no need to guess how long it's going to be before a jetty is attached to the aircraft etc.

Note, please, that I am NOT questioning this captain's decision to evacuate; he made that based on the information he had and it's absolutely A correct one as far as I'm concerned. I would pat him on the back, say 'well done' and buy him a glass of his favourite liquid refreshment. I am merely replying with a differing viewpoint because my gob was fairly smacked by Roy's quite unreasonable and disparaging reply to a quite reasonable question, which DOES have more options than fire = evacuate.

All questions have options for an answer. This is inherent in the word "question".

Some answers are blindingly obvious. This was such a case. You confirmed that.

But thanks ever so much Pompous Pontius. I always "enjoy" the company of insecure captains who feel the need to inform one of their status. I have a few such colleagues myself. They are to be pitied.

Back to the Nat Tracks tomorrow. Maybe you there, doubtless a bit lower than my steed :)). I'll look down to the left.

Good grief. Stop it ! Fire. Eveacuate. Pilots are behind the electronic locked door, bullet proof, blah blah blah. Even before that, we cannot see where the fire is. My company stated that the cabin crew were the real observers & were understood to use "all available exits".The cabin crew made that evaluation in co-ordination with the senior cabin crew member.

Good thing this wasn't a 787 - or we'd be hearing about how the plastic airplane caused the baggage loader to burst into flames :ugh: :ugh: :mad:

Why the fire started; that's worth looking into.

Everyone off the aircraft? Yes. All alive? Yes.
And the ambulance chasers have been leaving business cards ... :cool:

I feel sorry for the one to your right.

My reason for stating my qualification is because of your pompous statement: "Stupid question from non-pilot". Evidently, in your mind, nobody can express an opinion unless they fly the machines, hence my explanation at the beginning of my reply.

It would seem your flights in the upper levels (please feel free to fly as high above me as you wish, it affects me not one iota) have diminished your ability to understand the written word. Some questions may have blindingly obvious answers but I do not agree this is one of those and did NOT "confirm" it (in fact I went so far as to suggest a rapid disembarkation WAS a worthy option). If you feel there is only one answer to this question and you'll always evacuate at the word 'fire' then expect no criticism from me; you've got it straight in your mind what you're going to do and that's great. However, just because someone else, pilot or not, asks a perfectly reasonable question doesn't mean they have to be condemned as 'stupid' because it doesn't agree with your model.

Enjoy your NAT tracks; I'll raise a beer to you from the BBQ.

Rapidly disembark is not a concept that I have seen on a wide bodied passenger jet arrived at it's destination, particularly with mixed nationalities and the tendency to have multiple items of hand luggage. I would suggest that it is improbable that the passengers leave behind their belongings to speed up the process, as we have seen from many emergency evacuations people still take their luggage with them. I can guess that watching more and more smoke and possibly flames rising whilst there is little forward movement of the queue would cause great anxiety for passengers and rear cabin crew.

Sometimes you may like to also consider life at the back of the cabin, it's a different world than the front. I am just a humble techie who get's sent out on the cheapest seats so my view is very different from the pointy end.

What we don't know is at what stage this happened. Ingress or egress?

Likely that the evacuation was ordered and no crew would have been near all the doors. Pax opened doors, manually deployed (un armed )slides and got out. Job well done by all.

Last time I checked, Pax are not trained to evaluate the hazard before opening doors. Survival instincts kick in.

As SLF I've just got off a Ryanair 738. I was sat in the over wing emergency seat and was asked to study the laminated emergency procedure : it clearly showed that you should not open/ use the exit if you can see fire on that side.

The link in the first post indicates that this happened during the unloading process.

'Rapid disembarkation'

As in via whatever doorway is in use and along the jetway or down the stairs?

I'm a volunteer fireman in my off hours. I'm also a Brit; I remember Hillsborough and I'm almost old enough to remember Ibrox. I know about fire, I know how people behave, and I know about panic.

I don't know for sure what studies have been carried out, but IF the pax panic I would imagine the potential for an absolutely lethal crush to develop at that single door would be very high indeed. I could easily see that… just one pax tripping could lead to a pileup, multiple fatalities through crushing, and a door blocked with bodies of the dead and dying - just from crush injuries, even if the fire itself is a bit of a non-event.

With due allowance for panic in a situation where there is a real known fire, even if it doesn't initially involve the cabin directly, I suspect a full evac via slides may always be the safer option.

I'd sooner find myself having to explain a couple of twisted ankles than a bunch of dead pax…

Video here.

The video clearly demonstrates why a full evacuation is problematic once already on stand. Only two slides appears to be in use and not too many of the 250 odd pax seem to have come down them. What would be the reasons? well here are a few.

The doors are already disarmed and the CC have probably already moved away from some of them.
The pax are already standing in the aisles and getting their hand baggage down. Those that were sitting adjacent to emergency exits probably aren't there anymore.
The CC might have trouble seeing past and getting past standing passengers to perform their drill properly.
Many exits would already be blocked by ground equipment and or other hazards.

This is a very complex scenario and one that would be very difficult to fully comprehend in the time available. A full evacuation is probably only the best option if the event occurs very soon after pulling on to stand and before the a/c is surrounded by ground equipment. The rapid disembarkation drill was developed for exactly this type of eventuality.

Having said that the arguments put forward by Ranger One are very valid.

Any situation like this needs evaluating rapidly but carefully. The blanket idea of evacuate regardless of the circumstances is foolish and a derogation of responsibility. We are paid to use our brains and our judgement not just do the easy thing.