PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   EY461 Toilet Fires (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/534459-ey461-toilet-fires.html)

Gulfstreamaviator 20th Feb 2014 08:08

EY461 Toilet Fires
 
This is in todays National newspaper, so is in public domain.

But can not be metioned here.

So I will attempt to remove all references to the the route / operator/ type of aircraft. Passengers names have been sanitised to protect the environment.

The ------------- Airways flight from Melbourne to ---------- was diverted to Jakarta as the smoke billowed from the plane’s lavatories.
The plane took off again but more smoke was detected, and 12 passengers were held for questioning by security authorities when the flight landed in --------.
Jared Marshall, 34, a cameraman and photographer from Melbourne, said an alarm sounded and red lights flashed outside a lavatory in the middle of the plane, five rows ahead of his seat, about five hours after the flight took off, when most passengers were asleep.
An attendant opened the door and “smoke poured into the cabin”, he said. “They spent some time with fire extinguishers and water to put out the fire. We all assumed it was electrical.”
The pilot announced that it was illegal to smoke on the plane. Soon afterwards, another incident occurred in the rear lavatory, Mr Marshall said.
Some passengers in the back said they saw flames and smoke, though he did not see flames himself.
“You could see the concern on the attendants’ faces as they rushed to extinguish the fires,” Mr Marshall said.
“The mood among the passengers was more one of disbelief than fear.”
Heather Bullard, 60, a British insurance adviser who was seated near a lavatory, said: “I was asked if I had noticed anyone using the toilet but as I was sleeping I couldn’t help.”
When the plane landed in Indonesia there was a security search of the aircraft, passengers and carry-on luggage.
Once the flight resumed, attendants checked the lavatories after each passenger left, Mr Marshall said, but another alarm sounded and more smoke poured into the cabin.
“You could really sense the alarm and stress of the attendants and passengers at this stage. Everyone was a potential suspect,” he said.
The crew then announced that passengers could not use the lavatories, and stood guard at the doors. Catering services were stopped, though attendants occasionally delivered water, Mr Marshall said.
“The work of the flight attendants was very professional and they remained calm in a very dangerous situation and possibly saved the lives of everyone, and I am amazed that some people have been critical of them for stopping catering services,” he said.
Australian passenger Luke Oliver, 37, praised the cabin crew for their response. They were “very quick to respond each time and remained calm”, he said.
“There was a sense that everyone on board wanted whoever had done this to be caught.”
“By the end of the flight the crew were guarding the toilets. We were just waiting to land and end the ordeal.”
Ms Bullard said attendants tried to compensate for the lack of meal services.
“Security and safety of the passengers was their number one priority, and to put this in place some services had to be sacrificed, ie hot food,” she said.
“They regularly brought round water and muffins.”
Another passenger, Sarah Heather, 31, a British call centre worker, said: “When we got to -------- it was quite chaotic.
“We all got taken off to be searched but no one was telling us where to go or what was happening until we got to the Airline desk.”
Ms Heather questioned whether the flight should have been cancelled before leaving Jakarta.
“Quite scary that this person got back on the flight and did it a third time,” she said.
Ms Bullard, who was flying home after visiting two sons in Australia, described the mood of passengers as the incidents unfolded.
“Some passengers were texting loved ones as they were fearing the worst,” she said.
“So you can get an idea of the rising tension on the plane.”
The flight arrived in ------ four hours behind schedule, after a seven-hour journey from Indonesia, at 10.25am on Tuesday.
It is not yet known what caused the smoke, but authorities are still investigating.
[email protected]


Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/uae/transp...#ixzz2tqpu1zLe

cjhants 20th Feb 2014 08:16

Discussion on the ANZ forum

Sober Lark 20th Feb 2014 08:22

An inflight display of smoke and mirrors?

J-Class 20th Feb 2014 08:53

Now widely reported including CNN and the Guardian. No point posting the link, as it includes the name of the airline which cannot be mentioned here.

J-Class 20th Feb 2014 09:06

Oh dear. The name of the airline has been mentioned....

momo95 20th Feb 2014 09:41

:= enjoy this while it lasts :E

Mail-man 20th Feb 2014 09:48

Its been in the oz thread for days, what are y'all on about?

momo95 20th Feb 2014 09:52

The airline in question isn't to be mentioned, expect all threads about said airline to disappear. As with the one on here yesterday ...

Hotel Tango 20th Feb 2014 09:53

In actual fact the name of the airline is irrelevant. Could happen to any airline.

fox niner 20th Feb 2014 09:58

This is almost like the play by Shakespeare, that was not supposed to be mentioned.

MacBeth.......

BOAC 20th Feb 2014 10:34


Originally Posted by Hotel Tango
In actual fact the name of the airline is irrelevant. Could happen to any airline.

- Oi! spot the difference? You can post about any other airline.

Sober Lark 20th Feb 2014 11:25

If you hide something from people they become more curious so I don't think the control or supression of information works.

Trim Stab 20th Feb 2014 12:10


If you hide something from people they become more curious so I don't think the control or supression of information works.
Also gives them a bad image. If they are afraid of being discussed on a public forum, then they must have a lot to hide. I have them on my mental list of carriers to think twice about using now that they have banned discussion of their name on here.

Dream Buster 20th Feb 2014 12:15

Streisand Effect
 
Trim Stab - FYI - that would be the "Streisand effect":

"The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet."


Streisand effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kcockayne 20th Feb 2014 12:28

What was the ETD ?

MrDuck 20th Feb 2014 13:51

lavatory fireS a big deal?
 
fromDaveReidUK:
Though, frankly, I wouldn't expect a "Smoke in Toilet" thread to last long in Rumours & News"

I think it is more the multiple fires, clearly set, over a period of time.
Would this not alarm you?

BOAC 20th Feb 2014 14:28

Obviously DR is unmoved by multiple fires and a diversion on a long ETOPS flight - cool, man!

oceancrosser 20th Feb 2014 14:50

Probably as along as required at any given time :) likely an augmented or double crew though.

Appears to me that the initial thread in fact vanished.

Bobman84 20th Feb 2014 15:02

Most interesting that the other thread disappeared.

It's news and was on all the news sources in Australia.

What exactly are the mods afraid of here? It's a forum! :ugh:

lomapaseo 20th Feb 2014 15:29

would the name of the airline have any relationship to the code in front of the flight number ?

Sober Lark 20th Feb 2014 15:49

Sounds like the activities of a person who suffers from pyromania.

pilotmike 20th Feb 2014 16:06


What was the ETD ?
Did you mean to refer to the EsTImAteD time of departure?:mad:

NG_Kaptain 20th Feb 2014 16:52

That flight carries a double crew. Can go up to 22 hours.

Hotel Tango 20th Feb 2014 17:50


- Oi! spot the difference? You can post about any other airline.
retorts BOAC.

:confused::confused::confused:

So what? Doesn't change the fact that the name of the airline involved is, in this case, completely IRRELEVANT to the main thrust of the story. What IS relevant is that a person, or persons, lit fires on a commercial passenger flight.

Moony123 20th Feb 2014 18:07


Originally Posted by oceancrosser (Post 8329710)
likely an augmented or double crew though.

Double crew.

Edit - Thoroughly beaten by NG_Kaptain

BOAC 20th Feb 2014 18:09


So what?
- I think you have missed the way this thread is angled, HT. Of course it is 'relevant' and therefore the concern here is that because of the airline concerned the thread might 'disappear' since the legal threats from the airline have wobbled the wobbly upper lip of PPRune. However, credit to the key holders, it is still with us.

Some, like DR, do not see this 'fire' event as a problem (a mere 'drop in the ocean'........whoops, pun intended). I think professional pilots do, I trust pax do too, and we all would like this thread to continue and furnish us with more information. I cannot see how the name of the airline is relevant, but the event is.

kcockayne 20th Feb 2014 18:31

pilotmike

What else ?

RoyHudd 20th Feb 2014 18:51

The secret airline
 
Whole business is pathetic, and reeks of censorship. The idiots who demand it will attract much more negative attention than they expected. Serves the dogs right.

Hotel Tango 20th Feb 2014 18:59


I think you have missed the way this thread is angled, HT
No BOAC. I think you may have missed the way this thread has been hijacked and angled away from the original subject.

wild goose 20th Feb 2014 22:46

The name of the airline is very relevant for the simple reason that the way the incidents were handled have a direct bearing on the safety and security procedures of that airline.
The passengers and crew of that flight had their lives directly threatened by those same policies and procedures.
Probably the most questionable aspect is the airline agreeing to allow all passengers to reboard the aircraft without any serious attempt to find the culprit(s).
Access to the toilets remained perfectly free only until the last fire was set.

This can only be described as a high altitude version of Russian Roulette.
This airline is very fortunate (as are the occupants of the aircraft) that a disaster did not occur in the second half of the flight in particular, after reboarding the culprit.
The captains decision to proceed like this is also worth considering.
The apology for interrupting the meal service is commendable.
What about a word about gambling with peoples' lives?
Exposing this airline (union in Arabic) is of paramount public interest and importance.

Some people only learn after lots of people are killed. Anything prior to that threshold is a waste of time.

Sober Lark 21st Feb 2014 07:16

Which safety board will investigate this incident (s)?

DISCOKID 21st Feb 2014 09:05

Its not you that will be sued its PPRuNE. PPRuNE doesn't have money to fund expensive lawyers and court cases so you can understand why they comply rather than risking the future of the whole website.

onetrack 21st Feb 2014 09:08

I don't know what the secrecy is all about, when it's all over the Australian news scene.

Passengers detained after fires lit on Melbourne Etihad flight

Hotel Tango 21st Feb 2014 10:47

You're making quite a few assumptions there Wild Goose! How much of what you allege is fact? Were you party to the reasons for the operational decisions made? Or are they based on the always acurate media reports you have read? Just curious.

Brookfield Abused 22nd Feb 2014 11:57

What about the MEL?
 
Obviously Smoke Hoods/PBE's were used - i.e. useless afterwards?
Same goes for Halon / Water Extinguishers - i.e. also now not avail.!
What about the Toilet Waste Bin extinguishers - if they discharged then the toilet is also U/S?
Oh ya, the impact on the CC and were they safe to fly after such a series of events prior to diversion A/P departure? Ah, that falls under CRM I think?

So after the diversion - somebody must have read the MEL or was the "get home-itis" slash orders from OPS, so over powering that they left below the MMEL regarding toilets available, PBE's, extinguishers?

Seems very strange that with pax reporting flames, etc., the Waste Bins did not discharge in the first place? I would think after seeing the first bin failed to work (if the case) you'd block all toilets and then divert if the case? Since a "heavy crew" no mention of extra Cockpit surveying!
Seems unlikely that less then 3-5 fire extinguishers were used?
So at least 2-3 toilets were also U/S after the diversion?
How could they leave and continue?

poorjohn 22nd Feb 2014 12:59

Poor spot for the captain to find himself in; I don't envy him.

Just guessing, but it's easy to imagine that the local cops treated the incident with less interest than at any first-world airport. "Did you start the fires?" No. "Did you see anyone start the fires?" No. Next passenger. They obviously didn't deprive the perp of his/her incendiary material.

I suppose after the next in-flight fire I'd consider diverting to the nearest "suitable airport" being one stocked with a large contingent of TSA-like folks with nothing better to do than lock up people who like to mess with aircraft. Sure would be (alas much too) hard to convince ops to go along with that.

Al Murdoch 22nd Feb 2014 13:13

Yes, the TSA, such well-regarded folk...

FBW390 22nd Feb 2014 18:08

Wild Goose, with the elements and witnesses stories (pax) we have, I find your comments very good. YES, after the Jakarta stop the flight shouldn't have taken off again with all pax, including the one starting fires! Well, he/she did again!:D.
:ugh:
Very poor decision to take off from CGK by the captain with the problem unsolved. Even with strong pressure from management to return to base AUH , the captain must not depart if a safety or security problem on board is not solved!
It was very serious and could have ended tragically!

GroundScot 23rd Feb 2014 04:21

Jakarta is a base for the airline with full cover, double daily services so one would assume spares for replacement, if not can easily be acquired from pool spares partners

outofsynch 23rd Feb 2014 11:21

As the reports stated...The passengers were all put through thorough security checks, before re-boarding. How can the airline justify not continuing the flight, and penalising all passengers. I don't believe anyone was forced to re-board if they felt it wasn't safe.

If there was no way to identify who started the fires, what other decision could the Captain make?

Should ALL the passengers be banned from ever flying again?


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:40.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.