Jet2 evacuation at Blackpool
 

A Jet2 aircraft was evacuated after landing at Blackpool due to smoke being seen.

BBC News - Plane at Blackpool Airport evacuated after smoke spotted

A bad week for Jet2. They lost pressurisation on a PFO-NCL a couple of days ago.

More photos here http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=166772

Unless it has been extended in the last few years, that is a pretty short runway, so braking would be fairly hard, especially for a 300 compared to an NG. How much smoke was seen and at what point would be interesting - I have occasionally seen brakes smoking when a 73 has rocked up on stand, and while it shows they're pretty hot, it doesn't signify much more than that unless the smoke is profuse. I think I'd be inclined to have the fire crews come out but not to evacuate unless flames were seen. Still, hindsight is easy and it's always better to err on the safe side, especially with smoke and fire.

Totally agree. Remember the Virgin A330 at LGW though? Damned if you do, damned if you don't... The BBC report says the tower advised an evacuation. I wonder how accurate that is?

Blackpool shows 1869m.

What I don't understand is this - if ATC advises them that they have smoke coming from their landing gear and they are still on the runway, why would they retract the flaps instead of keeping them extended for a possible evacuation? Did they already backtrack and rush to do their after landing items on the runway? Or did they maybe already land flapless and therefore keep the overwing exits closed (would obviously explain the hot brakes on Blackpool's 1900m runway :rolleyes:)?

If I you're landing with no flaps I very much doubt anyone would select BLK to land there unless there was an absolute dire need to get on the ground and even then it's likely they would have over-ran. By a LONG way.

MAN is just down the road with two nice longish runways. PIK is up the road too. So I doubt very much this was a flight control or flap/slat issue although I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Exactly... Even stranger then to see this 733 evacuated with its flaps up and the overwing exits closed. Maybe someone here knows if its Jet2 SOP to set Flaps 40 by memory...

Hmmm if in doubt evacuate, better safe than sorry.

If we think back to the Jet2 GLA rejected takeoff I'm pretty sure that the flaps were set to 40 and that passengers evacuated via the over wings. I remember reading in the Daily Fail the terror when they realised the slides on the wings didn't inflate (perhaps they didn't inflate because there are none?).

F40 is SOP but the evacuation checklist is not a memory item.

It's longer than I remember it, but I confess I only went there once or twice a decade ago, in the wet and dark in mid winter! Still, smoking brakes aren't dictated by runway length but braking effort.

The fact the flaps were up suggests any ATC comment, if correctly reported, must have been made during taxy or after parking. I think it's likely the aircraft was already stopped when the smoke was spotted - brakes probably wouldn't generate enough smoke for it to be visible at 10kts or more, from what I've seen in the past. Now that I've said that, of course, I'll be wrong.

Regardless, it would be helpful if any photos or video of the smoke exists so we can see the amount present.

Edit: I just read the Blackpool Gazette article posted in the Jet2 thread in "Airlines and Routes" and it quotes an airport spokesperson in mentioning an undercarriage hydraulic leak. That could be a big factor, or it could be utter rubbish. Guess we'll have to wait for some reliable information. The article also says a slide failed, but who knows if the pax or media were expecting to see slides from the overwing exits?

Confused here

A report is made of smoke in the vicinity of the right engine/main gear/wing.

What person in their right mind would instigate an evacuation into that area via overwing exits or even suggest a captain was at fault for not doing so.

- sadly quite a few on this site.

The OWEs are self help exits, operated by passengers who pay close attention to the safety briefing (don't they?). In this case it could have been passenger aware of what was going on outside and, correctly, didn't open it or forgot everything they were told and buggered orf out of a door. Who knows.

West lakes, if you're referring to my comment, then all I can say is that is all the article said! The article said a slide failed, the photo only shows the two rear slides in use and the right overwing closed, which would be appropriate for a fire or significant smoke in the wing area. The front of the fuselage and left overwing are not visible. No judgement in my part over that - it worries me more whether all companies train their cabin crew well enough to check exterior threats well enough and think whether opening the door is the right thing to do. Glad to see in this case they made a good call.

If you look at the photos on Aviation Herald the first one shows fire fighters inspecting the area with all doors CLOSED.

This suggests it was more of a planned evacuation so exit choices were probably made

Who in their right mind would create an SOP where Flight Attendants/Pax in the cabin, not having any idea about what is going on outside save looking, have to decide on what exits to use?

SOP's and idiots.
 

Here we have an aircraft evacuated on advice received from the emergency services, no one is hurt, the aircraft is not damaged and because of advice from the emergency services who would have been far better placed to view the incident the over wing exits are not used so the passengers are not dumped on top of a potential fire.

All good airmanship and CRM on the part of the pilots, cabin crew & fire service.

Yet above we have the SOP police commenting about the flaps not set to 40 and the over wing exits not being used.

I would like to remind some of you that SOP's alone will not keep you safe they are just a building block for flight safety, sometimes the SOP is the wrong thing to do, and sometimes the rules have to be broken to assure safety of the aircraft, any person who fails to understand this should no be let out without adult supervision.

Fortunately it would seem that all involved with this incident were wise enough to understand the difference between doing the correct thing ( SOP evacuation ) and doing the right thing ( safe evacuation).

Maybe this is the "evacuation" which raises the important questions of how and when should we evacuate. What is clear is that our current policies are criminally lacking. For a start, I don't think we shouldn't be doing "precautionary evacuations." In general, because most aircraft are not fitted with integral air stairs, we should either do a full evacuation or nothing at all. This is because we are not trained to do "half evacuations". Our training is "evacuate" and that's it, shooting from the hip in critical situations like this doesn't work. I'll also throw another one in here as well. If you have a "smoke" problem, you should consider where you will be parked. Airport staff should not connect an airbridge to an aircraft they suspect of having a problem such as this. And if they did, the door to the terminal should be locked. Which would generate additional problems for PAX emerging from a sick aircraft.

We should also question the value of evacuation advice from airport fire crews. These poor sods play table tennis and volley ball day after day and every new and again put out yet another practice fire. They rarely get up close and personal with aircraft; partly because there are not enough of them on shift to allow them to wonder around the apron learning about aircraft from engineers - if the security Gestapo would allow such activity in the first place. Therefore, I'll suggest they will play "safe" and get you to evacuate.

As for this event, we have some interesting questions such as why were the flaps up and why were the over wing exits not used? Why did they evacuate? I wasn't there so I won't judge the crew, but it would be nice to know. Also Bloggs and LSM throw in their "right on the money" comments as well. Combine this with the previous Jet2 (please, I'm not having a go at Jet2, it's just that it was them) evacuation at GLA and we might be able to come up with a better way of dealing with not only "real" evacuations but also those occasions where something is not right, but where an evacuation is not the most prudent course of action.

As a pilot and more often SLF who likes the OTW exit seats... Cap. Blogg brings up a very valid point.
Yes l am prepared to open the door when told to, and get out of the plane/way.
I have also thought as l sit down, What would l do if and when.... do l blindly open and jump or do l make an executive decision after looking and assessing the situation.
Would the flt crew announce which side and or which doors ......??

Referring back to my post #13, may I ask the skygods how they would handle advice from the fire crew to 'get the passengers off without delay'? No steps available this side of Christmas, no obvious signs of fire to alert the c/crew.

PM reckons a full evacuation should be called and others seem to think the overwings should be used in that.

Your moves? I think I know what I would do and it would look pretty much like this one, hopefully with the same results.

A and C's post is worth a re-read.

Oh looking at the photos, the aircraft would have already turned and would be backtracking

Just a knowledge gaining question.

Would the flaps normally be retracted after landing anyway? Bearing in mind if RWY 10 was in use it is a long backtrack/taxi

I would assume that as the fire service were inspecting near the engine, one or both would have been shut down, possibly also the APU.

Can the flaps be extended with no engine/APU power?

So if the answer is such, would it make sense to restart an engine to extend the flaps in an emergency?

Beware of inexperienced ATC Tower controller being too dramatic.
 

I have always advised flight crew to confirm ATC visual reports of fire/smoke, from another source, when available, before rushing into an evacuation. For example; opening the windows and stretching out the window to see the wing area, fire chief on 121.60 mHz.

Case 1
In daylight conditions A/C at high landing weights and landing on short RWYs may well have smoking brakes. This smoke should not necessarily lead to an EVAC. This smoke should dissipate once the brake temps reduce. In actual fact containing to taxi, with minimal brake application, will help reduce BRK temps.

Case 2
In night time conditions the same A/C after landing will have a red glow around the centre of tyres. Smoke may not be initially seen unless using binoculars.

ATC are also suffering from a lack of experienced controllers so beware of the over descriptive / enthusiastic ATC Tower controller saying that your A/C is on fire. It may just be hot BRKS. This is especially true for larger A/C, eg A380, where an evacuation is a very serious decision.

My two bobs worth..

This is a situation where too much SOP prescription causes trouble. One airline will say that the CC decide which exits to use, another will say it's the Captain's decision. If time permits, as in this case, I'd say sod the SOP and brief the crew to use the main exits if they can see no threats but in this instance to keep the overwings shut, given they were above the potential fire area.

Then again, I am concerned that this evacuation seems as yet to have been unwarranted. I can't blame the crew if they were urged by the fire crew to evac, but evacuations are inherently dangerous and best avoided unless confidence is high that it is needed. Since the fire crews were there with their appliances, with a good close view of the smoking brakes, why could they not just monitor the situation, ready to extinguish and flame the moment it appeared and inform the crew that a fire had actually started, allowing them to evacuate at that point? It would have saved several injured passengers and a lot of maintenance work and cost in this case.

JET2
 

Jet 2 had an issue yesterday at EMA also. No drama though

https://www.flickr.com/photos/plane_...k/14367781375/

The Blackpool Gazette quoted the airport spokesperson as saying the Blackpool aircraft had a hyd problem. I wonder if that information came from this other event and got mixed up, or whether there were two hyd events.

A & C statesIn this case of course, the Flightcrew were no doubt aware that the fire service were inspecting the main gear and it would therefore not have been a particularly bright idea to drop Flap 40 on their heads.

As SLF I have a question, which was alluded to earlier on in this thread. In the past I have taken the seat next to the overwing exit. I' ve thoroughly read and inwardly digested the instructions for opening the door in an emergency, one flight attendant even commenting "i see you're training yourself". Now, in a catastrophic accident I would be quite keen and happy to get that door open. But no-one has ever told me what would happen if there was, say, a potential problem on my side of the a/c when things weren't quite so obviously 'get out or die'. Are further instructions given ? Logic suggests yes, but what form would they take?

My observations for what they're worth (No speculation or judgement)

I watched the a/c make a normal landing on 10 pleased to see it on time as I was due to travel on its next rotation to PMI. Nothing out of the ordinary going on, outbound crew were in the dep lounge awaiting its arrival on stand.

The drama unfolded out of sight, view being hidden by the twr. From the pictures I've seen the a/c was obviously well into the backtrack (cleaned up) at the point it stopped and subsequent evacuation took place.

After some time an airfield ops vehicle was noted escorting two off airport fire engines onto 10. Same again with an ambulance a few minutes later. It was only when I saw the tug and towbar followed by Jet2 engineers van trundling across the apron in an easterly direction that the old grey matter started to ponder.

A/c was eventually towed onto stand where used chutes were dumped on apron . Snippets of conversation overheard suggesting runway closed due to hydraulic fluid contamination. More than two hours after the event a quad bike with tanks on rear akin to something used by the council for kerbside weedkilling was escorted to the runway, I guess for the big clean up!

Reassuring to read SK's ramblings in the Gazette that BLK emergency procedures kicked in and worked (right down to the double deck school bus which finally brought the inbound pax to the tent in two runs)

On boarding the replacement a/c LS positioned over from LBA, I noted LJ jacked with R/H MLG inboard wheel removed. Jet2 (other than a rather quiet set of ground staff) handled it well. BLK handled it like BLK do.

As I said, just my observations.

I don't think I said that. What I tried to say was that we are not trained to do "half evacuations" and doing so puts you into uncharted, unpracticed and un-rehersed territory. I also went on to ask if this evacuation was necessary (with the caveat that I wasn't there and don't have the full facts). The reason behind this is that we must very careful about choosing our sources of information. For example, although a brake fire (but this appears not to be one) is an interesting event, with a properly trained fire crew and well equipped fire appliances an attendance I wonder if a full blown evacuation is required. Any such fire should be capable of being knocked out in seconds. Also, how long should a brake fire be able to burn without compromising the integrity of the cabin? I don't know and I'm not suggesting we should try and find out on line during a real incident, but this is something for the AAIB to look at. Current certification standards require a minimum time which I have not been told about. Also, what is the brake temperature limit before you have a real problem? I'm sure each aircraft is different but I also reckon fire departments have one tune "see smoke - order evacuation"

What I'm saying is that our current evacuation policies must be re-examined. Our current, old fashioned approach to this subject is out of date.

- as my Fleet Manager used to say "That's why God put four bars on your shoulder"..................:)

An evacuation is a serious business which often results in injuries in itself.

It is all very well second guessing the crew but any decent crew will make decisions based on the best information they have at the time.

For example what about the QANTAS B747 which slid of the end into soft ground at BKK some years ago. I don't believe any evacuation was ordered there despite partial gear collapse.

Thankfully I have never been in any situation requiring a decision to evacuate/no evacuate but as is so often the case it is not the obvious problems like a visible fire but the less clear cut problem which makes the decision fraught with difficulty for the crew.

Excellent stuff! Well done to all crew involved. Tea and medals all round I hope.
A and C is spot on. Why would you hinder the fire brigade by dropping the flaps to 40...?! Cracking call by the crew and an SOP well over-ridden.

I suspect a highly experienced crew (not a wet-behind-the-ears crew!!) and a credit to Jet2.

Hydraulic fluid onto hot brakes. White smoke. Engines still running makes it look a lot worse than it is: can make it look like the engine is smoking. Had that before...

I wonder how many pax would have looked at the safety card and listened to the safety brief rather than rudely and more importantly, dangerously, ignoring things and continuing to read their paper. I reckon the cabin crew should do a quick 20 questions before take off. Any pax not up to speed with safety procedures should be offloaded. They're a liability..... Smug :mad:.

Not forgetting those whose IQ is so low they will be incapable of even reading the safety card let alone understand it :ugh:

Are you saying the mentally handicapped should not be permitted to travel?

Wow - nice guy.

SLFguy, stop trying to pick a fight, you know exactly what he meant.

Sometimes I wish that companies would make their web-booking sites really complex, rather than strive to make them simpler, so that they'd serve as a filter. To be honest, I think it'd be a good idea if every airline had an online safety demo and test that you had to pass before being able to book tickets. The problem with onboard demos is that most pax not only ignore them, but prevent the smarter, better passengers from listening to it too. That's one of the reasons why I have the PA and service interphone selected on my CCS panel - if I hear the CC give a second plea to passengers to listen to the demo I'll add a PA. If they get more interruptions I go back on stand and start offloading the transgressors. I'm not going to let a handful of gob****s make the whole flight a battle for the CC and potentially endanger other passengers.

"Safety Brief"
 

I wonder how many pax would have looked at the safety card and listened to the safety brief rather than rudely and more importantly, dangerously, ignoring things and continuing to read their paper.

The "safety card and safety brief" have nothing to do with safety. Apart from the seat belt stuff which every car occupant understands, the rest is an emergency response procedure, which the cabin crew are supposed to be experts in.


Safety management has nothing to do with the nearest exit and oxygen masks. It is all to do with safe methods of work by crew, engineers, ATC and the rest.


Ask any airline safety manager and he will agree. The briefing is a CAA (and other regimes) requirement which has nothing to do with safety. I am sure that the pax on MH370 were given a "safety briefing"

That's right! Every car occupant understands how to operate the seat belt because they do it every single day. It is deep in their instinctive memory, They reach down the side of the seat and click the little red button. So in an emergency situation involving high stress and panic their short term memory will (if they watched the safety briefing) have been told how to operate the seat belt. Those that neglected to refresh that part of their survival toolkit will revert back to instinct and reach down the side of their seat to find the little red button....only guess what.... it isn't there! History has the names of plenty of corpses that failed to survive perfectly survivable events but were still secured in their seats. Many survivors have recounted tales of reaching instinctively for the seat belt release down the side of their seat.

Of course this is why as pilots we brief prior to every take off and landing. We are putting the important points of that brief back into short term memory and thereby beefing up the toolkit.

So when you say: You are wrong! It has everything to do with safety. It may not guarantee your survival but it is designed to enhance your chances. Would you like a very long list of flight numbers where the safety briefing did contribute to a successful outcome?