Swiss evacuates in Thessalonique
 

Folks,

Just spotted the following piece of info (in French)

Would be routine except that the evacuation was apparently decided by cabin staff after observing flames from one of the turbines.

Strikes me as odd.

Anyone ?

Nothing unusual about cabin crew initiating an evacuation if they consider it the right thing to do. That lesson was learnt from the Saudi 1011 incident.

The Saudi 1011 incident was not just a tailpipe fire

Ok, wasn't aware of that.

How is it supposed to work ? I guess this is only possible when the plane is not moving, either at the gate or waiting for takeoff.

I can't imagine the cabin staff initiating evecuation during takeoff roll...

--alex

Cabin crew may initiate an evac in 'catastrophic' events. Depends what their view of catastrophic (in our SEP training course there is no verbal definition, just a picture of an aircraft in pieces with flames coming out of it, with a cartoon pilot looking very unhappy!) is but to them fire is fire. We don't know the full extent of the interaction (or not) between the cabin crew and the flight crew but as a general rule you can be sure the cabin crew would be able to justify their actions in a situation as serious as an evac. Their job is to ensure the safety of all the people on the aircraft.

Some cabin crew have strange ideas. Recall some years ago an SV TriStar landed Cairo and while taxiing to the parking bay experienced an engine rundown/tailpipe fire on number one engine. The cabin crew noticed this, and tried to evac...out the PORT side. The Captain was able to stop the aircraft...and stop the evac only because the L3 door would not open. Quick communication from the flight deck prevented a very unpleasant situation.

quote:

"Nothing unusual about cabin crew initiating an evacuation if they consider it the right thing to do. That lesson was learnt from the Saudi 1011 incident..."

Not quite correct are you now?It is true that flt attendants will initaite an evacuation under extreme conditions.BUT THE AIRCRAFT HAS GOT TO BE STATIONARY HASNT IT NOW?Also,since the L1011 hadnt been depresssurized,any initiative shown by the FA's would have been sadly thwarted.

Uhm, not familiar with the L-1011's specifics, but why would the airplane still be pressurized after landing and taxiing to the gate? Upon landing, the airplane should depressurize, whether it be almost instantly or during a short automated depressurization sequence.

Cabin Crew is only allowed to do a emergency evacuation in case of EXPLOSIVE FIRE, STRUCTUAL DAMAGE or DITCHING. But I think not with a engine tail fire!!

SWISS is not equal to SWISS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know what I mean?

Cabin Crew initiated evacuation.
 

A cabin crew initiated evacuation would arise from a situation which either the flightdeck could not see, a completely obvious situation or if the flightdeck were incapacitated at the time.

It is an integral part of SEP training that in the event of certain emergencies the IFD/NO.1 would initiate an evacuation without flightdeck command. The training gives quite strict guidelines as to when this should happen - as stated above in the event of

DITCHING
STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
FIRE

These are CLEARLY CATASTROPHIC events.

It would be quite normal SOP for flightdeck to state a side of the aircraft from which to evacuate. However, if they are unable to do so, (and even if they can) then this is incorporated into the cabin crew evacuation drill.

"Wait until the aircraft has come to a complete stop" - If the aircraft is taxying and smoke begins to fill the cabin through the AC vents, the Emergency in Cabin button is there for such a purpose.

"Check outside for fire/hazards" or similar would be a usual first part to a cabin crew drill after the aircraft has stopped. Therefore, any cabin crew member who opens an exit and has a slide inflate behind a burning tailpipe is NOT following their training.

Training is there to provide a good sound knowledge of SEP procedures and awareness. We all know that not every emergency will occur as per the manual (aircraft floating nicely in a ditching, evacuation into a nice flat piece of ground, gathering pax upwind away from the aircraft) hence adaptation of training and knowledge is required.

I agree that Cabin Crew initiating an evacuation whilst the aircraft is in motion, or into a fire is completely non standard procedure and either the training, or IFD needs to be questioned.

The issue of a tailpipe fire - I assume that the flightdeck should be well aware of this occurring and would initiate an evacuation if necessary stating which side to evacuate from. However if no information or command is passed (when the aircraft is stationary for instance just after pushback) and a tailpipe fire is observed for a prolonged period, does everyone sit and wait for the aircraft to become a pile of burning embers while unbeknown to the crew the captain and f/o are incapacitated or is an evacuation initiated anyway? Smoke starting to fill the cabin at the holding point?

L3 on the B757-200 - this is an exit which may be unmanned with a crewmember sitting at R3 only. Therefore, pax are briefed on its operation. Pax will open that door whatever the situation if they are told to evacuate - even if there is a tailpipe fire on the No.1 engine.

Come on guys - we are all supposed to work together - I feel that too many people clash on this point of CC initiated evacs. If the right people are doing the job, following their training and can sensibly adapt it if necassary then the safer we will all be.

However, don't always blame the crew. Blame the airlines that put an IFD on a flight with 5 other crewmembers all of whom have been recruited on a 6 month contract and have been flying for a month.......even though they are trained, the big picture may not be there.

Cheers,

starship :cool:

Iz

With the HK incident, the pressurisation was left in the "standby mode" and therefor upon landing did NOT automatically depressurise as it would in the "Auto" mode.

Starship

Tailpipe fires, although spectacular in appearance, do not result in the aeroplane being "burned to embers" so evac is generally not needed or desired.

411A, I was actually using the example loosely with the consideration that fire speading is not impossible if it is not dealt with (should there be fuel astray) .......I am not stating facts, merely points of discussion which I feel there is not enough of on these forums (point scoring and arguing - yes). I do however work for a company where CRM and shared discussion is valued to the highest degree, hence my interest in the post.

I would hardly call a tailpipe fire spectacular..........and yes I have seen one ;)

cheers

starship

This is ridiculous, some of us and our companies accept that the cabin crew have a role beyond serving lunch. The Saudi incident was caused by the flight deck, the cabin crew could have saved many lives if the pilots had operated correctly and if the procedures permitted them. Don't quibble over whether the aircraft is moving or has only got a 'tailpipe' fire, the cabin crew are usually better placed to assess the situation and advise the pilots or react as they see fit. After all the pilots could be incapacitated, un aware or just 'switched off'.

Seriph

<....react as they see fit.>

Surely you can't be serious. Many of the FA's I have noticed over the years did not know what time of day it was, let alone...what was 'fit".

With many carriers, the FA training just does not measure up.
Much better to leave the tech details to the tech crew.

The subject of tailpipe fires and passenger evacuations is covered on an instructional video put on the web by the FAA (New England Region, -Standards section)

The naration states something to the effect that the tailpipe fire as shown in the video may be spectaculor in appearence although typically slortlived when detected and handled by the flight crew (motoring and fuel cutoff). It also shows the recomemnded intercom between the cabin crew and flight crew in such events before putting passengers out the door and infront of running engines.

There have been three major events on widebodies (A330, and two B747-400) where the tailpipe fire serously damaged the wing because the pilots had to shutdown the engines and leave the fire still burning upwards under the wing using up residual fuel and no airflow to blow the fire in back of the wing, when the passengers went down the chutes without the flight crew's command.

411A I was of course referring to European cabin crew. As for being switched off, well hopefully they will be sober.

Seriph – “the cabin crew are usually better placed to assess the situation and advise the pilots or react as they see fit”.

I am not trying to put down cabin crew, however, there are some that do not know the right hand side of an aircraft to the left hand side of the aircraft – British Midland 737-300 kegworth.

I would have thought that communication is the key, if in a position to communicate then surely that is paramount to a satisfactory outcome to any emergency.

Seriph,
There you go again...........talking pants.
411A may often be controversial but he's got huge experience and is talking good sense. Your reference to 'European' cabin crew seems to imply that they are OK whilst the rest of the World is useless. Rather a wild and rash judgment I think you'll agree, not to mention supremely arrogant. Also whats your suggestion about being sober all about - you want to be a bit more careful with your posts. I fly in Europe and wouldnt want evacuations going on without having my say so (unless of course theres something SO serious going on).
The more you post on these forums the more I'm suspect about you........................
'Tailscrape' had a good point about you the other day.

:rolleyes:

I seem to remember whilst working in a London airport a certain far eastern long haul aircraft experiencing a similar event after push back. A pax didn't like the look of the flames, decided he/she was better off outside the aircraft and opened a door him/herself, deployed the slide and b*ggered off!!!!(apparently only to be arrested by a couple of coppers passing by in their panda car!!!!!).

So what do you 'suspect' Stressfree? It is a simple matter of fact that some airlines do authorise their cabin crew to initiate evacuations if they consider it necessary and why not? Does all the wisdom sit on the flight deck? Reading these threads I think not.

Uhm, one might say that as a result of CabinCrew taking unilateral action to evacuate, as a result of witnessing a tail-pipe fire (if that indeed was what it was), they rather recklessly exceeded their reemit, in as much that most airlines only allow CabinCrew to order an evacuation if the situation is quite obviously 'catastrophic' - and there's the rub....... define catastrophic ?! ( and I'm afraid to report that, as alluded to above, some 'cabin safety specialists' ;) are not clear about what is catastrophic and what is not ), e.g. and using words which mean something similar - how about: disastrous, calamitous, shattering, appalling, terrible, ruinous, tragic, cataclysmic - accordingly the definition of 'catastrophic' has been a mute point for a long time.

Now in this instance one can suppose they had not hit anything, they had not crashed, and the aircraft had not come apart, etc, so just what therefore was the justification to initiate an evacuation - was it really a 'catastrophic' situation ? Did the cabin crew really think it through, did the thought cross their mind that the flight crew might just indeed be 'working the problem' and need some time to do so, did they contact the flightdeck (whom maybe did not respond straight away because they were working the problem), or was it simply a case of blind panic ?
And before anybody says it, "yes, I do remember Manchester" - i.e. where burning fuel was pooling under the aircraft, smoke and flames were entering the cabin (which sounds kind of catastrophic to me).

Maybe a little perspective might help here too, e.g. the time from your first flying lesson to sitting in the LHS of an airliner is typically many (read, MANY) years because you need the experience and must be able to exhibit sound judgement before you're to be trusted with the lives of hundreds.
However (and I mean NO disrespect) the time it takes to train to become a No.1 / CSD / Purser with some airlines can be as quick as a few months, and you can take somebody off the street and train them to be CabinCrew in anything from 10 days to 6 weeks - and yet some people are proposing that this then provides them with the knowledge, experience and decision making skills to decide that it's better to be outside the aircraft than inside it ? Well not imho it doesn't.

Yes we are all part of a team, but there is an authority gradient and it's there for a good reason - however unfortunately (and again, imho) some have it in their head ( maybe from how they've been taught CRM and / or modern education ? ) that aboard the aircraft we are all 'equal' and that each has an equal say in how the aircraft is operated and can make decisions accordingly - wrong ! - and I can only surmise that some of the comments above promoting that CabinCrew can initiate an evacuation when it is not yet catastrophic are coming from people who have little or no real knowledge or understanding of airline(r) operations.

Plain and simple the way it should be done is that the Captain alone makes the decision to evacuate the aircraft and only in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances ( e.g. the aircraft is involved in a 'catastrophic' incident ) are the CabinCrew allowed to make the same decision off their own back.

Outside of that ( imho ) CabinCrew, engineers, ramp staff would all benefit from occasionally being included in our (six monthly) simulator refreshers - observing from the sim jumpseat - as it would then give them a chance to see that when things do go wrong (and they do) just what the timeline is between something happening, us recognising it, then resolving what to do about it, and actioning the plan ( i.e. applying DODAR ), as well as the need for accurate communications across the flight deck door ( which of course is now locked ! :rolleyes: )

DevilsAdvocate has summed it up rather quite nicely, imho.:)

Gosh, I thought we in the military were meant to be backward in CRM terms.

:eek:

CRM = "Crew Resource Management", right ?! ( stemming from the previous Cockpit Resource Management - which was heavily orientated towards FlightDeck crew only - latterly adapted to include CabinCrew and others )

So Robo - one imagines that in the above you mean that the CabinCrew did not exhibit good CRM, i.e. being that they're part of the aircraft crew did they inform the FlightCrew that they were going to evacuate ? Were they talking on 121.6 to the fire brigade and the control tower about what the people outside the aircraft could see and were doing ? Just what coordination did they proffer towards helping coordinate the evacuation, other than telling the pax to get out ?

Perhaps to make the point, how about if when the cabin is too hot the cabin crew come in to the flight deck, help themselves to the overhead panel and start tinkering with the pneumatics and temperature controls ( and believe when I say that I have had first hand experience of that happening ! ) would you as a pilot think that was acceptable, and if not why not ? ( and I'm sure that you'll see where I'm gonna take this ;) )

Devils Advocate is quite right in his summary of the situation. Ordering an evacuation is about the biggest decision you will ever have to make in the left seat of an airliner, I can think of no circumstances in which the cabin crew should start an evacuation without first attempting to contact the Captain. If they try and fail to make contact due to a crash impact etc. then quite clearly they are on their own and must get on with what they think is best. The Swiss incident and one a few years ago in my own company clearly showed the fact that the cabin crew are not in a position to make that sort of decision in the vast majority of cases.

Seriph,
I'm not going to cross swords with you - you do a good enough job of letting yourself down without me needing to help you..........
As 411A quite rightly said Devils Advocate summed it up nicely.

While we are discussing the matter however, would you care to elaborate on your comments regarding European cabin crew vs. the rest of the World? Also we are all waiting for your explanation of your reference to sobriety.
Do I need really ask why I'm suspect?

:rolleyes:

On the contrary Devils Advocate…

The circumstances are far from clear in the Swiss incident – and I’m the first to agree that the inherently risky process of a ground evacuation might not have been appropriate in that particular instance. I also feel that the any decision to evacuate should involve the flight deck crew.
However, what concerned me was the tone the tone of a number of postings which seem to suggests that anyone rear of the flight deck have little to offer in helping to prevent accidents. Comments such as ….

‘Some cabin crew have strange ideas’

‘Many of the FA's I have noticed over the years did not know what time of day it was, let alone...what was 'fit’’

…suggest that some people are totally dismissive of any input that their cabin crew might make.

I consider myself very lucky, the back of my aircraft is patrolled by an Air Load Master who has received training which allows him to provide a good deal of useful input during emergencies. However, we also carry Air Stewards on occasions. These guys are really there to assist during ground evacuations and although trained to do this task they are generally lacking in flying experience. However, if either of these guys comes up on intercom I’d treat what they have to say seriously. Maybe with the Air Steward I might have to work harder to ascertain the exact nature or extent of a problem but his input could still avert an accident or incident. If people persist in creating a culture where cabin crew are expected to have no thoughts beyond serving lunch then that’s all they will do and a potential source of useful inputs will be lost - and hey, maybe some aircraft too.

So the lesson is...? If there is an unusual occurrance and if there is time, as there was in this case, contact the cockpit crew before taking any action.

An evac occurred on a Swissair MD-80 in CDG during pushback - much to the surprise of the cockpit crew - due to smoke from a ground vehicle entering the cabin and setting off the rear toilet smoke alarm, which was similar sounding to the evac signal fitted at that time.

Following that incident, the books were revised as to definition of when the cabin crew could initiate an evac. on ground - including the stipulation that the aircraft stand still, as well as the catastrophic points (ditching, severe damage and explosive fire) mentioned above. At that time the tailpipe fire was even taught as an example for not evacuating.

Time passes, people change and history repeats itself unfortunately.

I get a bit worried when I read some of the posts frm CC on this forum.

I have a PPL, several hundred hours and over 20 hours in seriously run jet sim sessions, including simmed engine fires etc.

Also, I have flown regularly ince 1976, logging thousands of hours as pax and seeing a few "unusual " occurences.

In the back of a airliner, unless the wing was ablaze to an extent where it was about to fall off, I would find it very difficult to judge whether an evacuation was required - I simply do not have the level of training, systems understanding or experience.

With the very greatest of respect to CC, whom I respect for their knowledge of cabin procedures and generally very professional approach, I doubt that they would be in a better position than I.

So it seems, from the perspective of this regular SLF (and thus some part contributor to airline coffers), that the command authority should reside in the flightdeck with the people who are trained on the systems and have the experience to make the right decisions.

This is in no way meant to demean CC, who have an important part to play in the team, especially in feedng information to flightdeck, but it seems to me that as a rule of thumb that the captain should make the calls about evacuations.

L1011 ..........
 

A summary on this incident is noted in the following link ...

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-sa163.shtml

Lets face facts.

Cabin crew should stick to slinging the hash, serving the necessary liquid refreshments...and stop thinking they are "in charge". If they want to be constructive, then use the interphone.

Far too many CC have in their brains(?) the thought that they "know" far more then the tech crew about "items technical".

Many I suspect are frustrated in their positions...but they will just have to "get over it". In doing so, they would make everyones duties more enjoyable.:rolleyes:

My my, you really are up on this "new fangled" CRM thang, aint ya, old fella?

Yep and I bet that if he were a pax on the Saudi 1011 he would have sat quietly and burned while the cabin crew did the same because the 'Gods' up front weren't with it. 3 Greens, stick to your Cessna leave professional aviation to those who do it. Senior cabin crew are not imbeciles, they've been around awhile. Those who query my comments ao sobriety, I meant the flight deck.

Seriph

You demonstrate why others on this forum treat you with little respect.

I do not fly a Cessna for your information, but you probably do not have the wit to realise that the Cessna company are the worlds largest manufacturer of business jet aircraft and therefore your childish term of derision is as misplaced as your attitude.

As for the L1011 incident, that happended in the last century and lessons were learned.

As made clear in my post, I have a high regard for cabin crew doing the job that they are trained for. I never indicated that they are imbeciles and I know from working at a major airline that many cabin crew are highly intelligent and qualified people.

Seriph,

Some years ago a British company wanted to make the Purser in command if the Captain was incapacitated. Luckily good sense prevailed when the CAA refused to allow it. You sound as if you come from that same school of thought. Your Profile carries no clue but your threads do.

Arrogance!!
 

God, some of you can be arrogant!:eek:

I'm so grateful I work for the company where Flight Crew actually know we have brains!

411A , I advise you rethink your post! ;)

sweety

The regulatory authorities, the companies and the flying public KNOW who is in charge...and it ain't the cabin crew, so get used to it.

If you want tech advise, use the interphone...you know, that item on the bulkhead by the door that looks like a telephone..:rolleyes: :)

Those FAs with brains are able to know if the plane just crashed, or if the flight crew is well able to observe and to act. Don't forget an evacuation is a procedure which usually causes a lot of injures, which can and should be prevented if possible.

The example 411A keeps referring to in several threads on the PPRUNE forum, from his own experience, shows a lot about why contact with the flight crew is important.
The diversity amongst cabin crew is gigantic, I've flown with the best professionals, but I have to admit, with the dummest on earth as well.

In the Lufthansa A320 rwy-overrun-accident in Warsaw the cabin crew initiated the evacuation, and saved the life of one cockpitmember by doing so. Those FAs used their possibility of initiating the evacuation in the right moment, namely where the flight crew both are incapacitated and there is an imminent danger to the lives on board.

If you see flames coming from an engine, while I'm in the cockpit, alive and kickin', PLEASE call us over interphone! It is possible we are not aware of flames coming from the engine, and also it is possible we are aware, but due to several reasons one single FA in the back will never be able to know from his/her position, decide not to evacuate. Maybe we want to taxi forward, maybe we already solved the problem and the fire will extinguish, maybe the fire crew is already standing next to us?

Sweety, 411A's tone in his posts might not be very friendly towards cabin crew, but the point he is making is very valid:

P77

Seriph,
Hello - is there anybody there??
Either you are a deliberate wind-up merchant or just plain stupid or both.
The utter bollo*ks you talk is quite amazing - you refer to "the gods up front" and say things like " leave professional aviation to those who do it", what planet are you from?
What exactly are you implying when referring to "flight deck sobriety".
As I said last time - Tailscrape described you very well...........airhead.



:rolleyes:

My guess is Seriph is serving drinks all day, waiting for his moment of fame, where the flight crew is drunk (again :D ), crashes a plane and he becomes the hero of the passengers, when bravely leading them over the flamefilled apron.