|
RatherBeFlying
When J.Blow takes the decision out of the hands of the 'professionals' he accepts absolute responsibility for his own actions. People could be injured, or die, due to his 'ignorant' act. Chances are, he was one of those c#*#s who hasn't even the courtesy to look up from his precious newspaper during the safety brief!! Forgive me, but as far as I'm concerned, he DESERVES to die! His newspaper is clearly more important than his life! Sadly, his stupidity also affects the survival chances of those other 'innocent' individuals around him. Yes, I "blame him"!!! puddle-jumper2 You accept that much of your commentary has been made with 20/20 hindsight (in this case at least!) I understand that you would order an immediate evacuation for a hot gas leak, or indeed a spurious fire indication?? Bearing in mind you appear to fly "puddle jumpers" you may wish to bear in mind that, statistically speaking, an evacuation of a large aircraft (eg 747, 340, 777 etc) is almost certain to result in at least one major injury! I would suggest to you that, it is highly unlikely that lives will be lost purely for the sake of the few seconds taken to assess the situation. Your SOPs appear to be more akin to the programming of a robot, rather than the more considered approach of more respected operators! |
4468
The point that I am trying to make is that those in back without professional knowledge become seriously concerned when they see a tailpipe fire. And the cockpit crew on occasion has been slow to realise the seriousness of the situation in other cases. At Calgary, following the uncontained engine failure, approximately 45 seconds elapsed before the cabin attendant in-charge was able to enter the flight deck to tell the flight crew there was a fire. The flight deck door had been locked in accordance with standard company procedures. (A84H0003) Meanwhile, the aft cabin attendant attempted to notify the flight deck of an engine fire by using the aircraft interphone system. Although the signal tone was heard on the flight deck, it went unanswered because the first officer mistook the tone for that associated with the passenger cabin attendant call button. The aft cabin attendant contacted the cabin attendant in-charge stationed at the front of the aircraft via the interphone. He advised the cabin attendant in-charge that there was a fire and the aircraft should be stopped. The cabin attendant in-charge did not confirm that the information had been received and understood; consequently, the aft cabin attendant did not know if he had been successful in transmitting this vital message. Inadequate communication between the cabin and the flight deck resulted in a significant delay before the flight crew was aware of the existence and seriousness of the fire and contributed to the fact that the evacuation was not initiated until one minute 55 seconds following the rejected take-off. I like to think that the 1984 YYC incident produced changes in SOPs after a reject, but I do faintly recall from newspaper reports at the time that a pax was the first to open a door. The success of the evacuation was attributed in part to the fact that almost all the passengers were frequent air travellers familiar with the Boeing 737 and that there were no children, elderly, or disabled passengers on the flight. |
From the EDI incident..... Definitively.....
During push back a passenger, (perhaps the one quoted above), witnessed a hot-start/tailpipe fire. He panicked and ran to the front of the aircraft where his demeanour convinced the solitary junior crew member there that the aircraft was about to erupt into flames...... Upon his word the evacuation began. Like you may be often told - It never goes like in the Sim. On the ground if someone outside the flight-deck initiates an evacuation then you have no choice but to go with it. The alternative is to have panicky passengers outside the aircraft getting sucked down engines. Thank God there were no injuries. The question is.... Should this individual suffer censure? |
Probably not, but the 'junior cabin crew' need retraining! (Assuming they did not check with the flight deck to shut down the motors, of course!:))
|
the 'junior cabin crew' need retraining Let's take a reality check here . |
I expect I'll be slammed for saying this, but I can't help wondering if a few pidgeons have come home to roost for BACX in this incident!
There seem to be plenty of inexperienced, not particularly well trained, and not very well paid crews flying around in BA uniforms these days!! And on the basis of this incident, that goes for both sides of the flight deck door! I wonder if the passenger's reaction had anything to do with his perceived level of crew competence?? Very lucky nobody was injured! |
4468,
you deserve to be slammed for such a sweeping statement, but your hatred towards anything to do with BACX is depressingly predictable. Pray tell though, just how much knowledge do you have about training standards within BACX? If it really is as poor as you suggest, then I think BA would have something to say about it (perhaps you should take it on yourself to organise an internal inquiry by BA?). It would also imply that BA's auditing is below par, as we have been subject to training audits by BA since way back when we were a profitable franchise. Please try to retain a balanced view and don't allow your slanted judgement to distort the thread. RM |
Guys.... when you are done BACX bashing......
The crews are trained and certified to the satisfaction of the Authority - End of story. Back to the point... If some joker ran around in a pub screaming 'FIRE' when there was not - And a dozen people got trampled to death - Who would be to blame? Wrt the young CC member... Had it been one of the more mature BA mainline ladies, the hysterical punter in question would have got a calming smack across the face and the silly boy would have been sent back to his seat :) |
Assuming the pax in question ran forward they would have encountered the senior cabin crew member anyway. Most of the BACX senior crew members are fairly worldy wise in my experience. Fair enough BACX have some junior guys down the back, but everyone has to start somewhere. They fluff their lines occasionally on the PA which gives us chance to have a little titter, but im my experience the senior guys at the front know what they're doing. On the whole I feel a lot more reassured by the BACX crews that I do with a lot of other airlines so I think we should give em a break.
The trouble with having some random pax stand up and start yelling FIRE! is that is tends to just cause panic. Once the whole plane starts panicking events kind of take control of themselves. It's hard to stop 80+ people trying to jump up once they've got themselves all excited. I've been sat next to people in the past who have thought that engines were on fire because they can see smoke coming from the breather masts. The answer is obvious.... paint over the windows so the pax can't see the big whizzy things and gag them so they can't make silly noises!! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:30. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.