Emerg. Pax Evac with high cross winds!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emerg. Pax Evac with high cross winds!?
Here is the situation for example:
Med. Body twin jet. (with overwing exits).
45 m wide rwy.
Landing RWY is 36.
Wind 090/16 or greater.
Eng. Nr. 2 Fire (R) is not extinguishable (but you only know that much later after actions are done).
Latest is:
Whether on short final or just after touchdown comes Nr. 2/R FIRE WARNING. Since the XWC is > 15 kts from the right, make in this case a 180 RIGHT TURN using differential thrust/braking from Nr. 1/L on the RWY so that one would thus be placing the Nr.2 downwind??
Then perform the RECALL/ECAM actions.
Then if required EVAC....
No regard taken for the extra time involved (turning) before an EXT is discharged, braking action (nose wheel skidding), PCN/ACN or whether 180 turns on the runway are allowed, perhaps even running into or blocking fire fighting equip., Low Vis. conditions, nor A/C weight taken into account.
I know of the remark "consider the direction of wind incase an evac.... bla bla" but I reserve my comments on this SOP at this company.
What are yours?
Med. Body twin jet. (with overwing exits).
45 m wide rwy.
Landing RWY is 36.
Wind 090/16 or greater.
Eng. Nr. 2 Fire (R) is not extinguishable (but you only know that much later after actions are done).
Latest is:
Whether on short final or just after touchdown comes Nr. 2/R FIRE WARNING. Since the XWC is > 15 kts from the right, make in this case a 180 RIGHT TURN using differential thrust/braking from Nr. 1/L on the RWY so that one would thus be placing the Nr.2 downwind??
Then perform the RECALL/ECAM actions.
Then if required EVAC....
No regard taken for the extra time involved (turning) before an EXT is discharged, braking action (nose wheel skidding), PCN/ACN or whether 180 turns on the runway are allowed, perhaps even running into or blocking fire fighting equip., Low Vis. conditions, nor A/C weight taken into account.
I know of the remark "consider the direction of wind incase an evac.... bla bla" but I reserve my comments on this SOP at this company.
What are yours?
Last edited by Brookfield Abused; 3rd Nov 2009 at 08:51.
I think the best option is not a 180º turn, but a 90º turn to place the nose into the wind.
The reasoning is after a conversation with a Senior Fire fighter, discussing the options of having a fire on the upwind or the downwind side. I was speaking of placing the fire on the downwind side, as per conventional pilot teaching, and he said he wanted the fire on the upwind side
From the fire & Rescue perspective, they want to be able to approach the fire in clear air (i.e. upwind of the fire) for best visibility, and have the maximum reach for their hoses (i.e. with the wind behind them.) Placing the fire on the downwind side of the aircraft forces the equipment to approach the fire from the downwind side to gain access - through the fumes (bad for health & visibility) and they must get much closer, as the hoses are now forced to spray into wind.
Turning the aircraft to place the nose into the wind
The reasoning is after a conversation with a Senior Fire fighter, discussing the options of having a fire on the upwind or the downwind side. I was speaking of placing the fire on the downwind side, as per conventional pilot teaching, and he said he wanted the fire on the upwind side
From the fire & Rescue perspective, they want to be able to approach the fire in clear air (i.e. upwind of the fire) for best visibility, and have the maximum reach for their hoses (i.e. with the wind behind them.) Placing the fire on the downwind side of the aircraft forces the equipment to approach the fire from the downwind side to gain access - through the fumes (bad for health & visibility) and they must get much closer, as the hoses are now forced to spray into wind.
Turning the aircraft to place the nose into the wind
- Is always "correct" in that you never have to think where the fire is in relation to the wind, only where the wind is coming from. This is usually the last piece of information passed by the tower before take-off, and is obvious from the drift throughout the approach on landing.
- Gives access for the fire & rescue equipment to approach from the upwind side in every case,
- never requires more than a 90º turn, and usually less than that, and
- allows a "standard" brief for the flight attendants to brief the passengers - "Run towards the nose" - as this is always away from the fume trail, and towards the available help, AND as the rescue equipment and passengers are both running towards each other, has the best chance of avoiding a passenger being run over from a blind spot (i.e. from behind or from the side).
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkboard,
I appreciate where you are coming from. However, I would prefer to to make the fire fighting effort more challenging, but giving my customers a better chance of surviving.
Think of it this way, taking off in gusty winds: You place the aircraft nose into wind with the no.2 burning. Then a gust comes so the wind veers (in my latitudes anyhow) so now the wind is still blowing the flames onto the fuselage. Just imagine that happening after someone has opened the overwing and you have just cooked some customers.
Just my thoughts anyhow - I stick with conventional wisdom.
(90sec to get them out vs about 90 sec with a good fire team to get the RFF service there) What happens after everyone is out is up to the insurance team.
Brookfield - Our SOPs are similar. If you can't do a turn, don't. But if you do turn correctly, the increase in evac time will more than pay off the delay to vital actions.
BTW - Only ever seen LVP's in those sort of winds at JER....
I appreciate where you are coming from. However, I would prefer to to make the fire fighting effort more challenging, but giving my customers a better chance of surviving.
Think of it this way, taking off in gusty winds: You place the aircraft nose into wind with the no.2 burning. Then a gust comes so the wind veers (in my latitudes anyhow) so now the wind is still blowing the flames onto the fuselage. Just imagine that happening after someone has opened the overwing and you have just cooked some customers.
Just my thoughts anyhow - I stick with conventional wisdom.
(90sec to get them out vs about 90 sec with a good fire team to get the RFF service there) What happens after everyone is out is up to the insurance team.
Brookfield - Our SOPs are similar. If you can't do a turn, don't. But if you do turn correctly, the increase in evac time will more than pay off the delay to vital actions.
BTW - Only ever seen LVP's in those sort of winds at JER....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Cough there - checkboard will have an interesting time in a tailwind - which way to turn?
I think all of us will have trouble with your veering gutsy wind (Hmm...
), Cough? Even your/my SOPs will not prevent that unless you turn through more than 90 which would be most unlikely.
As for 'run towards the nose' - bad news for the rear exits! I think 'run away from the flames' is better?
I think all of us will have trouble with your veering gutsy wind (Hmm...
), Cough? Even your/my SOPs will not prevent that unless you turn through more than 90 which would be most unlikely. As for 'run towards the nose' - bad news for the rear exits!
I think 'run away from the flames' is better?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would also be disappointed to see that the Fire Services have little or no interest in assisting your pax during or after the evacuation. They are there to fight the fire. Once your pax are out, they're on their own.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times do you operate in a tail wind?
I think you are going to confuse your pax by briefing them to "Run towards the nose" and then to run "away from the flames" - Hmm! Which will win? Not the pax
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tlon, Uqbar
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there, I remember some time ago when flying on the classics that the Flight Crew Training Manual said the following regarding RTOs or Landings with an engine on fire, “If rejecting due to fire in windy conditions consider positioning the airplane so the fire is on the downwind side”. A word of caution applies when considering the turning of the aircraft when it is on fire. In your scenario, landing on Rwy 36 with wind 090/16 or greater, if you make an 180 turn wind will be on downwind side and survivability will be increased. But consider also that, on aircrafts without door opening assist mechanism, it will be difficult to open the door and to deploy and use slides, specially with more than 20kts of wind. Slides are tested for symmetrical and asymmetrical loads with wind speeds up to 25 kts. As Checkboard points out placing the nose into the wind will help and if winds are very strong some 20° out of the wind will be better. In your particular case Rwy 36, wind 090/16 or more and Engine 2 on fire, point the nose onto hdg 090° or 110°. This will blow flames away from fuselage and will permit full use of doors and slides on the opposite side. Time to turn the aircraft into the wind is very little and can be accommodated within the time needed to prepare the evacuation. Finally PCN or permission to make a turn on the runway doesn’t count if you are in an emergency situation.:
BOAC, I take-off or land with a small tailwind a couple of times a year perhaps - certainly I would say less than "quite a few" when considering it in terms of a percentage of operations. 
The answer was in response to a post about whether you would turn 180º on a runway after a landing with an engine fire. If that's the option you would take, fine. Personally, I wouldn't - as I stated, I would turn into wind.
The answer was in response to a post about whether you would turn 180º on a runway after a landing with an engine fire. If that's the option you would take, fine. Personally, I wouldn't - as I stated, I would turn into wind.
Last edited by Checkboard; 3rd Nov 2009 at 17:34.
I wouldn't brief the passengers to run towards the nose. The response before was more along the lines that should the FAs be asked, or wonder themselves, they have an answer - given all the caveats of a chaotic situation implied by an evacuation.
Yes, I know what fire fighters are there to do. Given I have sought out and discussed evacs with fire fighters, I should think this rather obvious.
My current company follows general UK practice, in that it offers no advice or training to any crew about how to advise or handle passengers once they are off the aircraft. This is implicit in some of the replies to this thread:
: attitudes which speak to lack of training and, dare I say it, lack of consideration for the welfare of the passengers when weighed against the chance of personal litigation. 
I prefer to think a bit further.
Yes, I know what fire fighters are there to do. Given I have sought out and discussed evacs with fire fighters, I should think this rather obvious.
My current company follows general UK practice, in that it offers no advice or training to any crew about how to advise or handle passengers once they are off the aircraft. This is implicit in some of the replies to this thread:
What happens after everyone is out is up to the insurance team.
Once your pax are out, they're on their own.
I prefer to think a bit further.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take-off or land with a small tailwind a couple of times a year perhaps
What if it's a brake fire? (No Left/Right indication there) What if it's a cargo fire?
Line up, note the wind (from either wind sock or tower report) set the ailerons into wind (see previous thread!
) begin the roll.
Bell rings or tower calls "Fire!", perform the abort, and with the last of the speed, turn into wind. Come to a stop, set the brake, call "Identify the failure".
Job done, and if the aircraft isn't positioned the best, I certainly know it isn't positioned the worst! I am also not attempting a high speed abort while looking down at the centre console, trying to work out what type of fire it is and on which side it is, and then decide which way I will turn.
Line up, note the wind (from either wind sock or tower report) set the ailerons into wind (see previous thread!
) begin the roll.Bell rings or tower calls "Fire!", perform the abort, and with the last of the speed, turn into wind. Come to a stop, set the brake, call "Identify the failure".
Job done, and if the aircraft isn't positioned the best, I certainly know it isn't positioned the worst! I am also not attempting a high speed abort while looking down at the centre console, trying to work out what type of fire it is and on which side it is, and then decide which way I will turn.
Last edited by Checkboard; 3rd Nov 2009 at 18:38.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkboard,
Just would highlight the fact that one everyone is off and safely positioned upwind by, well I could quote the distance in my ops manual but that would just be getting into nausea. No I would not walk away from an incident just because everyone is off - I would follow our SOP's on actions post evacuation, I'm sure you would do the same. My misquote from above merely highlights that once people are safe, I'm afraid that the material in the hull is not high in my list of priorities - Metal is cheap compared with life.
I would estimate that approximately 10-20% of my ops are tailwind. Not because I choose that, but because that is the reality of operating in many places.
Couple of quotes from yourself...
and
So which do you get your F/A's to do? I personally like BOAC's reply....
Just would highlight the fact that one everyone is off and safely positioned upwind by, well I could quote the distance in my ops manual but that would just be getting into nausea. No I would not walk away from an incident just because everyone is off - I would follow our SOP's on actions post evacuation, I'm sure you would do the same. My misquote from above merely highlights that once people are safe, I'm afraid that the material in the hull is not high in my list of priorities - Metal is cheap compared with life.
I would estimate that approximately 10-20% of my ops are tailwind. Not because I choose that, but because that is the reality of operating in many places.
Couple of quotes from yourself...
allows a "standard" brief for the flight attendants to brief the passengers - "Run towards the nose"
I wouldn't brief the passengers to run towards the nose.
Difficult to get messages across in text, I know 
The use of "standard" in quotes was supposed to be in the sense of "as we are not talking about any specific situation or set of circumstances". The bit about me not briefing passengers is because the company I currently work for only requires that I order the evacuation - by the time I make it back to the cabin most of the passengers will be out the door (I hope)...
My previous company discussed the "after evacuation" events in much greater detail, whereas my current company doesn't even touch on it - and I feel this is an error on their part - but I am not involved in the training department. My posts on this thread reflect that disappointment somewhat.
how do you expect your passengers to be positioned upwind?
The use of "standard" in quotes was supposed to be in the sense of "as we are not talking about any specific situation or set of circumstances". The bit about me not briefing passengers is because the company I currently work for only requires that I order the evacuation - by the time I make it back to the cabin most of the passengers will be out the door (I hope)...
My previous company discussed the "after evacuation" events in much greater detail, whereas my current company doesn't even touch on it - and I feel this is an error on their part - but I am not involved in the training department. My posts on this thread reflect that disappointment somewhat.
how do you expect your passengers to be positioned upwind?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I`ve been told about these all procedures you all guys posted above , but the latest informations I`ve got from instruction about this subject is that you should not position the aircraft and you should not say "Evacuate by the RH side , or Left side".You should only say "EVACUATE" and the F/A `s evaluate the situation and decide to what side they will evacuate.
I don`t especially agree with this last procedure , but even airbus now states that .
A-3TWENTY
I don`t especially agree with this last procedure , but even airbus now states that .
A-3TWENTY
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: N 06/W 75
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(...)and you should not say "Evacuate by the RH side , or Left side".You should only say "EVACUATE" and the F/A `s evaluate the situation and decide to what side they will evacuate.
I don`t especially agree with this last procedure
As far as the positioning of the aircraft goes, well, that sort of depends on how hard you wanna make it to the fire fighters. Put the cooking engine on the downwind side, and they'll have a harder time (by reasons stated by Checkboard before), but hey, that's why they are trained for, besides, they have the equipment to do so. If you wanna help'em out a bit, then you could do Checkboard's suggestion, and evacuate on the non-cooking side. Unless you have a tailwind.
WRT tailwind operations...usually you don't land with high tailwinds...10 knots tops for most aircraft; and if you have the emergency while in flight, who cares messing up the airport operations for a few minutes? Ask for the other runway or at least one with a most favourable wind.
That's my 2c
