BA 777 on fire at LAS

[jb747]

This is being done to death on various forums and threads. Whilst what people will do in this sort of extreme situation is always going to cover the extremes of human behaviour, I find it extraordinary that anyone would try to justify taking their luggage as being ok. The BA example is perhaps a classic case, in that it all went off well, but if the fire hadn't been knocked down as quickly, and people were still evacuating, it could have gone terribly bad, very quickly. Not only is standing in the aisles getting luggage stupid (people should be literally running past each seat, not standing anywhere), but as soon as things really start going awry, that luggage is going to be abandoned in the aisles.

Something else that occurs to me with regard to having blinds open (whether for cabin crew to look out, or rescuers to look in), is that new aircraft have powered shades. That power won't be available during an evacuation, so if the blinds aren't in a convenient spot to start with, moving them won't be quickly possible either.

 

[moa999]

Agree with jb747,
It worked out on this occasion as the flames didn't spread too quickly, and the firies got it under control.

The rules are against luggage for a number of reasons.

On the plane
- extra time taken to open bins and retrieve
- extra time to move it down a packed aisle
- injury risk of banging it into someone
- blockage risk if it is abandoned midway

Outside the plane
- Risk of injuring other people at the end of the slide
- Risk of tearing/ catching and deflating the slide

Much like the 'don't inflate life vests until outside the aircraft' - think this needs more emphasis in the safety briefings.
And if the pax does appear at an exit with luggage, said luggage should be tossed over the side of the slide and not go with the passenger

Also somewhat surprised that a few pax weren't wearing the safety vests (I know it only really helps in water/ dark but might think some would reach for it anyway)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And if the pax does appear at an exit with luggage, said luggage should be tossed over the side of the slide and not go with the passenger

Also somewhat surprised that a few pax weren't wearing the safety vests (I know it only really helps in water/ dark but might think some would reach for it anyway)

That means having to wrestle the bag off the passenger, with a possible delay while that happens. And the risk of hitting someone on the ground with the bag, or obstructing the path of emergency vehicles trying to get to the aircraft.

I think on the CX evacuation at PVG the crew managed to put some bags onto the adjacent economy seats - but this is always possible. If there's a bulkhead (for example in business/first class) there may be no where to place bags without obstructing the aisles.

I'm not surprised passengers weren't wearing life vests. No reason to in the desert. People would no doubt have been criticised for delaying the evacuation while putting them on!

Hopefully the investigation will examine the issue of cabin baggage and measures to counter passengers wanting to carry it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The accident report into the Air France overrun and fire at Toronto makes for sobering reading. Nearly 50% of passengers attempted to retrieve their cabin bags.

The following excerpt shows how persistent some passengers can be:

In a second case, a cabin attendant noted that a passenger blocked egress while retrieving and arranging items in his carry-on baggage. The passenger did not respond tothe attendant's commands to leave his baggage and go to the emergency exit, nor did herespond to the angry comments from passengers standing behind him. Consequently, the attendant had to redirect passengers through the middle bank of seats to the other side of the aircraft to access the only available emergency exit in the aft cabin.

The report provides some possible insight into why passengers retrieve their belongings:

There are at least two factors that influence passengers' behaviour with respect to retrieval ofcarry-on baggage. The first is human's propensity for affiliative behaviour in emergency situations. Affiliative behaviour manifests itself as passenger movement toward the familiar,most commonly displayed as passengers collecting carry-on baggage from overhead bins(trains, aircraft) or by returning to their cabin (trains, cruise ships, ferries) to collect valuablesbefore evacuating. A second contributing factor is inadequate provision of safety information.Many passengers may not know that they are not to evacuate an aircraft with their carry-onbaggage. Less than half of passengers look at or read safety information cards, and underpresent regulations, this is the only means by which such information is provided to thembefore departure.

And crew instructions during the evacuation:

Although cabin crew shout to passengers to leave their carry-on baggage behind during emergency evacuations, this information is provided at a time when passengers are highly stressed and the noise level in the cabin is likely fairly high - not an optimal time for understanding or adhering to critical safety information.

Full report is here: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2005/a05h0002/a05h0002.pdf

 

[Meggsy]

This is being done to death on various forums and threads. Whilst what people will do in this sort of extreme situation is always going to cover the extremes of human behaviour, I find it extraordinary that anyone would try to justify taking their luggage as being ok. The BA example is perhaps a classic case, in that it all went off well, but if the fire hadn't been knocked down as quickly, and people were still evacuating, it could have gone terribly bad, very quickly. Not only is standing in the aisles getting luggage stupid (people should be literally running past each seat, not standing anywhere), but as soon as things really start going awry, that luggage is going to be abandoned in the aisles.

Couldn't agree more with jb747's comments on this. Any body that tries to justify it is okay to retrieve carry on during an evacuation is just selfish and deluded.
The British Air Tours 737 disaster at Manchester in 1985 is a classic example of a perfectly survivable incident that went tragically wrong due to delays in evacuation which resulted in 55 deaths.

I quote from the investigation report
"Any delay in a critical evacuation - ie one where the cabin is threatened by fire/smoke invasion - is potentially very serious due to the attendant debilitation/incapacitation of the evacuating passengers. The onset of debilitation increases the delay, which in turn increases the inhalation of toxics leading to incapacitation/collapse of increasing number of passengers, rapidly escalating the problem of egress. This closed loop process can thus lead to stagnation of the evacuation."

Notwithstanding the significant improvements in cabin design, fire retarding materials, etc, since this disaster the above premise does not change and people just need to get out as quickly as possible to allow every one the same opportunity.

 

[RooFlyer]

I've done 6 flights in Nth America over the past week and have been pretty unimpressed with the application of the 'safety rules' on board by the FAs and have little wonder that instructions might get ignored when being given in an actual emergency.

* Allowing passengers to get up and use the toilets when seatbelt sign on: today's flight YYC-SEA 5 passengers did this on an AS Q400 after the seat belt came on for landing (it came on pretty early, with mild turbulence going over mountains). Nothing said over the PA.

* Guy opposite the aisle from me had his laptop on the empty seat next to him on take-off - definitely seen by FA; nothing said. (I've previously documented laptops on laps on take-off, in the row right in front of the FAs at the front of the aircraft and large 'service dog' on the lap of a passenger, unrestrained on take-off.)

* Talking on phones well after doors closed, with conversation audible throughout the cabin!

* Guys talking loudly when the safety demo being given - hard to hear the FA speech - they just ignored the talkers.

* One of 2 people sitting by an exit row adjacent from me was to me obviously intoxicated; the AC FA doing the emergency exit briefing either didn't notice or ignored it. Half way through the flight the pax made an (audible) joke about opening the door.

* Pax standing and getting into the overhead lockers when the aircraft stops, but well before the seatbelt sign comes off. Nothing said the 3 out of the 6 flights where this happened.


If passengers are allowed to ignore safety instructions as a matter of course, why should they treat the instruction to leave carry-on behind in an emergency any more seriously?

Thankfully in Australia the FAs are very much more pro-active in implementing the safety instructions before, during and after the flight.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I've done 6 flights in Nth America over the past week and have been pretty unimpressed with the application of the 'safety rules' on board by the FAs and have little wonder that instructions might get ignored when being given in an actual emergency.

* Allowing passengers to get up and use the toilets when seatbelt sign on: today's flight YYC-SEA 5 passengers did this on an AS Q400 after the seat belt came on for landing (it came on pretty early, with mild turbulence going over mountains). Nothing said over the PA.

* Guy opposite the aisle from me had his laptop on the empty seat next to him on take-off - definitely seen by FA; nothing said. (I've previously documented laptops on laps on take-off, in the row right in front of the FAs at the front of the aircraft and large 'service dog' on the lap of a passenger, unrestrained on take-off.)

* Talking on phones well after doors closed, with conversation audible throughout the cabin!

* Guys talking loudly when the safety demo being given - hard to hear the FA speech - they just ignored the talkers.

* One of 2 people sitting by an exit row adjacent from me was to me obviously intoxicated; the AC FA doing the emergency exit briefing either didn't notice or ignored it. Half way through the flight the pax made an (audible) joke about opening the door.

* Pax standing and getting into the overhead lockers when the aircraft stops, but well before the seatbelt sign comes off. Nothing said the 3 out of the 6 flights where this happened.


If passengers are allowed to ignore safety instructions as a matter of course, why should they treat the instruction to leave carry-on behind in an emergency any more seriously?

Thankfully in Australia the FAs are very much more pro-active in implementing the safety instructions before, during and after the flight.

What happened when you told the FA that the passenger at the exit row was intoxicated? If they ignored you I would suggest you report that directly to the airline and the DOT. If this was a passenger operated exit you can say something (I have done previously and the passenger was moved).

Unsecured laptop - not good.

Talking during briefing - not good but difficult to police.

Using the WC while seatbelt sign is on, cabin crew should advise you to sit down especially if landing is imminent. But this varies by airline. Some will illuminate the sign very early (up to 30 minutes when the instruction is given to crew to prepare the cabin for landing). Others don't (like QF). Depending on the airline, and if the seat-belt sign comes on unexpectedly early, I admit to sometimes using that immediate moment as a cue to use the WC.

Talking on cell phone while doors closed - pretty common. You are allowed to talk on mobiles on many airlines immediately on exiting the runway. Possibly people don't appreciate the difference. Comes down to education.

 

[k_sheep]

Knowing the CSM concerned, I'm not surprised. He'd probably do it to my bag too.

Now that I'd pay to see.
CSM: "No bags Cap'n!"
JB: "But it's the flight manual and checklist and ..."
*CSM throws bag through window* "I said NO BAGS!"

 

[banger2]

To my untrained eyes looks like there are still some tyres on the fire damage side that remained inflated....which would be impressive if true considering the heat (even if only for a "short" period).

Kind of OT....recently on a Cebu Pacific flight in the overwing exit row the flight attendant checked with each of us we were capable and accepting to assist with the exit procedures in an emergency. I am sure there were 2 people that paid no attention to her request, but 3 of us replied.

After the request I was pondering how to actually open the exit (although I have read the instructions on other aircraft before), so reading both the sticker on the window panel and instruction card...it seemed straight forward, other than on throwing the exit window out of the aircraft, but thought wouldnt it foul the slide? I am sure the door had a weight of 15kg...someone mentioned 20+kg....this was on an A320, maybe different on other aircraft.

 

[Boris spatsky]

After the request I was pondering how to actually open the exit (although I have read the instructions on other aircraft before), so reading both the sticker on the window panel and instruction card...it seemed straight forward, other than on throwing the exit window out of the aircraft, but thought wouldnt it foul the slide? I am sure the door had a weight of 15kg...someone mentioned 20+kg....this was on an A320, maybe different on other aircraft.

The overwings on most narrowbodies don't have slides. You go down the wing to get to the ground usually.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The overwings on most narrowbodies don't have slides. You go down the wing to get to the ground usually.

For the 737/MD80/RJ family no. But they do for A320s and 757s.

 

[Boris spatsky]

For the 737/MD80/RJ family no. But they do for A320s and 757s.

Ok clearly i don't fly an A320! Thanks for the heads up.

 

[jb747]

A door thrown out on to the wing represents very little danger to the off wing ramp. But, if kept inside can easily contribute to blocking an exit.

 

[mjt57]

At least Im being honest in admitting I would most probably grab my handbag, hopefully I will never be in the situation to find out.

Difficult decision to make, I suppose. People will often have their medications (not talking about panadol here) in their handbags or carry-ons amongst other essentials, that if lost or stolen, would be difficult to replace.

 

[Moody]

Difficult decision to make, I suppose. People will often have their medications (not talking about panadol here) in their handbags or carry-ons amongst other essentials, that if lost or stolen, would be difficult to replace.

When leaving an aircraft in an emergency, carrying ANYTHING in your hands is moronic. The only thing that is essential to have is your life ......

 

[opusman]

When leaving an aircraft in an emergency, carrying ANYTHING in your hands is moronic. The only thing that is essential to have is your life ......

What about those irreplaceable things like wallet and passport! Can't possibly get those anywhere. Oh and medication - because everyone knows they don't have doctors and pharmacies overseas. And don't get me started on cameras!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What about those irreplaceable things like wallet and passport! Can't possibly get those anywhere. Oh and medication - because everyone knows they don't have doctors and pharmacies overseas. And don't get me started on cameras!

Passport and wallet loss would be hugely inconvenient, but replaceable. I suppose you may even be able to fly back to Australia without a passport in such circumstances.

medication on the other hand can be tricky. Some medications are not available in some countries, and even if it is, it can't simply be prescribed without tests and/or a consultation with a specialist. Even referring back to Australia with the time difference could be an issue.

 

[opusman]

Passport and wallet loss would be hugely inconvenient, but replaceable. I suppose you may even be able to fly back to Australia without a passport in such circumstances.

Death is probably more inconvenient?

Emergency evacuations are not like the fire drills you have at work, I'm amazed people still don't seem to grasp this concept.

 

[jb747]

As I read the various defences that are presented for intentionally carrying luggage off an aircraft in cases like this I realise that there isn't really a way of making passengers see aircraft the way pilots do.

Basically, passengers see aircraft as buildings that shake.

Pilots see aircraft as machines that are trying to kill them.

Not much middle ground there.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Death is probably more inconvenient?

Emergency evacuations are not like the fire drills you have at work, I'm amazed people still don't seem to grasp this concept.

This is the thing... some people, for whatever reason (and there are several), aren't appreciating the risk of the situation. And in some 'precautionary' evacuations there is no apparent immediate danger. Unless you are there, it's hard to know how you would react in any given circumstance.

The US Airways ditching on the Hudson... didn't look like anyone took baggage with them there. Urgent situation, water flooding in. People upped and went. For one of many reasons here, the same urgency wasn't appreciated.

The accident report from Air Fance at Toronto already provided some answers (but not solutions). Maybe more will come out of this investigation.