FirstInFlight

I think you are recalling British Airtours 28M - 1985. It was a 737 departing MAN. Today most reports say that there was "confusion" but at the time it was reported that the FA's asked the captain whether to evacuate and were told not to evacuate (the flight crew thought they had a tire problem and were apparently unaware that the aircraft was on fire). The delay in evacuation was a factor in the number of deaths.

gooseman13

Of course not, because it would have required CNN to do some actual reporting (which I used to think journalists should do).

On the ATC Recording, the pilot asks the tower if any smoke is coming out of the engine. Tower says no, and pilot says something to the effect of ok we're going to cancel the evacuation. Tower comes back and says people are already coming down the slide at the rear of the airplane.

duniawala

Wasn't there another Airbus 320 which recently had an engine failure. I forget where but I do remember the report. Should I rethink about boarding another A320?

GRALISTAIR

+1

robsaw

Since it was an engine failure a more logical (although equally irrational) choice would be to avoid boarding any of the other aircraft that use the same engine family (which covers many more aircraft than the A320).

GRALISTAIR

absolutely +1 ^

modesto2

Contrary to what some have posted, the engine failure did not occur at the most critical point. Instead, it occurred in the climb which is much different than had it happened on the takeoff roll (i.e. V1 cut).

Additionally, I wouldn't hastily pass judgement about what the captain should or should not have done. Keep in mind that passengers often sustain injuries during evacuations, so if the flight crew determines that an evacuation is not necessary, why risk injury? I don't know all the circumstances surrounding this incident, so I'm just saying that people shouldn't be so quick to judge.

Furthermore, I hate how the media (and uninformed people) keep saying that an engine exploded (implying an uncontained engine failure that would involve a fan/turbine/compressor blade separation that passes through the engine cowling). If the engine had truly exploded, they would have had much bigger issues.

zippy the pinhead

The cabin pressure is provided by the engines via bleed air.

This emergency landing rippled through their system. My flight from SMF to LGB departed nearly four hours late last night.

84fiero

Thanks!

FLIHGH

You must not have ever seen serious smoke. In the accident you mentioned, everyone on the plane died from smoke and not fire. The plane was already in fire while in the air.
Were there any reports/pictures of the engine on fire? The pilots simply got an overheating warning. There were reports of an engine blowing, but no reports of the plane flying with an engine that was on fire.
I'm not sure why you feel the captain was reckless. Using the emergency slides almost always results in injuries. Bringing air stairs to the plane would have worked perfectly fine.

luckypierre

See "bleed air." The "smoke" being reported may be oil or hydraulic fluid heated past its normal operating temperature and drawn into the cabin.

DenverBrian

No one can tell the pax what nasties are in the smoke in the plane, four rows of visibility or not. Plus you have the oxygen masks deployed in a potential fire situation. In such a situation I'm headed as fast as I can for the exit - I'll take my chances on an evac injury over just sitting there and hoping a sudden fire doesn't break out.

mr27

Maybe this debris will help. http://ktla.com/2014/09/19/faa-to-in...in-long-beach/

cmn.jcs

Even if the crew says you're not evacuating? What if there's something else going on that you're not aware of?

luckypierre

The part shown in the local news piece is part of the nacelle's latching mechanism. Not sure what events could follow if a latch failed.