WhyteIG

Where can I read this?

st7860

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...e+Search&meta=

feitefrank

That's the spirit I'd like to see!

Luckily, I tend to prefer window seats so it seems rather unlikely (here comes the probability again) I would be trampled by a detouring herd of panicking imbeciles as I calmly gather the items I deem necessary. If trapped in a hard current of stumbling fools, I guess I have to go with the flow, we can save the fist fight for another time perhaps.

Trav+

In simple terms anyone can understand: in an emergency, seconds count.

Last night one of my coworkers found a patient smoking in bed. She didn't pause to consider the niceties of the situation but took his gasper, did a quick search of his bedside locker and confiscated the rest of his tobacco and matches. He yelled a lot, but too bad for him.

Had my coworker done a round two minutes later the Smoker may have been lying in a smouldering bed after having dropped his ciggie.

I could quote a number of other emergency situations I've experienced where quick action was key but there's no point, since feitefrank seems to have made up his mind.

Panic Stations

frank - Your sang froid is admirable but in the Manchester disaster people went over the seat backs to get to the exits so sitting in a window seat is no guarantee that you won't be used as a human climbing frame. You can deride the panicking imbeciles all you like but when the human cork plugs the overwing exit it'll be the panicking imbeciles who are sitting outside and you might be left inside with your passport and keys in hand thinking "S***!.

Lurker - depending on the cirumstances you may, or may not here an announcement from the pilots stating "This is an emergency, evacuate evacuate". The evac alarm itself is a very loud repetitive beeper, which differs from aircaft type to type but is generally unmistakable. If all else fails the cabin crew yelling at you is usually a good sign something is amiss.

typical

You might want to check out Appendix 14 of the AAIB report into the Manchester British Airtours disaster. In particular, what happened to those pax furthest from an exit that could be used... and, no doubt, some of those who stopped to collect the items they deemed necessary.

ojs555

I'm slightly wary of posting this link which does indeed show what it's like to be inside an aircraft while the "Brace Brace" is sounding, because it's obviously not a 777 aircraft (and I apologise for posting the full-screen link on a poor-quality vid. Perhaps someone more tech-savvy than me can help).

Aircraft-type aside though, the interesting part for me is how passengers don't react in the way you'd expect... As can be seen from the discussion over the need to repeat "Brace Brace" - because passengers might stand up if it's just said once, thinking everything's OK. It's very easy to say (for example), "why open the door on the side of an aircraft where the engines are obviously on fire" or "of course I'd be able to undo my seat-belt"... But clearly in the heat of the moment things are very different.

As a slight aside, there are more videos in a similar vein on YouTube. For example, this one shows a take-off (and landing) from GIB with a bird-strike shortly after take-off; and here you can watch an aborted landing. Both shot from inside the aircraft. This vid is a walk-through of a BA777 and gives a good idea of the size of the aircraft - and all the more kudos to the CSD for walking through the aircraft post-evacuation to check if anyone was left behind.

P.S. Anyone who wants to find out some more advice about the safest way to approach a ditching may well be advised to check out this site which appears to contain some very sensible advice.

LHR Tim

For the US Airways E-75 emergency landing a regular Youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpziayoopEA

feitefrank

Panic, we appear to have a communication problem. I base my assumptions on probability. You (and others) refute this by outlining highly selective anecdotes illustrating the severity of the improbable. That does not change the risk significantly, so there is no logical reason for me to change my mind, even if I somehow had managed to be completely unaware that many people have suffered slow and painful deaths in airplanes. It is still highly improbable that I (or any individual or small group) will face such a situation, just as it is highly probable that the improbable will occur given a larger population.

There is no guarantee that a large meteor won't strike our planet in the next minute, but it is not likely. I do not worry about this possibility. You might perhaps run to your bomb-proof shelter while you recap the demise of the dinosaurs. It has happened before, it might happen again! Remember, EVERY SECOND COUNTS! Or does this fascination with improbable events only apply to airliners? Does it need to have higher probability or more emotional, empathic human face to matter?

While my approach might be a bit on the theoretical side, surely we can agree that panicking rarely benefits anyone. Identifying the proper and appropriate action is far more important than quick action, always. For that, our instincts are not half bad, but still weak compared to a well-functioning brain, that can process reality, including the kind not dumbed down to fit on a safety card.

Wingnut

And with such an all encompassing understanding of probability, why on earth shouldn't you?

Mycaptain

I really meant to write this a few years ago, but here goes...

Most ILS approaches are based on a 3deg glideslope. Why? It allows no margin for multiple engine failures, which as we know never happen (East Midlands?). Dragging the office in low n dirty annoys the residents and keeps the paying public happy with a nice greasy touch down... but its not really that clever is it?

Isnt it time to re-look at these things...

Dont know about h2o, try not to drink the stuff in China! Still seems likely that the fuel stopped getting to the motors either coz something turned the taps off, or there wasnt any of any note...

Nice job getting it in though...... A few yards nearer the keys (or indeed a little higher on the slope [there I go again]) and we would never have known (publicly) about this.... mmmm...

IAMORGAN

I have waited until now to post because I knew that the 'incident' at LHR would provoke a rather passionate and heated response from some FT'ers. I would like to firstly make the point that in my opinion, arguing amongst each other doesn't get us anywhere; some posts have accused moderators of being biased, whilst others seem to have been mis-informed, but we are all entitled to our opinion (in my opinion!)

It is clear that the cause of the incident at this stage is not fully known, and I am not about to speculate because I really don't know what I am talking about, but it seems BA has ruled out pilot error due to the way they have displayed their flightcrew, this seems interesting to me.

The pilots, it seems to be already a given, did a sterling job in crashing the plane at Heathrow as opposed to at Hatton Cross, maybe this was a bit of luck in a perverse kind of way -who knows at this stage.

For me, what this incident confirms is that the Cabin Service Teams make BA stand out from the crowd; I think that the actions of Sharron Eaton-Merser and her team, in particular, her checking on the flight deck crew after safely evacuating the pax really is a fitting testiment to the quality of the vast majority of BA's crew.

I don't think enough has been said about the passengers in this; they also seemed to act responsibly and luckily didn't seem to panic, which is crucial in any emergency whether it's on a plane or in an earthquake. As for those pax who made comments about BA not looking after them enough, I wasn't there (thank God) but I can understand their annoyance at being detained to be interviewed, even though I completely accept the reasons why this had to be done -I would be a little annoyed too that I had crash landed at LHR and was now being delayed, especially given the emotional upheaval these events inevitably cause. I am sure that the teams at LHR did their best and it is great to hear that pax were offered clothes/transport etc.

I flew from MAN-DME via LHR today and there still seems to be a great deal of disruption in terms of delays, but the ground staff today seemed to genuinely be interested in getting people to where they need to be -well done!

Finally, am I put off flying BA? I'd love to say no, but something inside me questions why the incident happened; was it a maintenace oversight? Is there a problem with the software on certain 777s? I will, I'm sure, feel better when AAIB release their full report. It's interesting how the media has responded to this, the Mail talked of the cabin being 'smoke filled' -I certainly didn't think that was the case? It's also interesting how they make such a point of mentioning that the captain was the PNF and Coward, the SFO, the PF. Whilst I am normally critical of BAA, the speed of the emergency response seemed pretty quick to me, and the airport didn't resemble as much chaos as I thought it would.

I hope that all involved manage to move on from what must be a traumatic incident and that whatever lessons, if any, need to be learned from the incident, are learnt.

chucko

The Beeb says the aircraft is being moved Sunday morning. Spottie is all over it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/7197506.stm

alanh

Plane crashes are low probability events to begin with, and double-engine failures even rarer. So if you try to rule out unlikely causes, you rule out everything and conclude it didn't crash.

Apart from bird strikes on both engines at once, the failure of the engines means that either or both of BA and Boeing did something wrong -- no fuel, bad maintenance, or a design flaw.

Some of these will be easy to rule out. I'm sure they've measured the amount of fuel they've removed from the aircraft and recorded what the black box measured. Birds will leave chopped up poultry in the engines.

Wexflyer

Except that having fuel in the tanks would not appear to necessarily rule out engine fuel starvation. Suppose there is water in the tanks - it freezes at high altitude. As the plane descends, the ice starts to melt and forms slush. Could this slush be ingested into the engine fuel line, blocking or partly blocking it? Point is, that after a short time the ice/slush will completely melt, and blockage is no longer there....