Copilot jumps out

 
Old Feb 3, 06, 1:50 am
  #121  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SQL
Programs: SPG Platinum; Hyatt Platinum; UA 1K
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by flyinbob
As I recall you can activate the slides manually with the door open.
Ignoring the raging debate for a moment: The problem with inflating a slide is that it needs to be attached to the bottom of the doorway (as opposed to the door itself) to be useful- but on every plane I know of, the slide is contained on the door. So if it were activated it would still be hanging on the door and there would still be a really large first step getting down from the plane.
VPescado is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 6:37 am
  #122  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Programs: Southwest A-List+ due to work. Paid F or Biz for pleasure so not a mileage junkie
Posts: 11,137
Originally Posted by flyinbob
As I recall you can activate the slides manually with the door open. Anyone know if that is possible on the 737?
No, it is not. See post # 75 for an explanation of how door arming and the slide mechanism works. Bottom line: once the door is opened in the unarmed position, the slide cannot be deployed. The door has to be re-shut (which is difficult; see below), and then armed, and then opened again, before the slides will deploy.


If not, that would seem to me to be a bigger problem, since all the doors are disarmed before the main door opens. So any of those doomsday scenarios that have been presented here with regard to gate disasters would also apply to every plane on the ground.
I am not sure what you mean how that "would also apply to every plane on the ground." Other planes on the ground don't open their doors until they are parked at the gate with the jetway (or airstairs) attached, negating the need for slides. If the need for an evacuation arises while the plane is attached to the jetway, it is generally faster and easier to get people off through the jetway. If it is such an extreme emergency that people need to jump out of any opening, it is much easier to simply arm the other (closed) doors and then open them, then it is to try to close the door that was opened in the situation under discussion in order to arm it.

It is actually very difficult to close an airplane door from inside the airplane unless there is a way to get it started by first stepping outside onto a jetway or airstairs to get the door going. You would be surprised as this is something most people never think of, but one topic covered in F/A training is how to open and close an unarmed door, because closing it is trickier than it seems. In the case here it would have been very difficult to get the door closed to re-arm it if necessary since there would have been nothing to step onto outside the plane.
Bear96 is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 6:54 am
  #123  
JS
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by Bear96
No, it is not. See post # 75 for an explanation of how door arming and the slide mechanism works. Bottom line: once the door is opened in the unarmed position, the slide cannot be deployed. The door has to be re-shut (which is difficult; see below), and then armed, and then opened again, before the slides will deploy.



I am not sure what you mean how that "would also apply to every plane on the ground." Other planes on the ground don't open their doors until they are parked at the gate with the jetway (or airstairs) attached, negating the need for slides. If the need for an evacuation arises while the plane is attached to the jetway, it is generally faster and easier to get people off through the jetway. If it is such an extreme emergency that people need to jump out of any opening, it is much easier to simply arm the other (closed) doors and then open them, then it is to try to close the door that was opened in the situation under discussion in order to arm it.
Aha! So how is that any different than this situation? The rear doors were closed but unarmed. Are we not taking a risk every time we board a plane with unarmed rear doors? Maybe we should lobby the FAA to require all unopened doors to be armed at all times in case a fuel truck slams into the front of a plane and causes a fireball that blocks the one and only available exit on the port front side of the plane.
JS is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 7:46 am
  #124  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by JS
Aha! So how is that any different than this situation? The rear doors were closed but unarmed. Are we not taking a risk every time we board a plane with unarmed rear doors? Maybe we should lobby the FAA to require all unopened doors to be armed at all times in case a fuel truck slams into the front of a plane and causes a fireball that blocks the one and only available exit on the port front side of the plane.
Did you even read the post you quoted? Here, I'll help.
Originally Posted by Bear96
If it is such an extreme emergency that people need to jump out of any opening, it is much easier to simply arm the other (closed) doors and then open them, then it is to try to close the door that was opened in the situation under discussion in order to arm it.

It is actually very difficult to close an airplane door from inside the airplane unless there is a way to get it started by first stepping outside onto a jetway or airstairs to get the door going.
murphy is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 8:00 am
  #125  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by flyinbob
No it isn't junior high, but neither did the copilot do anything to endanger the passengers. The reporting of the guy was undoubtedly by some ex-TSA rule lover. Dumb of the copilot to jump? Probably. Dangerous? No.

As I recall you can activate the slides manually with the door open. Anyone know if that is possible on the 737? If not, that would seem to me to be a bigger problem, since all the doors are disarmed before the main door opens. So any of those doomsday scenarios that have been presented here with regard to gate disasters would also apply to every plane on the ground.
Most airline pilots are extremely conservative, and follow procedures to the letter. They use good judgment, and err on the side of caution. There's a reason for this. They understand that the checklists and procedures were created for one reason - to minimize the possibility of problems.

There are some pilots who don't fit this mold. They're more willing to take chances and cut corners. Regardless of the amount of actual danger from this pilot's actions, if I were this pilot's supervisor, behavior like this would certainly set off alarm bells. If nothing else, it shows poor judgment, and the willingness to ignore procedures when they're not convenient. The NTSB database is full of pilots with this attitude.
murphy is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 8:07 am
  #126  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by hiflyer66
--This whole incident, if descibed accurately, probably warrants nothing more than an a$$ chewing followed up by a pat on the back for accomplishing the mission.
Accomplishing the mission? He's not Maverick shooting down MiGs. His mission was to sit in the right seat until the people whose lives he's responsible for get off his airplane. I'd said he failed to accomplish the misssion. I'll bet you're right about the ... chewing though.
murphy is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 9:31 am
  #127  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Programs: Southwest A-List+ due to work. Paid F or Biz for pleasure so not a mileage junkie
Posts: 11,137
Originally Posted by JS
Maybe we should lobby the FAA to require all unopened doors to be armed at all times in case a fuel truck slams into the front of a plane and causes a fireball that blocks the one and only available exit on the port front side of the plane.
Maybe you should. Go right ahead. Let us know how the lobbying effort turns out.

By the way, the situation you describe is already taken care of, to the extent reasonable (though I know you will go off on an unreasonable tangent). Procedure (FAA or UA's; not sure which) during fueling is to have all F/As at their doors (and I think to have all doors armed, though I can't remember for sure) in case there is a problem during fueling which requires a quick evacuation.

JS, I am not even sure what you are talking about or what your point is at this point. With each post you seem to stray further and further from what originally happened with the situation in the OP, I guess to show that a particular procedure might not be 100% effective against in a particular situation? I dunno. Maybe you amuse yourself playing elaborate games of "Gotcha!" with anyone who is patient (stupid?) enough to try to explain things to you that you might not be aware of. Whatever. You apparently think you know all there is to know about the details of airplane and airport operations. Even I -- who worked for UA for many years and who holds a commercial pilot's license -- am not arrogant enough to think I know all about the aviation world. But if you already know all, there is not much point trying to explain anything to you.

If your point is that no safety procedure is 100% effective against any possibility, I agree. If your point is that some safety procedures may seem like overkill in certain situations, I agree with that as well. But I don't really have the time or energy to justify everything about aviation procedures you disagree with because you just don't know how everything works behind the scenes. You claim no one has responded to you with specifics; I have tried.

You have made it clear that you feel there is absolutely nothing unsafe about people jumping out of airplane doors many feet above the ground, no matter what anyone says. Fine.
Bear96 is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 9:53 am
  #128  
JS
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by Bear96
...
You have made it clear that you feel there is absolutely nothing unsafe about people jumping out of airplane doors many feet above the ground, no matter what anyone says. Fine.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't think it's a big deal.
JS is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 12:54 pm
  #129  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by Bear96
Maybe you should. Go right ahead. Let us know how the lobbying effort turns out.

By the way, the situation you describe is already taken care of, to the extent reasonable (though I know you will go off on an unreasonable tangent). Procedure (FAA or UA's; not sure which) during fueling is to have all F/As at their doors (and I think to have all doors armed, though I can't remember for sure) in case there is a problem during fueling which requires a quick evacuation.

JS, I am not even sure what you are talking about or what your point is at this point. With each post you seem to stray further and further from what originally happened with the situation in the OP, I guess to show that a particular procedure might not be 100% effective against in a particular situation? I dunno. Maybe you amuse yourself playing elaborate games of "Gotcha!" with anyone who is patient (stupid?) enough to try to explain things to you that you might not be aware of. Whatever. You apparently think you know all there is to know about the details of airplane and airport operations. Even I -- who worked for UA for many years and who holds a commercial pilot's license -- am not arrogant enough to think I know all about the aviation world. But if you already know all, there is not much point trying to explain anything to you.

If your point is that no safety procedure is 100% effective against any possibility, I agree. If your point is that some safety procedures may seem like overkill in certain situations, I agree with that as well. But I don't really have the time or energy to justify everything about aviation procedures you disagree with because you just don't know how everything works behind the scenes. You claim no one has responded to you with specifics; I have tried.

You have made it clear that you feel there is absolutely nothing unsafe about people jumping out of airplane doors many feet above the ground, no matter what anyone says. Fine.
Good points. Another reason for not taking risks like this is that, like most companies today, United pays a hefty amount of insurance premiums for workers' compensation. Had he been injured, not only would UA's modification rate be affected, but OSHA might have been called in as well. What UA doesn't need at this point are expenses which can be avoided.
SFFlyman is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 1:47 pm
  #130  
JS
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by SFFlyman
Good points. Another reason for not taking risks like this is that, like most companies today, United pays a hefty amount of insurance premiums for workers' compensation. Had he been injured, not only would UA's modification rate be affected, but OSHA might have been called in as well. What UA doesn't need at this point are expenses which can be avoided.
UA's worker's compensation rates would go up if the pilot were injured? Do you have any idea how large UA is? Ridiculous.
JS is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 1:53 pm
  #131  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Programs: Southwest A-List+ due to work. Paid F or Biz for pleasure so not a mileage junkie
Posts: 11,137
SFFlyman,

It's like talking to an arrogant and condescending brick wall, isn't it?
Bear96 is offline  
Old Feb 3, 06, 2:59 pm
  #132  
Moderator Hilton Honors, Travel News, West, The Suggestion Box, Smoking Lounge & DiningBuzz
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: AS MVP Gold, Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 34,444
The poster who reported this thread and suggested putting it out of its misery was quite right.

cblaisd
Moderator, United
cblaisd is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: