Just Witnessed US Accident at PHL [13 Mar 2014]

 
Old Mar 17, 2014, 3:30 pm
  #151  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Originally Posted by lizs
but it seems US Airways did not go above and beyond in this case.
From what's been said by those involved, once inside the terminal I don't disagree. I have no idea why only alcoholic beverages were served when there were presumably at least some children present, not counting any adults who may not drink alcohol. As for food, the passengers weren't going to get any on the plane and US doesn't keep a stock of meals/snacks in the terminal for such occasions, but meal vouchers could be handed out at some point for anyone wanting one.

Out at the scene, it's a different story. The airport controls access, not the airline. I suspect that the cars used by women and children to get out of the cold were those of the first responders and airport vehicles. Until US received approval to access the site there was nothing they could do.

Likewise, on-scene it's up to the first responders to make sure that any passengers wandering around are gathered into one group of all the passengers so any need for treatment could be assessed. I would expect that the first responders did a head count and checked it with the crew.

Jim
BoeingBoy is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2014, 3:39 pm
  #152  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Originally Posted by USD2BUSMC
But as a passenger, smelling fuel, seeing smoke, and hearing evacuate...I am getting off the plane as quickly as possible, even if it means a 20 ft jump.
And that is the reason for the FA to assess the situation outside their assigned exit(s). Take this situation and add a wing rupture, with fire around the rear of the plane. Are you still going to jump out of one of the rear exits? Even opening one of the exits can present problems in a crash - smoke and/or flames entering the cabin.

In an emergency situation, doing the wrong thing is often worse than taking extra time to do the right thing.

Jim
BoeingBoy is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2014, 4:19 pm
  #153  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Winston Salem, NC
Programs: Ex Plat, Avis President's, and various hoteliers...
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by BoeingBoy
And that is the reason for the FA to assess the situation outside their assigned exit(s). Take this situation and add a wing rupture, with fire around the rear of the plane. Are you still going to jump out of one of the rear exits? Even opening one of the exits can present problems in a crash - smoke and/or flames entering the cabin.

In an emergency situation, doing the wrong thing is often worse than taking extra time to do the right thing.

Jim

I completely and utterly agree.

To me its situational as I know enough about egress procedures to be dangerous. I've been in and around aviation all my life. My father was a pilot, first Marines, then with Northwest Orient. I was a USMC helicopter crewchieft responsible with the care and feeding of cargo and pax as well as assessing mechanical issues etc., and now I find myself in the business as an OEM. Even as a frequent flyer, I, as an aviation dork, read the evacuation procedures every (and I mean every) time I fly.) Long way to say that I have heard all the stories and been through alot of training...basically I am saying I realize that I don't know crap.

On the civilian side I have been involved in two "smoke" in the cabin incidents, one in a Falcon 50 and one US Airways A321. I'm man enough to admit that it get's pretty sporty when a few PAX are convinced we are going up in flames (screaming fire and sobbing uncontrollably) even when your common sense tells you otherwise...my key indicator is my limited experience and the crew. On the USAIR A321 the FA was calm, called the cockpit, and kept everyone undercontrol...by all accounts this FA froze...

In military aviation we lived and died by checklists (still have my pocket NATOPS)...this allowed you, even in a state of panic to muddle through the "right" thing. Not sure if FA have the same tools to augment their training, but it sounds as if they should.

The intent of the original post was to convey an understanding that we all think we will do things the right way, and judge the actions of others when the seem to freak out or freeze (FA), or (PAX) blow the hatch un-necessarily...but none of us truly know how we will perform until the real situation (heaven forbid) happens to us. I support the passengers posting here as well as the FA.
USD2BUSMC is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2014, 4:40 pm
  #154  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Charlotte
Programs: Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum Elite, AA Platinum Pro, Hertz Presidents
Posts: 1,214
Everyone seems to be saying the FA did the right thing by not opening the rear exit door. Very we'll may be true. However, it appears to be akin to a blind squirrel getting a nut. By pax accounts this wasn't a tactical decision wrought with logical thought-- it was a panic-stricken FA who froze.
Good for her/him that it worked out, but let's not pin a medal on the FA just yet.
scottsam66 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2014, 4:53 pm
  #155  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: AA Plat, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 425
Man, a FA can't get much love here, huh? I wasn't there, so I have no way to know, and hopefully without sounding curt, I have to wonder if the assessment that the FA was shell-shocked is accurate. I wonder this because the survivor reports sound like they were somewhat fearful fliers in a somewhat (if not very) panicked in a situation they never expected to be in, while the FA has presumably had extensive training for this kind of situation.

I would imagine that in pretty much every situation (the WN in LGA comes to mind) the passengers escaping the plane reported that they wished the FAs had done the evacuation more hurriedly.
dml105 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2014, 5:25 pm
  #156  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 4
If at all possible, can this thread be kept about WHY this plane did what it did and not about criticizing why pax grabbed belongings or the FA actions. As I stated in my original post this was a traumatic situation for all on board. I am still having issues on moving forward. I spent the day after, reading every article posted on the internet looking for answers as to WHY this happened. Amongst the articles and posts were the comments from those who did not witness nor experience this event. These comments beat me up, to honest. May sound weird to some, but they did. People were extremely negative and just flat out cold from their ignorance.

I would hate for anyone who was part of this experience to come on here and read more negativity and add to what ever feelings they are currently experiencing. I believe the purpose of the passengers posts was to get the truth, the experience out as to what occurred that day, not to start pointing fingers and making others feel bad.

This thread originally seemed to be about speculating what happened by experienced and knowledgeable people and if at all possible, can we keep it that way?
Survivor1702 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2014, 6:12 pm
  #157  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,741
Originally Posted by scottsam66
Everyone seems to be saying the FA did the right thing by not opening the rear exit door. Very we'll may be true. However, it appears to be akin to a blind squirrel getting a nut. By pax accounts this wasn't a tactical decision wrought with logical thought-- it was a panic-stricken FA who froze.
Good for her/him that it worked out, but let's not pin a medal on the FA just yet.
The rear exits were high off the ground and should not have been used. Reports state they doors were not opened by the flight attendant. That was the right move.

The only thing we don't don't know is if that was a deliberate or accidental act by the flight attendant.

Originally Posted by Survivor1702
If at all possible, can this thread be kept about WHY this plane did what it did and not about criticizing why pax grabbed belongings or the FA actions. As I stated in my original post this was a traumatic situation for all on board. I am still having issues on moving forward. I spent the day after, reading every article posted on the internet looking for answers as to WHY this happened. Amongst the articles and posts were the comments from those who did not witness nor experience this event. These comments beat me up, to honest. May sound weird to some, but they did. People were extremely negative and just flat out cold from their ignorance.

I would hate for anyone who was part of this experience to come on here and read more negativity and add to what ever feelings they are currently experiencing. I believe the purpose of the passengers posts was to get the truth, the experience out as to what occurred that day, not to start pointing fingers and making others feel bad.

This thread originally seemed to be about speculating what happened by experienced and knowledgeable people and if at all possible, can we keep it that way?
No one here actually knows how the incident occurred and anything said is just guesswork based on a partial disclosure of facts.

You are not going to know how the incident occurred until: 1) US Airways makes an announcement (unlikely); or 2) The NTSB issues its report a year or so from now (more likely).
Always Flyin is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2014, 6:28 pm
  #158  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by Always Flyin


No one here actually knows how the incident occurred and anything said is just guesswork based on a partial disclosure of facts.

You are not going to know how the incident occurred until: 1) US Airways makes an announcement (unlikely); or 2) The NTSB issues its report a year or so from now (more likely).
I fully understand that. This is why I said speculate.
Survivor1702 is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2014, 12:50 am
  #159  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Originally Posted by USD2BUSMC
In military aviation we lived and died by checklists (still have my pocket NATOPS)...this allowed you, even in a state of panic to muddle through the "right" thing. Not sure if FA have the same tools to augment their training, but it sounds as if they should.
Just one comment about the above then I'll leave this thread to speculation on the cause of the accident.

FA's do have an emergency checklist - really an emergency procedures booklet - but there's nowhere to stow it at/near their jumpseats so they keep it in their small carry-on bag stowed in an OHB near their assigned jumpseat, which probably made it inaccessible with the aisle full of passengers. The system isn't designed for using the checklist for an evacuation that happens with no warning. I've heard many FA's say that they recited their emergency evacuation procedures once seated for takeoff just in case.

Jim
BoeingBoy is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2014, 8:50 am
  #160  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ORD, MKE
Programs: Bonvoy LT Gold, Hilton Silver, Hyatt Discoverist, Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 710
Eyewitness account on Medscape (WebMD)

An oncologist on the flight discussed her experience of the crash on Medscape:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/...l&uac=142172HX
(You may need an account to get access; it is affliated with WebMD so an account there may work.)

The article mentions her grabbing her carry-on backpack before going out the exit window. Let the flaming begin...
megalab is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2014, 11:03 am
  #161  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 4
Interesting! I said I didn't want to comment on the rear FA, however, she said nothing to us about a blown tire. The Doctor stated her FA said it was a blown tire, which was causing the smoke. Had the rear of the plane knew that and understood that then maybe we would no have panicked???

While on the field, I asked the FA what she believed to have caused that and she said nothing about the blown tire.

How can one FA know something that another does not? Are they not a team?
Survivor1702 is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2014, 11:09 am
  #162  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
None of the flight attendants on that flight had any reliable information on the cause of the accident just moments after it happened.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2014, 12:08 pm
  #163  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP MM, HHonors Lifetime Diamond, Marriott Lifetime Ti, UA Silver
Posts: 5,030
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ
In this case we were primarily taking about decreasing thrust, not increasing thrust. But there's not a huge difference.

What you *feel* is the acceleration of the plane (which is determined by thrust), not the velocity. So if the engines are generating a certain level of thrust, then you will *feel* that immediately if you're sitting in the plane.
In terms of acceleration and what is perceived by passenger or pilot you're missing several very important terms here. Namely drag, lift, and gravity. Longitudinal acceleration during a flight can routinely be zero even with the engines generating relatively high levels of thrust if the drag on the aircraft is high.

Acceleration of an aircraft IS related to velocity because drag is related to airspeed. Drag is related to the configuration of the wing (flaps and slats deployed vs. retracted, etc.), airspeed, and angle of attack of the wing moving through the air.

Lift generated by the wing of an aircraft is also related to configuration of the wing, airspeed, and angle of attack.

The force of gravity depends on the mass of the aircraft at that moment (which does change as the aircraft burns off fuel but that is insignificant for this incident).

So if the reports above are true, the aircraft may have changed its angle of attack dramatically several times during the "bounces". With these bounces the longitudinal acceleration of the aircraft may have varied considerably, both positively and negatively, even with constant or increasing thrust output from the engines.

Additionally, the passenger's perceptions of overall acceleration would have been dramatically distorted during the bounces and impacts with the ground. There would have been considerable changes in lift developed by the wing as the angle of attack changed combined with very large reaction forces from the landing gear (both longitudinal and vertical).

Finally it appears there was considerable yaw and pitch changes experienced by the aircraft along with some roll, and these motions combine to generate accelerations for some passengers on the aircraft more so than others depending on where the passenger is located within the aircraft.

Because of all of this, passenger's perceptions of accelerations are typically not good indicators of what is actually happening to an aircraft.
PHLGovFlyer is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2014, 12:41 pm
  #164  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Charlotte
Programs: Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum Elite, AA Platinum Pro, Hertz Presidents
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
The rear exits were high off the ground and should not have been used. Reports state they doors were not opened by the flight attendant. That was the right move.

The only thing we don't don't know is if that was a deliberate or accidental act by the flight attendant.
This is not materially different than my post. Thanks for agreeing with me.
scottsam66 is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2014, 2:00 pm
  #165  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Originally Posted by PHLGovFlyer
Because of all of this, passenger's perceptions of accelerations are typically not good indicators of what is actually happening to an aircraft.
If anyone here ever gets a chance to observe a simulator in operation, from the outside of the sim, try to guess what maneuver the sim is simulating. Here's a hint - if the "nose" of the sim tilts up it's simulating either acceleration or a climb at constant speed. Both increase the pressure of the seat on your back and only visual/physical cues can distinguish which it is. Inside the sim, if the visual shows the plane on the runway and the power has just been pushed up the brain tells the body "we're accelerating." So a passenger with no visual cues can feel like the plane is accelerating from the nose pitching up. In short, the brain is easily mislead.

Would be pilots, before they're cleared for solo flight, go through exercises with their instructor. The instructor takes control of the plane and has the student put his head down so he can't see outside or the instruments. The instructor then put's the plane into some unusual attitude - nose high rolling left and speed decreasing for example. At the instructor's command, the student looks at the instruments and bring the plane back to cruise flight. The whole purpose is to teach the student to trust their instruments, not what they feel.

Jim

Last edited by BoeingBoy; Mar 18, 2014 at 2:06 pm
BoeingBoy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.