Turkish Airlines A330-300 has crash-landed in Kathmandu (Nepal)

[Flanker2]

No they dont? Once the evacuation is complete and everybody is out of the aircraft yes. But not when the evac is still in progress. Please refrain from commenting on professionals if you dont know what you're saying is right!

What you say is a general standard, but it doesn't apply to all situations.
On a B738 where there are more exits than cabin crew you can't do that, but on widebodies if you have more cabin crew than doors, it's not a luxury to have cabin crew members on the ground. Actually you guys have to man each station/door, but if there are excess cabin crews and there is no urgency inside the aircraft and one (potential one) outside the aircraft, it's part of your duties to assess whether excess cabin crew should stay aboard or start executing the post-evacuation (assembling to a safe area, start head count) plan to assist the cabin crew that is still aboard.

For instance in this case I see that there is a lot of non-essential personnel around the aircraft that are just standing there, in the way. Pax stopping and taking pictures or filming.
So there is more hazard outside the aircraft than inside the aircraft and having excess crews outside is a commendable solution, wouldn't you agree?


@Tolipanebas. Widebody evacuations have the risk to cause more injury than the situation itself.
Have a read here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practica ... ner-4.html

In SIN, hot fuel was leaking on 900°C brakes. That is more risky than this situation?
I doubt it. So what does it say in the manual? "If you land next to the runway and nose gear collapses, evacuate"? Always follow the manual, right?

An evacuation is always a decision for the captain, unless cabin crew assess that the situation warrants an evacuation.

[sean1982]

Wrong again, Boeing clearly states that when there is an excess of cabin crew on board (and there is not really any difference in this between narrow or wide body) that they must be distributed throughout the cabin to "ensure a steady flow of passengers to the exits"

I dont believe that Airbus would have a radical different view on this. In fact, the A380 evac video on YouTube clearly shows this.

Cabin crew should be IN the aircraft as long as evac is in progress

[crew1990]

No they dont? Once the evacuation is complete and everybody is out of the aircraft yes. But not when the evac is still in progress. Please refrain from commenting on professionals if you dont know what you're saying is right!

What you say is a general standard, but it doesn't apply to all situations.
On a B738 where there are more exits than cabin crew you can't do that, but on widebodies if you have more cabin crew than doors, it's not a luxury to have cabin crew members on the ground. Actually you guys have to man each station/door, but if there are excess cabin crews and there is no urgency inside the aircraft and one (potential one) outside the aircraft, it's part of your duties to assess whether excess cabin crew should stay aboard or start executing the post-evacuation (assembling to a safe area, start head count) plan to assist the cabin crew that is still aboard.

For instance in this case I see that there is a lot of non-essential personnel around the aircraft that are just standing there, in the way. Pax stopping and taking pictures or filming.
So there is more hazard outside the aircraft than inside the aircraft and having excess crews outside is a commendable solution, wouldn't you agree?


@Tolipanebas. Widebody evacuations have the risk to cause more injury than the situation itself.
Have a read here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practica ... ner-4.html

In SIN, hot fuel was leaking on 900°C brakes. That is more risky than this situation?
I doubt it. So what does it say in the manual? "If you land next to the runway and nose gear collapses, evacuate"? Always follow the manual, right?

An evacuation is always a decision for the captain, unless cabin crew assess that the situation warrants an evacuation.

It's sometimes funny to see how the people thing to know everything, It doesn't mater how much cabin crew and how many door we have, in a ideal situation where the aircraft stay intact and there is no risk of explosion like in this case the cabin crew stay onboard until the last pax has disembark. In Brussels Airlines on the rotation BRU-LAD-FIH-BRU we are 9 cabin crew while the minimum crew required for this type is 6, there are only 8 doors but still, all 9 cabin crew stay on board until the end, when everybody is out we check the the cabin for unconscious, blocked pax, we take some survival material and only at this moment we get out, then once outside we start the crowd control procedure that the first officer already initiated as this is his task to help on the group. The commander is the last to step out after a last final crosscheck of the cabin.

[mad_fab]

They went into holding for +30 minutes, then went around after a first approach tentative.
Just wonder how much fuel left.
H.A.

Could be a lot left actually.
I think that the fuel cost is very high in KTM, so one could decide to tank as much fuel as possible for the return leg.
I don't know for THY thought.

[Flanker2]

It's sometimes funny to see how the people thing to know everything, It doesn't mater how much cabin crew and how many door we have, in a ideal situation where the aircraft stay intact and there is no risk of explosion like in this case the cabin crew stay onboard until the last pax has disembark. In Brussels Airlines on the rotation BRU-LAD-FIH-BRU we are 9 cabin crew while the minimum crew required for this type is 6, there are only 8 doors but still, all 9 cabin crew stay on board until the end, when everybody is out we check the the cabin for unconscious, blocked pax, we take some survival material and only at this moment we get out, then once outside we start the crowd control procedure that the first officer already initiated as this is his task to help on the group. The commander is the last to step out after a last final crosscheck of the cabin.

It's sometimes funny to see that people think that reality is the same as training.
See in the below video how cabin and flight deck crew focussed their efforts on getting injured survivors away from the burning wreckage of a Garuda B737, while there were still pax trapped inside the aircraft (and later found dead). Did they act wrongly in your view?
(Cabin crews are the ones wearing green)



And this is a small B737 Classic. Not a full-sized widebody.
But see how dangerous it is with emergency vehicles racing into a scene of chaos (and remind ourselves what happened in the Asiana crash in SFO with the firetruck as well).

My questions to you are:
-Do you really think that you can manage the entire evacuation from inside the aircraft in such circumstances, when you don't know when it's going to blow up or even how many people are still in there? Isn't that sense of urgency the whole point of evacuating?
-Don't you think that organising the perimeter using available excess crews is at least as important? This would enable a rapid headcount to determine how many are still in there, so the ones manning the doors can decide when they are going to evacuate themselves?
-Don't you think that having several crews at the same station will only clog it rather than smooth it?
-Do you really think that you can organise a hectares wide wideboy aircraft evacuation perimeter of injured and pissed-off pax, unless you start directing them to a designated assembly point from the first minutes when they are relatively fewer, manageable and countable? If pax spread out in a perimeter of 100 meters around a relatively compact crash site, you're looking at people scattered out over 10 hectares in area or 1200 meters in perimeter.
Can you manage that with 10 crews to proceed to a headcount within 5 minutes from evacuation?
-How can you know that there isn't an infant who rolled under a seat of a burning wreckage, unless you assemble pax and start doing a head count? If the infant's parents are already out and assembled, you can immediately relay information to crews still on the aircraft.

In this TK case, it's an evacuation, but it's not treated like one. Neither by bystanding rescue staff, or the pax, or the crews. Excess TK crews (At least 2 of them on this flight) should have directed pax to a designated assembly point first where they could be counted and also keep the coast clear for fire engines, while keeping non-essential staff away from the evacuation zone. (see below ANA evacuation where rescue staff deliberately avoid mixing in with pax). The head count is a vital piece of information for rescue workers, should the situation deteriorate.

Below you will find a perfectly executed evacuation with great assertiveness and control from the crew, bar for the little detail that pax were standing in the way of fire crews for several minutes, should the fire have developped. This, despite numerous calls from the cabin crew still on the aircraft to "move away" (even in English) and go to the front of the aircraft.
These are situations that you can best avoid by sending available excess crew off earlier.
I can't blame the B787's FA's as there were 6 of them versus 8 exits, but this clearly illustrates the fact that sending excess crew out is not a matter of discussion.

[crew1990]

Once again Flanker if you was reading properly you would see that I was speaking about an ideal condition as the one of Turkish, and not the one of Garuda, in the case of Turkish there is no point to step out for the crew.


You might not agree with this but you can ask to any cabin crew, cockpit crew, instructor sorry to tell you that this is the way it work.

By the way on an airplane there are some special places where the crew have to stand do not obstruct the way f evacuation. And more crew stay on board, more material we can take at the end to help on the ground an the first aid kit, defibrillator, doctor kit, loud hailer, the emergency locator transmitter etc...

[sean1982]

Flanker, you are comparing oranges with pears, like crew1990 said!
Off course if your aircraft is burning to the ground than the crew will not stay on board a.k.a they will stay for as long as their OWN LIFE is not in danger.

Read again my post what Boeing and Airbus recommend, i'm sure they have a better understanding than you

And btw .. In the ANA video, the rescue crew is not avoiding anything. The fire trucks are exactly in the position where they need to be and there is no doubt in my mind that they would start spraying water even with someone in the way. After all, in aviation during an Emergency, the main principle is that the safety of ALL passengers is primary to the comfort and safety of one individual. For example .. What if somebody gets a heart attack during an evacuation?

[mad_fab]

Hey sean,

Off course if your aircraft is burning to the ground than the crew will not stay on board a.k.a they will stay for as long as their OWN LIFE is not in danger.

Honnest question here.
How do you define when the life of the crew is in danger or not?
Because, for me when there's an evacuation, it somehow implies that the life of everyone on board might be in danger (pax and crew), like when you have hot brakes and fuel leak.
Is there anything in the regulation/law defining when it's acceptable for the crew to leave the airplane?
I'm asking that because I'm thinking about the concardia's captain going to jail for leaving the boat too soon.

Thanks!

[Conti764]

IMO there was no need to evacuate the aircraft through the slides. I think that cabin crew opened the doors too soon out of panic, explaining why there were so many open doors.
Sliding off an A330 can be impressively high and cause injury to older/weaker people.
Passengers could have waited until stairs were available as they were all calmly seated if we see the video's.
In fact, you either evacuate through the slides and order them to leave their belongings behind, or you allow them to take their belongings with them and calmly disembark from the stairs, avoiding injuries and unnecesary commotion.

How will they wheel stairs to the plane when it's off-runway in grass and probably mud? How can you well align the stairs with the doors at such an angle?

Maybe the last slide was a bit too much, but imho it wasn't such a mistake to deploy the first three slides since the hight was much lower then the aft slide.

[Conti764]

Hey sean,

Off course if your aircraft is burning to the ground than the crew will not stay on board a.k.a they will stay for as long as their OWN LIFE is not in danger.

Honnest question here.
How do you define when the life of the crew is in danger or not?
Because, for me when there's an evacuation, it somehow implies that the life of everyone on board might be in danger (pax and crew), like when you have hot brakes and fuel leak.
Is there anything in the regulation/law defining when it's acceptable for the crew to leave the airplane?
I'm asking that because I'm thinking about the concardia's captain going to jail for leaving the boat too soon.

Thanks!

If I remember correctly the Concordia captain left one of the first while evac still was fully ongoing...

BTW, once a pilot reports an emergency, there are plenty of security/fire vehicles on the ground either following a troubled plane (firetrucks) or getting there as soon as it came to a full stop (security/safety), I have seen it myself plenty of times at BRU... So there is enough crew on the ground.

I am not even remotely as much as an expert als Flanker, but I rely on the expertise of people who can know (Toli, sean, crew1990) and there explanations sound like pretty logic to me...

Relating to the Asiana incident at SFO is wrong, since there the passenger was lying on the ground, covered by foam.

[mad_fab]

If I remember correctly the Concordia captain left one of the first while evac still was fully ongoing...

BTW, once a pilot reports an emergency, there are plenty of security/fire vehicles on the ground either following a troubled plane (firetrucks) or getting there as soon as it came to a full stop (security/safety), I have seen it myself plenty of times at BRU... So there is enough crew on the ground.

Sure, my question is not really related to any specific incident, it's more like "when is it considered acceptable for the crew to leave the aircraft according to the regulation/law", is this defined or it's just the crew's call?

[crew1990]

I's all about common sense, this is each cabin crew witch have to determinate self when they have to evacuate, when we are evacuating an aircraft there is always a danger, but there are some situation more dangerous than other, and there is no rule for that, just common sense

[sean1982]

If I remember correctly the Concordia captain left one of the first while evac still was fully ongoing...

BTW, once a pilot reports an emergency, there are plenty of security/fire vehicles on the ground either following a troubled plane (firetrucks) or getting there as soon as it came to a full stop (security/safety), I have seen it myself plenty of times at BRU... So there is enough crew on the ground.

Sure, my question is not really related to any specific incident, it's more like "when is it considered acceptable for the crew to leave the aircraft according to the regulation/law", is this defined or it's just the crew's call?

Hello this is indeed up to judgement of the crew. Off course every evacuation would be a "dangerous" situation but does not nescessarely mean that the crew's life would be in danger. However if you cant breath anymore due to heavy smoke or fire is coming towards you, that would be a reason good enough to get out yourself. Usually there are no legal consequences for that if the decision was taken in good faith. However if like the Concordia captain you go first, that's a whole different story

[Conti764]

Sure, my question is not really related to any specific incident, it's more like "when is it considered acceptable for the crew to leave the aircraft according to the regulation/law", is this defined or it's just the crew's call?

Well, I know no civilized country expects a crewmember or any human being to forfeit their own life in favor of others. So it's up to each individual to decide on scene when it's time for him or her to leave it and rescue your own life. Even rescue workers or police officers are not expected to risk their own lives in favor of others. So like the Costa Concordia captain who left well before his own life was at risk (given the fact that one of his officers did stay untill evacuation was done and survived) he stood for trial and will get/got convicted because he did not live up to his obligations. But if he had left when the ship would be submerging and leave several passengers behind, no-one could blame him for doing so...

Of all people on board, the commander is the one with the biggest pay check, but that comes with some obligations and responsibilaties...

[Flanker2]

Well Sean, when the captain urges an evacuation, it means that there is urgency. The cabin crew may not see it in the cabin, but maybe the captain knows something that you don't know.
This means that an evacuation still needs to be treated as such.

And if you see a scene of chaos at the end of the chutes, with questionnable competency of local fire and other rescue workers at a place like Kathmandu, it's your responsibility to make sure that if there is a sudden deterioration of the situation, the remaining crew and other remaining pax can get out safely, and firefighters can come to support that.

Below, you see how cabin crew of Asiana abandoned the evacuation perimeter without seeing the woman who was later crushed alive by fire trucks after the evacuation. If you have one crew member managing the perimeter, this wouldn't have happened. She was very much alive when those trucks went over her and she was 1 of 3 deaths. This is SFO, USA, where you assume that rescue workers are top class. Not Kathmandu, Nepal.

[flightlover]

Flanker, even with one crew member on ground this could have happened. The main caracteristic of an emergency is that people react franctically. You can be happy if you succeed in directing them to go the way you want them to.

When rescue workers are at the scene on time they will be helping people comming down the shutes if the situation allows them to. No doubt about that.

More specific for the case you are mentioning: It was just bad luck. Some other pax past her, no boubt, but they where just to much in panic to help her.

And, not sure about this, but I think it is sop for fire fighter trucks ariving at a burning plane to start spraying foam asap. Sadly they will have close to zero visability at that moment.

[mad_fab]

However if you cant breath anymore due to heavy smoke or fire is coming towards you, that would be a reason good enough to get out yourself. Usually there are no legal consequences for that if the decision was taken in good faith.

Make sense, thanks!
That leads me to the second part of my question (if you don't mind): how do you train the crew to detect the moment it's "good to leave". I'm convinced that under a very stressful situation, the drill is very important. In short how do you train the crew to leave at the right moment? No to soon (to protect the PAX), but also not too late (so you don't give your own life trying to fix a doomed situation). Any specific things to check?

Well, I know no civilized country expects a crewmember or any human being to forfeit their own life in favor of others.

I wasn't implying that Just that aviation being an heavily (to say the least) regulated sector, if their where like very specific criteria to be matched, or if it was just appreciation. When you read investigation reports you see a lot of "given FactorA, FactorB and FactorC the crew should have elected to perform a go around instead of landing". Just wanted to know if the criteria here was "if you feel that your life is in danger" or something more specific. I'm actually glad it's the first option!

[mad_fab]

Below, you see how cabin crew of Asiana abandoned the evacuation perimeter without seeing the woman who was later crushed alive by fire trucks after the evacuation. If you have one crew member managing the perimeter, this wouldn't have happened.

It looks like they actually forgot her on board, the firefighters deplaned her, then they forgot her.

http://abc7news.com/archive/9185603/

"As it turns out, there was a small person stuck between the seats," San Francisco Fire Lt. Chrissy Emmons said in a July 8 press conference.

Duckett's fellow firefighters beat back the flames and boarded the aircraft, rescuing passengers."

[sn26567]

The stranded Turkish Airlines A330 in Kathmandu is being removed from the runway.



Soon the hundreds of stranded passengers will be able to leave KTM (although, according to the most recent news, the airport should remain closed for another day...).

[sean1982]

Well Sean, when the captain urges an evacuation, it means that there is urgency. The cabin crew may not see it in the cabin, but maybe the captain knows something that you don't know.
This means that an evacuation still needs to be treated as such.

And if you see a scene of chaos at the end of the chutes, with questionnable competency of local fire and other rescue workers at a place like Kathmandu, it's your responsibility to make sure that if there is a sudden deterioration of the situation, the remaining crew and other remaining pax can get out safely, and firefighters can come to support that.

Below, you see how cabin crew of Asiana abandoned the evacuation perimeter without seeing the woman who was later crushed alive by fire trucks after the evacuation. If you have one crew member managing the perimeter, this wouldn't have happened. She was very much alive when those trucks went over her and she was 1 of 3 deaths. This is SFO, USA, where you assume that rescue workers are top class. Not Kathmandu, Nepal.

Flanker, after a "crash landing" is probably one of the only situations where cabin crew have a much better idea than the Flightcrew what's going on when it comes to fuselage break-ups, collapsed landing gears, structural failure, smoke or fire present. That's why, in my company at least, cabin crew are authoritised to suggest an evacuation to the flight crew when 1 of 6 defined conditions is present. (Or even give the command to evacuate themselves)

I've been teaching this stuff for 9 years now, so I know what Im talking about.

Mad_fab, there are too many variables in these scenario's to define the "right moment to go". So this is up to perception at the time of the incident