Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by JBI » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:33 am

Flight 942 YUL-FLL landed at EWR due to indication of fire. Apparently slides deployed in an evac.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/TSC942

FAA Statement indicates suspected fire in the cargo hold.

No major injuries, report of 2 minor, non-smoke related injuries.

Great job guys!
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by pelmet » Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:16 am

Looks like it was an evacuation due to the fire crew believing that the discharged halon was smoke and the odour of an electrical fire. A fire crew induced evacuation based on incorrect info. Has anybody here had the opportunity to smell halon who can let us know what it smells like?

"C-GTQG, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft operated by Air Transat, was conducting flight TSC942 from
Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl (CYUL), QC to Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl (KFLL), FL with 6
crew members and 189 passengers on board. During cruise flight approximately 45 nm north
northwest of Newark/Liberty Intl (KEWR), NJ, the flight crew received an AFT CARGO FIRE
WARNING indication. The Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) was executed and, in the process,
the indication went away for a few seconds, then returned and stayed on permanently. The flight
crew discharged the halon in the associated cargo compartment, and declared a MAYDAY. A
diversion to KEWR was requested, and the aircraft landed and stopped on Runway 04R. The
control tower confirmed that no smoke was visible, however when the fire crew opened the cargo
door, smoke was visible, and an electrical odour was detected. All aboard were then evacuated via
emergency slides.

The operator’s maintenance inspected the aircraft and removed all panels in the cargo area; no
evidence of smoke or fire was found. Additionally, all bags were inspected, and no signs of smoke
or fire could be found as well. Maintenance personnel also identified that the Cargo Smoke
Detector Unit was defective. It is believed that the smoke and electrical smell detected by the fire
crew was caused by the halon that was discharged in the cargo compartment during the diversion
to KEWR. The aircraft was returned to service once all the required parts were replaced."
---------- ADS -----------
  

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1510
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by Heliian » Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:35 am

pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:16 am
Looks like it was an evacuation due to the fire crew believing that the discharged halon was smoke and the odour of an electrical fire. A fire crew induced evacuation based on incorrect info.
You have some serious trust issues.

The fire alarm, followed by an emerg landing, followed by "smoke" in the hold is a damn good reason to get out.

It was a good decision from good information.

What do you suggest they do? Wait until it's too late and die on the runway?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by rookiepilot » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 am

Heliian wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:35 am
pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:16 am
Looks like it was an evacuation due to the fire crew believing that the discharged halon was smoke and the odour of an electrical fire. A fire crew induced evacuation based on incorrect info.
You have some serious trust issues.

The fire alarm, followed by an emerg landing, followed by "smoke" in the hold is a damn good reason to get out.

It was a good decision from good information.

What do you suggest they do? Wait until it's too late and die on the runway?
Agreed.

The theme in Pelmet's commentary appears to expect pilots to make absolutely perfect decisions based on incomplete information in reality. In the air information is always incomplete!

20/20 hindsight is easy for anyone but useless to future pilots basing decisions on the information they actually HAVE.
---------- ADS -----------
  

J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by J31 » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:34 am

pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:16 am
Looks like it was an evacuation due to the fire crew believing that the discharged halon was smoke and the odour of an electrical fire. A fire crew induced evacuation based on incorrect info. Has anybody here had the opportunity to smell halon who can let us know what it smells like?

"C-GTQG, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft operated by Air Transat, was conducting flight TSC942 from
Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl (CYUL), QC to Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl (KFLL), FL with 6
crew members and 189 passengers on board. During cruise flight approximately 45 nm north
northwest of Newark/Liberty Intl (KEWR), NJ, the flight crew received an AFT CARGO FIRE
WARNING indication. The Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) was executed and, in the process,
the indication went away for a few seconds, then returned and stayed on permanently. The flight
crew discharged the halon in the associated cargo compartment, and declared a MAYDAY. A
diversion to KEWR was requested, and the aircraft landed and stopped on Runway 04R. The
control tower confirmed that no smoke was visible, however when the fire crew opened the cargo
door, smoke was visible, and an electrical odour was detected. All aboard were then evacuated via
emergency slides.

The operator’s maintenance inspected the aircraft and removed all panels in the cargo area; no
evidence of smoke or fire was found. Additionally, all bags were inspected, and no signs of smoke
or fire could be found as well. Maintenance personnel also identified that the Cargo Smoke
Detector Unit was defective. It is believed that the smoke and electrical smell detected by the fire
crew was caused by the halon that was discharged in the cargo compartment during the diversion
to KEWR. The aircraft was returned to service once all the required parts were replaced."
They allowed the fire crew to open the cargo door with passengers and crew on board!

From the BOEING QRH!

Warning! Inform ground personnel
NOT to open any cargo door
until all passengers and crew
have exited the airplane and
fire fighting equipment is
nearby.


:smt018
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5785
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by ahramin » Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:28 am

J31 wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:34 am
They allowed the fire crew to open the cargo door with passengers and crew on board!

From the BOEING QRH!

Warning! Inform ground personnel
NOT to open any cargo door
until all passengers and crew
have exited the airplane and
fire fighting equipment is
nearby.


:smt018
That's what I was wondering when I heard that. My impression was that with no other indication of a fire, wait for the fire crew to arrive and they will have a look with infrared cameras from the outside. Any hot spots and you evacuate, THEN the fire crews can have a go at the plane.

It does say not to let the ground crew open the doors so maybe they mean an aircraft at the gate and the fire crews have their own procedures for dealing with this situation on the runway.

It does seem strange that a fire crew wouldn't know the difference between a fire and a halon discharge but I don't know anything about it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

DanWEC
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: 404

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by DanWEC » Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:09 pm

I have to think the fire crew must have done a temp before opening the doors, that's standard, otherwise they would have poked the unicorn into it.

Could have been a concealed electrical fire though. Anyways what's the big deal that they evacuated? Not sure about keeping souls in their seats gambling on the 50% chance that there isn't a fire, but we weren't there.

It's too bad the slides usually result in some minor injuries and bad press, but none of those would come back to bite the crew in an investigation. However, the opposite certainly isn't true if the decision was made to keep people on board and they got even minor smoke inhalation.

No matter what the decision is, you can always rest assured it will be wrong on AvCanada. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by pelmet » Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:45 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 am
Heliian wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:35 am
pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:16 am
Looks like it was an evacuation due to the fire crew believing that the discharged halon was smoke and the odour of an electrical fire. A fire crew induced evacuation based on incorrect info.
You have some serious trust issues.

The fire alarm, followed by an emerg landing, followed by "smoke" in the hold is a damn good reason to get out.

It was a good decision from good information.

What do you suggest they do? Wait until it's too late and die on the runway?
Agreed.

The theme in Pelmet's commentary appears to expect pilots to make absolutely perfect decisions based on incomplete information in reality. In the air information is always incomplete!

20/20 hindsight is easy for anyone but useless to future pilots basing decisions on the information they actually HAVE.
Here we go with the clownish responses again(especially from the so-called rookie who appears to have not even reached that level).

Nowhere in my post did I make any suggestion that the pilots had made any poor decisions in regard to deciding to evacuate. The decision to divert was very appropriate and based on the information given to them by the fire crew of a fire, they made what appears to be an appropriate decision to evacuate.

My point, which is clear for those who actually take the time to read and comprehend what I said was that the fire crew gave faulty info to the crew. Obviously, if firefighters tell you there is a fire, one has good reason to evacuate. It is the first time I have seen an unecessary evacuation due to fire crew faulty information and found it interesting.

I do appeciate the intelligent responses by J31 and Ahramin pointing out the hazards of opening cargo doors(with risk of making fires worse) as laid out in the Boeing QRH. Something to think about.

My point in the thread was merely the interesting event of a firecrew misidentifying halon as smoke. Once again, I have never smelled Halon and suspect most others have not. But I am curious if anybody has and what it smells like.

Of course, now our incompetent Rookie is determined to ruin other threads by going after me in his initial post and will no doubt go over to the other forum to do the same. All because he is repeatedly shown how incompetent he is. Go back to flight school and maybe re-read your POH so you actually understand it. I don't think I have ever seen a useful post by you on a lesson learned from an incident.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by rookiepilot » Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:54 pm

DanWEC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:09 pm

It's too bad the slides usually result in some minor injuries and bad press, but none of those would come back to bite the crew in an investigation. However, the opposite certainly isn't true if the decision was made to keep people on board and they got even minor smoke inhalation.

No matter what the decision is, you can always rest assured it will be wrong on AvCanada. :mrgreen:
+1.

Asinine armchair quarterbacking, solely to feed ones one ego and superiority complex---

No one learns a thing from 20/ 20 hindsight commentary, and it's pretty obvious to folks here the crew is being criticized for evacuating.

If the fire crew also wasn't sure -- then all the better reason to take a safe and conservative choice. 2 minor injuries is a small price to pay for uncertainty of a situation.

Werent there, don't slam the crews actions. Everyone safe, good job!
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by rookiepilot on Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by pelmet » Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:07 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:54 pm
DanWEC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:09 pm

It's too bad the slides usually result in some minor injuries and bad press, but none of those would come back to bite the crew in an investigation. However, the opposite certainly isn't true if the decision was made to keep people on board and they got even minor smoke inhalation.

No matter what the decision is, you can always rest assured it will be wrong on AvCanada. :mrgreen:
+1.

Asinine armchair quarterbacking post, solely to feed ones one ego and superiority complex-----
You weren't there, don't slam the crews actions. Everyone safe, good job!
Once again, another thread being ruined by our resident incompetent...Rookie Pilot determined to derail various threads because he is proven wrong publicly on various threads. As I said, no criticism of the flight crew, just the fire crew whom appear to not know the difference between Halon and smoke. And yes, I do expect trained fire crews to know the difference. Serious injuries can happen from evacuations.

Once again moderators, please ban this incompetent and delete all posts going off topic.

But it looks like our rookie removed his insults from the Kenora thread with no evidence of post updates like there is on this thread..
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by rookiepilot » Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:36 pm

pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:07 pm

Serious injuries can happen from evacuations.
Deaths can happen from not evacuating during a fire.

Fires on an aircraft are not a good thing. I do know that much. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by rookiepilot » Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:07 pm

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8CS-LiFlI

Here is a visual and ATC recording of the incident. EWR Tower has them halt and shut the aircraft down on the runway.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by pelmet » Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:11 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:36 pm
pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:07 pm

Serious injuries can happen from evacuations.
Deaths can happen from not evacuating during a fire.

Fires on an aircraft are not a good thing. I do know that much. :mrgreen:
Got some news for you. There was no fire. Evacuations lead to injuries including broken bones, cuts and even paralysis...

https://www.apnews.com/b8f0dc45e39aa466316763b37b3b49f9

That is why they are to be avoided unless necessary. Which is why I would suggest that it is important for fire crew to know the difference between smoke and Halon(is that too much to expect or another thing where Rookie puts it down to...'we all make mistakes'). This can prevent hazardous evacuations that can result in injuries from things such as engines that were not shut down(due to faulty procedures), the risks associated with people going down slides, people falling off wings, etc. Babies, wheelchair-bound, and elderly people are especially vulnerable. Frostbite can be another serious consideration.

Now you know much more :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.

corethatthermal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by corethatthermal » Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:25 pm

There was an indication of a cargo fire, the fire crews supposedly did their due diligence and opened the compartment and inspected ( regardless of the wise Boeing QRH )
IF the fire crew went against convention and opened a compartment to feed a fire with 02, WHY did they not put out the "fire" ? IF you are going to open a sealed compartment to put out a "fire" you aught to have the passengers off first! IF you determined it safe to open the compartment AGAINST wise convention, then go ahead and determine any fire /smoke issues and deal with it before the pilot puts the passengers at risk of broken bones in the evacuation,,,
---------- ADS -----------
  

Napoleon So Low
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 11:33 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by Napoleon So Low » Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:18 pm

pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:45 pm
I have never smelled Halon and suspect most others have not. But I am curious if anybody has and what it smells like.
Isn't halon odourless? I believe so.
---------- ADS -----------
  

DanWEC
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: 404

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by DanWEC » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:02 pm

pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:11 pm
Got some news for you. There was no fire. Evacuations lead to injuries
I'm not picking sides here, but we only have the luxury of that knowledge after the fact. Period.
They didn't know that, for reasons we aren't aware of and they acted out of abundance of caution. That's the very definition of safety concious. I highly doubt it was an easy, casual decision made to evacuate and they did it based on the information at hand. What would you have done? It really

Anyways reading back, I get what you are saying is that the flight crew evacuated because of a potentially false report from the fire crew. Interesting.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by pelmet » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:34 am

DanWEC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:02 pm
pelmet wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:11 pm
Got some news for you. There was no fire. Evacuations lead to injuries
Anyways reading back, I get what you are saying is that the flight crew evacuated because of a potentially false report from the fire crew. Interesting.
Exactly. Of course they evacuated once told there was a fire. That is a common procedure although not always followed as we saw in one famous case.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by pelmet » Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:32 pm

A couple of people here have posted about evacuating as if it is no big deal. It is a big deal, and as I poster earlier in a link, could lead to permant injuries.

That is why crews of larger aircraft will frequently wait for an external confirmation of there being a fire, if the only evidence of one is a cockpit warning which is frequently faulty. In this case, there was obviously a significant amount of time from the start of the fire warning until the aircraft was landed. I suspect that the pilots would have coordinated with the cabin crew, asking them if there was any smell of smoke. The longer the time without any evidence of smoke, the less likely that there is a fire.

But there could be a fire, so the crew was wise to want further coroborration once on the ground. But there is a problem that was brought up in an earlier post. The QRH says not to open the cargo door until all pax are off the aircraft. This is likely due to the manufacturer feeling that a large amount of fresh air could cause a rapid spread of fire.

So the crew has a problem. Accoding to the ATC recording, the tower told them to shut down on the runway, quite possibly because an aircraft with a fire indication is not wanted near a terminal. But ideally, one would like to deplane the passengers beofre opening the cargo door which is not easy on the runway. It is a bit of a catch-22. Perhaps one could request a remote parking area with mobile stairs for deplanement.

Perhaps someone else has some suggestions for this conundrum. What would you do? Just evacuate and risk injuries because it could be a fire. Wait until there is a second source of evidence of fire before evacuating and keep pax onboard until that point. Refuse to shutdown on the runway and taxi to a remote location where stairs could be made available. Demand stairs be brought to the aircraft on the runway for deplaning? Maybe a good interview question. I am leaning toward the remote parking location with stairs idea but am curious what others would do.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by rookiepilot » Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:55 pm

pelmet wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:32 pm
A couple of people here have posted about evacuating as if it is no big deal. It is a big deal, and as I poster earlier in a link, could lead to permant injuries.
I don't know who you're referring to, but certainly I didn't say "evacuation was no big deal"
Neither did anyone else use those words that I read.

The people who commented, me included, I think would see it as risk management -- with the context of being told to shut the aircraft down on the runway, which based on the information available at that time to the crew, I wouldn't be surprised if they agreed with.

A refusal of that and delay to taxi to an isolated area at a large airport -- for stairs -- would seem a substantial risk. But hey maybe everyone else disagrees.

As was indicated, once shutdown this would seem to leave limited passenger egress options for the crew.

The risk assessment at this point would seem to be this -- BASED on the information provided, including by the fire crew.

A). A highly unlikely, but risk of serious injury, and a more substantial risk of minor injuries, by choosing evacuation that MAY be unnecessary.

B) A perhaps much less likely, but still possible risk of multiple deaths or burns from an out of control fire situation.

How'd you like that on your conscience?

You claim above not to be questioning the crew's decision to evacuate. But in your every post that is exactly what you are doing, despite a positive outcome.

--------
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by rookiepilot on Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by pelmet » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:38 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:55 pm
pelmet wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:32 pm
A couple of people here have posted about evacuating as if it is no big deal. It is a big deal, and as I poster earlier in a link, could lead to permant injuries.


Now you are simply being just a complete and pompous ass, just for the sake of being one, misquoting other posters here to build your own ego. That wrecks the thread, BTW.

And doesn't educate anybody.
Once again moderators, a legitimate question has been asked by myself and this is the kind of trolling by one poster here. Are you going to let this forum become a trolling wasteland or finally ban this person for once again derailing a thread with personal attacks, first after mentioning that the firefighters misidentified smoke(and provided details of the incident) and a second time after asking a question to other airline pilots what they would do in this situation.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hamstandard
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by hamstandard » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:02 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:55 pm
You claim above not to be questioning the crew's decision to evacuate. But in your every post that is exactly what you are doing, despite a positive outcome. Very helpful.
rookiepilot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:55 pm
Now you are simply being just a pompous ass, just for the sake of being one, misquoting other posters here.
It sounds to me like you are the one misquoting.
pelmet wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:34 am
DanWEC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:02 pm
Anyways reading back, I get what you are saying is that the flight crew evacuated because of a potentially false report from the fire crew. Interesting.
Exactly. Of course they evacuated once told there was a fire. That is a common procedure although not always followed as we saw in one famous case.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

Post by pelmet » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:15 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:55 pm
pelmet wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:32 pm
A couple of people here have posted about evacuating as if it is no big deal. It is a big deal, and as I poster earlier in a link, could lead to permanent injuries.
The people who commented, me included, I think would see it as risk management -- with the context of being told to shut the aircraft down on the runway, which based on the information available at that time to the crew, I wouldn't be surprised if they agreed with.

A refusal of that and delay to taxi to an isolated area at a large airport -- for stairs -- would seem a substantial risk. But hey maybe everyone else disagrees.
Of course, once told by a fire crew that there is a fire, one will evacuate which is what the Air Transat crew did(based on fire crew analysis error).

But here is how it should work and what I would consider to be the way things are handled to avoid an unnecessary evacuation(competent fire crew are required, of course) with no delay involved. One can shut down an engine on the right side( or both and then restart)...

G-ZZZA, a Boeing 777-200 aircraft operated by British Airways, was conducting flight BAW174
from New York/John F. Kennedy Intl (KJFK), NY to London/Heathrow (EGLL), UK with 13 crew
members and 196 passengers on board. During cruise flight at FL370, at approximate location
51°05' N, 043°31' W, the flight crew received a CARGO FIRE FWD EICAS message. The
emergency checklist was executed, and a MAYDAY was declared. The flight crew descended off
the North Atlantic Tracks (NAT), and offset their route for a diversion to St. John’s Intl (CYYT), NL.
The cargo hold fire extinguishing bottles were discharged, however the fire warning persisted. The
aircraft landed in CYYT and was met by ARFF. No heat or smoke was detected by emergency
services, and the aircraft was cleared to taxi to the gate.
Maintenance personnel subsequently inspected the aircraft and found no evidence of heat or fire.
The fire warning system detector was considered faulty, and was replaced. The fire extinguishers
were also replaced.`

Pretty much answers the question in this post...

viewtopic.php?f=118&t=130908#p1074113

And only if there is any secondary evidence of a fire(smoke, etc), whether before or after the firefighters analysis....evacuate.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”