Air Transat 737 Diversion to EWR Mar 9th

[hamstandard]

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.

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.

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.

[pelmet]

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.

[pelmet]

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 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.

Looks like this one was also handled well. ARFF determined no fire. No mention of an evacuation......

F-GSQH, a Boeing 777-300 aircraft operated by Air France, was conducting flight AFR347 from
Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl, QC (CYUL) to Paris/Charles de Gaulle, France (LFPG).
Approximately 300 nm northeast of Goose Bay Intl, NL (CYYR), the crew declared an emergency
due to a cargo fire indication. The crew diverted to Goose Bay Airport, NL (CYYR) and landed
without further incident, with ARFF standing by. Several news reports indicated that ARFF did not
find any trace of fire, smoke or heat, and that it was determined to be a faulty indication.

[bcflyer]

Other than the initial indication of fire, neither of those reports have any similarity to the AT incident so why post them? What are you trying to show? What do you think the BA or AF crew would have done if the fire crew said there was smoke in the cargo hold?

[pelmet]

Other than the initial indication of fire, neither of those reports have any similarity to the AT incident so why post them? What are you trying to show? What do you think the BA or AF crew would have done if the fire crew said there was smoke in the cargo hold?

Thanks,

I agree with you that the more recent events had different results than the AT incident but there certainly are some parallels. The AT crew did the right thing and evacuated after being given information from the ground crew that there was smoke. The BA and AF crew did the right thing by not evacuating after being told by the ground crew that there was no evidence of a fire. I am sure they would have considered differently if the fire crew had told them that there was smoke.

What am I trying to show.....what appears to be ideally handled cargo fire indication situations where both the flight crew and the ground crew got it right.