I was on a flight where we had a fire inside of the cabin because of some mobile device. What I found weird was the only piece of communication being that "we are returning", around 15 minutes after the plane had turned back. I was able to smell the smoke at that point.
It's hard for me to imagine how the urgent aviation and navigation involved in turning the plane around takes two people 15 uninterrupted minutes, let alone the portion after turning around needing 15 uninterrupted minutes.
Arranging a reroute with ATC, explaining everything, adjusting the autopilot for the new route etc. Assessment time on what to do. Those in the back don’t need to know anything until those decisions are made and executed. It’s not like there’s a negotiation to be had!
Did my comment give you the impression I didn't understand that? But I don't think it's enough of an explanation.
> Arranging a reroute with ATC, explaining everything, adjusting the autopilot for the new route etc. Assessment time on what to do. Those in the back don’t need to know anything until those decisions are made and executed. It’s not like there’s a negotiation to be had!
Do you think they turned around before most of those things?
Do you think there were no gaps where they could have communicated?
I wonder if they actually were following "Aviate, Navigate." end of checklist.
In that case the claim boils down to "they were doing important stuff the entire time" and I... just don't believe the important stuff lasted that long contiguously.
Where does your intuition for how long actions take in a cockpit come from?
I'm not a pilot, so i have no idea. But from watching vasaviation on youtube, it always seems to take like 5-10 minutes between when they first radio the control tower there is an emergency, then they go through their checklists and stabilize things, and then they're ready to talk to the tower for the next step. Now add more back and forth and the time to actually fly to get back to a regular path, and 15 minutes might even seem too short a period of time before you've finished resolving everything and can now kick back and tell the passengers the end result.
You should watch some pilot videos online, specifically large commercial aviation videos.
Pilots have a TON of checklists and procedures. If they're up in the air approaching cruising altitude and need to turn around (even in an emergency), it's a lot of work.
They need to assess the situation, inform ATC that they are returning, copy down heading information from ATC (they generally do not just 'start turning'), start working through checklists, start dumping fuel (planes are often too heavy to land well early on in a flight), get the approach and landing procedures for the airport they are returning to, keep talking to ATC and switch from regional/approach frequencies, all while adjusting settings and doing calculations. In an emergency, they also need to report on how many people are on board, fuel levels, what their plan is, etc... all while, you know, flying the plane and being extra alert for other traffic (both in sight, on instruments, and the other radio calls) since they are deviating from what's expected.
Plus, they often have no idea what's going on, they have only heard "there is a fire onboard, we think we have it under control" from the crew.
They aren't going to talk to the passengers in a gap unless there's a major need (like Sullenberger saying "This is the captain, brace for impact". He had already committed to the Hudson long before he said that. And note that that's the minimum communication that conveys the message, he didn't spend one second on that he didn't have to.)
There's always a long list of checklists and calculations to run though. It's rare for a plane with an emergency to land as soon as possible, they generally need a little extra time to finish such tasks.
Based on how many ATC recordings I've heard where an aircraft declares an emergency, diverts, then asks ATC for a holding pattern/delay vectors to set up the landing, I consider this plausible.
They need to find, read, understand and brief the approach charts, missed approach procedures, etc., configure that all in the onboard computer, go over a stack of checklists, etc.
Why do you feel that is weird? Keeping the passengers informed isn't really a priority in a situation like that. They told you when you needed to know.
I thought that even the cabin crew did not know what's burning. There's also the feeling of helplessness -- you know something is wrong but you are not told that something is wrong. The hysteria at the back of the plane could have been alleviated by telling that the situation is under control. When the plane was landing, I could see fire trucks, an ambulance, and police of some sort driving in parallel to the plane to rush in. I only found out about the reason from the news later.
You are helpless, the cabin crew know what’s going on but aren’t telling you, and the hysteria at the back of the plane won’t be alleviated by telling them there’s a fire in the cabin, you’re making an emergency landing and to prepare for an emergency response unit upon landing.
There’s nothing you can do other than stay in your seat and keep out of the way.
What? Keeping passengers informed is zero effort, a nice thing to do, and probably a good idea. Why would you not say "we are returning due to a battery fire. The fire has been contained but we must return because X y z" or whatever.
> Why would you not say "we are returning due to a battery fire. The fire has been contained but we must return because X y z" or whatever.
Because as soon as you mention "fire" you'll get a bunch of dumb fucks panicking themselves so hard they're going to behave completely irrationally (like attempting to rip open the emergency doors which IS possible at low enough altitudes) - or manage to induce legitimate medical problems. Heart attack for the older folks, dyspnea up to actually going unconscious from hyperventilation for the younger folks.
- "panicking themselves so hard they're going to behave completely irrationally (like attempting to rip open the emergency doors which IS possible at low enough altitudes)"
The Denver airport fire this month was an object lesson. A panicking mob apparently ignored instructions and went out the wrong emergency exit door, onto the airplane wing, where they stood over the flaming jet-fuel smoke with no way down.
Bold of you to assume they'll continue to listen after the keyword "fire". In the worst case, they'll actively doubt you and, worse, start doing so in a very public way ("they're just claiming the fire is out").
And yes this shit has happened in the past. Panicked people are uncontrollable and in a critical situation, priority #1 is to avoid panic to rise at all costs because panicked people can turn a critical situation into outright disaster.
I've never been to the US but seen a lot of random videos and pilots in the US sound kind of unprofessional. They don't seem to communicate clearly and use very casual language. For instance I saw a video recently where the pilot refused a plane because he "wasn't feeling it" or something.
In that particular instance, that pilot also mentioned there were issues with engine oil pressure, IIRC, and the fuel filter was scheduled to be replaced after the long haul flight over water. Those concerning data points were what led to him not “feeling it.” That type of casual language, IMO, makes it easier for people to empathize with the conclusion based on hard facts.
Still I've never heard a pilot communicate like that. On the European airlines I've flown on the pilot would concisely and professionally explain the situation and then make a formal apology.
The language of the corporate meeting room in America is also a lot more casual than in Europe. It has zero bearing on actual professionalism (defined, “ the competence or skill expected of a professional”) given the results of American corporations (or the strong safety record of US pilots). So, while I can literally understand your point, I can’t see why it’s material to anything.
The pilot in command can refuse an aircraft because of unresolved mechanical or technical issues, and sometimes issues that for example are fine on a clear calm day can just not be in weather. Remember that the pilots themselves are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and all passengers for the duration of the flight, so it's up to their judgement to make sure that a flight is safe.
But a fire on a plane is pretty much the most dangerous event you can have on a flight. Especially lithium battery fires since aircraft don't have the right extinguisher for them, and staff are generally trained to quarantine the fire just long enough so it can be taken care of on the ground.
Seems like a “lithium fire box” or perhaps fireproof bag capable of containing lithium fires and smothering them would become standard on planes. Most personal electronics are fairly small as well.
The official training video by the FAA outlines that crew should extinguish the fire with onboard equipment and keep it cool with water to prevent it from thermal runaway again. In one outline, FAA doesn't endorse putting it in a bag or touching it any further than it needs to be, and another in response to commercial "FAA approved" products for lithium battery fires, does not endorse nor discourage using such products.
No, that's a standard part of flying safety. If you are not in the right mental state to fly you shouldn't, and especially not if the lives of hundreds of people depend on you.
