US Air A319 crash landing at PHL after aborted take off

[markis10]

Eyewitness account on FT

Sitting in the A-West lounge, just watched what I think was a US A319 bounce twice on takeoff from 27L, then have front gear collapse at high speed. Can't see where it stopped but smoke from the west end of 27L. Will update as I see more.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/us-a...r/1560217-just-witnessed-us-accident-phl.html

 

[mannej]

Reading into it, was it an aborted take off?

 

[markis10]

Reading into it, was it an aborted take off?

Yep, have amended the title to reflect what happened. Looks like it may have been an A320 according to Flightaware

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE1702/history/20140313/2150Z/KPHL/KFLL

 

[markis10]

https://twitter.com/han_horan/status/444246200451989504

 

[RooFlyer]

https://twitter.com/han_horan/status/444246200451989504

I'm not a fan of twitter, but that pic worth a thousand words.

 

[TomVexille]

Ouch. Hope everyone is okay.

 

[lovestotravel]

Bottoms up

 

[RooFlyer]

US news vision shows almost everyone in the images coming off the plane was carrying some hand luggage item(s) (as did many of the pax in the Asiana crash at SFO)

I guess its likely that evacuation was delayed once the crew assessed no fire, so MAYBE they were told they could take stuff, but I doubt it. I believe luggage may tear the slides and you could see its a big jump from the back!!

Assuming that there was no dispensation for taking hand luggage, the question is: why did the FAs etc who would have been manning the top of the exits, allow the luggage to be taken? If there was no fire, it wasn't a case of "get off at any cost".

I know pax could push past, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FAs just let it go. Why? because I've seen too many cases of blatant "safety breaches" by pax being ignored by US FAs (and others ...)

 

[markis10]

I know pax could push past, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FAs just let it go. Why? because I've seen too many cases of blatant "safety breaches" by pax being ignored by US FAs (and others ...)

Many companies train their crew to not be policemen/women at the exits, it serves no purpose other than delaying the evacuation in a lot of cases.

 

[Fruitcake]

I know pax could push past, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FAs just let it go. Why? because I've seen too many cases of blatant "safety breaches" by pax being ignored by US FAs (and others ...)

The QF1 accident report makes for interesting reading in this respect.

 

[RooFlyer]

Many companies train their crew to not be policemen/women at the exits, it serves no purpose other than delaying the evacuation in a lot of cases.

OK, I understand about delaying evacuation and accept it might be policy of some airlines. But 'common theory' says that carry-on might tear a slide, and that really would delay evacuation!

If this 'aftermath' looks as relatively benign as the pics appear (ie no fire, slides deployed), then one would imagine that this wasn't a panicked evacuation, although some pax may have panicked. Eventually we'll hear how long between stopping and evacuation.

So the (genuine) question now is: Is there really any material risk to slides (ie tearing, deflating therefore preventing remaining pax to evacuate) by people carrying their roll-aboards, handbags and backpacks down the slides? Or are the slides now made of very tough stuff and the risk is considered minimal?

If there still is a material risk, then such an airline policy that says FAs at exits shouldn't even try to stop people carrying carry-on down the slide is downright negligent.

Presumably the same applies to shoes? No worries, leave 'em on?

 

[markis10]

OK, I understand about delaying evacuation and accept it might be policy of some airlines. But 'common theory' says that carry-on might tear a slide, and that really would delay evacuation!

If this 'aftermath' looks as relatively benign as the pics appear (ie no fire, slides deployed), then one would imagine that this wasn't a panicked evacuation, although some pax may have panicked. Eventually we'll hear how long between stopping and evacuation.

So the (genuine) question now is: Is there really any material risk to slides (ie tearing, deflating therefore preventing remaining pax to evacuate) by people carrying their roll-aboards, handbags and backpacks down the slides? Or are the slides now made of very tough stuff and the risk is considered minimal?

If there still is a material risk, then such an airline policy that says FAs at exits shouldn't even try to stop people carrying carry-on down the slide is downright negligent.

Presumably the same applies to shoes? No worries, leave 'em on?

There are no differences in levels of evacuation, you either evacuate or you dont. While an observation from outside would appear to validate the label of benign, such complacency has no place inside the cabin where you are not afforded the luxury of an external view.

Clearly airlines have done a risk management investigation, and believe policing of carry on removal comes at the expense of risk of exit row arguments causing more harm, its all relative rather than being absolute. By the time a passenger gets to the door of an aircraft, there is no point re-evaluating their observance of rules and delaying others.

Its very rare for people to die once they have unbuckled their seats, at the NTSB head mentioned in the context of US Air 1439. Its worth reading that accident report if you are after some background as to why policing of the exit lacks the attention you think it may deserve:

The Fire This Time : People.com

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR91-08.pdf

 

[RooFlyer]

There are no differences in levels of evacuation, you either evacuate or you dont. While an observation from outside would appear to validate the label of benign, such complacency has no place inside the cabin where you are not afforded the luxury of an external view.

Clearly airlines have done a risk management investigation, and believe policing of carry on removal comes at the expense of risk of exit row arguments causing more harm, its all relative rather than being absolute. By the time a passenger gets to the door of an aircraft, there is no point re-evaluating their observance of rules and delaying others.

Its very rare for people to die once they have unbuckled their seats, at the NTSB head mentioned in the context of US Air 1439. Its worth reading that accident report if you are after some background as to why policing of the exit lacks the attention you think it may deserve:

The Fire This Time : People.com

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR91-08.pdf

Sorry markis10, I respect your knowledge of the industry, but I believe the contention "you either evacuate or you don't" isn't born out by the incident report about QF1 at BKK that fruitcake mentioned. At least I should say, it discriminates between an 'evacuation' Vs a 'precautionary disembarcation' (s.2.5). Both involve using the slides, but I gather the level of 'emergency is different. PDF here

See pp57-59 for example. The doc won't let copying and pasting of text (and my PDF cracker won't convert it to Word ). I believe it says inter alia that there was significant grey areas in the Captains decision to have passengers de-plane (to use a neutral term), and how that de-planing should be effected by the crew.

I'm disappointed to read in the QF1 report that the evacuation was a bit of a shermozzle (in part due to damaged comms). The report appears to criticize the FAs for not enforcing the 'no cabin baggage' 'rule' when using slides and repeats that such stuff can damage the slides.

I'm not in a position to argue with you re wider expert findings or good industry practice. But I would suggest that if hand luggage has the capacity to damage evacuation slides (as the ATSB contends in their QF1 report), then for an FA not to attempt any enforcement of 'no carry on down the slides' rule (if there is one on that airline) to me is a safety black mark against that airline.

I'll take your word for it that

Its very rare for people to die once they have unbuckled their seats, at the NTSB head mentioned in the context of US Air 1439.

but I reckon that the next accident involving a fire and a disabled slide due to carry-on tearing, leading to pax dying because they either jumped or had no exit, would lead to a re-appraisal :-| .

 

[markis10]

Sorry markis10, I respect your knowledge of the industry, but I believe the contention "you either evacuate or you don't" isn't born out by the incident report about QF1 at BKK that fruitcake mentioned. At least I should say, it discriminates between an 'evacuation' Vs a 'precautionary disembarcation' (s.2.5). Both involve using the slides, but I gather the level of 'emergency is different. PDF here .

Thats not an evacuation, otherwise it would be labelled as such, you used evacuation in your post. Your are using the term evacuation and disembarkation interchangeably, they are not interchangeable. Its important to note the majority of rules are set by the airline and will vary from airline to airline, and between countries that have different legislative framework.

I'll take your word for it that but I reckon that the next accident involving a fire and a disabled slide due to carry-on tearing, leading to pax dying because they either jumped or had no exit, would lead to a re-appraisal :-| .

I think the head of the NTSB would know the lie of the land a lot better than me in that respect. Re-appraisal of everything occurs after each accident, its the nature of aviation safety, one of the better aspects of the industry.

 

[RooFlyer]

Thats not an evacuation, otherwise it would be labelled as such, you used evacuation in your post. Your are using the term evacuation and disembarkation interchangeably, they are not interchangeable. Its important to note the majority of rules are set by the airline and will vary from airline to airline, and between countries that have different legislative framework.

You are right, I did use the meanings interchangeably, until I knew a bit better by reading through the QF1 report. Then I specifically noted the 2 terms, but observed that they both involve using the slide. And its the possible damage to the slide and impact on following pax that is my pet issue at the moment.

As I said, I respect your industry knowledge, and I don't pretend to be anything but a mug punter (albeit one who is up in the air a fair bit ), but nothing you have written here shakes me from the belief that FAs at doors leading to slides should attempt to make pax discard stuff they are carrying, especially if its not a 'red hot emergency'. A sharply barked order, and maybe an 'assist' with a bag that the pax is clutching is probably sufficient. Not implying in any way that the FA should grapple with the pax and/or their bag.

 

[maninblack]

Ybut nothing you have written here shakes me from the belief that FAs at doors leading to slides should attempt to make pax discard stuff they are carrying, especially if its not a 'red hot emergency'. A sharply barked order, and maybe an 'assist' with a bag that the pax is clutching is probably sufficient. Not implying in any way that the FA should grapple with the pax and/or their bag.

But then where do they put items in a crowded exit space so the don't have blockages and tripping hazards and they may end up in an argument with a distressed and irrational person. I assume they use their judgement and unless the carry on item looks really dangerous, just get everyone off in a quick and orderly manner.

 

[milehighclub]

Plain and simple: Passengers don't listen. The fact that they attempted to take their bags off even though explicitly told to leave everything behind in an emergency, your wasting your breath telling them again when they are at the door. They've already ignored you once, and it's quite possible that it would happen again especially when people are in panic mode. Especially on a small aircraft like that if you have all these passengers with bags at the door, your only going to block the exit so while not ideal, your better getting them off and out of the way.

I've mentioned in several posts before where passengers have ignored flight attendant instructions in emergencies only to make the situation far worse.

As markis10 mentioned - it's either an evacuation or it is not. Note that a precautionary disembarkation doesn't have to be done with slides. It can also be done with stairs but in the case of QF1 it wasn't possible to get stairs there, so a precautionary disembarkation using slides was done (QF32 was a precautionary with stairs). The commands and tone used are very different. A precautionary is more controlled, it's less rushed. And at anytime a precautionary can be turned into an evacuation. A precautionary also wouldn't use all exits, so looking at the pictures, it would appear it was a full evacuation which means everyone out ASAP with no bags!

 

[The Rok]

Blown tyre on take off I believe…. Aborted and then bellied the plane as a result of the heavy impact. At least nobody was hurt..

 

[FlyboyAl]

On TV over here this morning, the footage shows passengers evacuating from the port over wing exits while there appears to be smoke rising from the engine! Perhaps the smoke is from the other side but it doesn't look like it. If it was me, I'd be getting out either at the front or rear, not over the smoke.
And yes, I could not fail to see passengers with their carry on coming off the slides (again)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I've mentioned in several posts before where passengers have ignored flight attendant instructions in emergencies only to make the situation far worse.

I would like to see the evidence behind this statement. Can you direct me to some relevant reading?

Since there was a mention of QF1... that incident unfortunately highlights some serious issues with both doors L2 and R2 being unattended during a critical emergency period. It should never be assumed that cabin crew are fully in control of a situation, or that cabin crew will always be around to assist in an emergency. Passengers should be fully aware of what is happening and should be prepared to act on their own initiative if it becomes absolutely necessary to do so.

On this US airways slide evacuation... it was reported there were no injuries. This seems to indicate not all evacuations will result in major injuries as some people think.