Aviation Discussion

[TravelDream]

So, you're heading back from Stateside across the Atlantic. The beast from the east has increased head winds along the way. You get on to the ATIS and it tells you there are reports of strong wind shear in the whole region. As you fly down country to join a stack at your preferred London airport, your captain tots up the figures and arrives at the decision that the margin has gone and that you won't have enough fuel to land safely.
Naturally the captain puts out an urgency call and declares a 'Pan' for a fuel emergency which usually prompts ATC to move the aircraft up the landing queue considerably.
Whilst starting their decent, another run on the figures leaves the pilots thinking that they might not have enough fuel to do that, so they divert to the next nearest airport. This time probably calling a distress or 'Mayday' for being fuel critical. Wind shear is an issue because a go-around is quite normal, but you don't have the fuel for that.

On the ground, the diversionary airport might declare a 'Full Emergency' for its emergency response. A Full Emergency by definition is: "an aircraft approaching the airport is, or is suspected to be, in such trouble that there is imminent danger of an accident."
Not every one wants to hear that on a flight do they? Let's be honest, if this doesn't work out, you won't be making it to the diversionary airport. A field on the approach is more likely.

Over to you! What do you tell the punters sat in the back or What do you want to hear?

A few points:
You have a tailwind when flying from the US to Europe when at altitude. Short-term forecasts are pretty accurate nowadays as well.
ATIS is an weather report for a specific aerodrome, not a regional one. To listen to weather reports for a region in flight, pilots use VOLMET. Though this is increasingly being displaced by SATCOM data links.
Modern aircraft have computer which continually work out fuel. If wind shear is expected at the destination/ alternate, a much earlier diversion might be appropriate. Reykjavik/ Shannon/ the Azores are all much closer to the US and can be used dependent on track.
If you are expected to land below reserve fuel, you declare an emergency. That's a mayday call. A pan call is never made for fuel. If you are going to land close to, but above, reserves, you declare minimum fuel.
It's very unsafe, but you would have enough fuel in the reserve fuel to go around and then do another approach. It would be almost on fumes though.

I think you are talking about something very different to everyone else. In the situation you describe, a crash landing is not expected. In your situation, I would expect no communications from the cockpit or cabin crew until after the plane landed.
I, and I think most others, are talking about a serious situation in flight where an emergency landing is going to take place and even a crash-landing/ditching is possible. I'm thinking something like double engine failure, under-carriage failure, electronics system failure etc. In those situations you could have 12 hours plus (e.g. under-carriage failure) between problem identification and landing.
I don't know how to make it more clear. Airline procedures and policies require crew to brief passengers in those situations.

Would I rather be briefed how to take the brace position before landing or die from blunt force trauma from my head slamming into the seat in front of me?
Would I rather be briefed on the correct use of flotation devices before landing or die from inflating my life vest in the cabin and being forced into the top of the cabin and due from drowning?
I'll let you answer them.

 

[FQTV]

I do get why you'd think that, but it just isn't true - if there is time, it will be briefed, even if it is briefed with an overly positive air to it (they are never going to say "we are going to barrel into the ground at 500mph and you're all going to die" even if that is true).

Maybe watch some Air Crash Investigation (fascinating programme)? That sort of thing tends to be explained on there.

I've been following the latest posts in the thread and wondered if this might be the source of some of the misunderstandings.

For the avoidance of doubt, programmes such as Air Crash Investigation use dramatisations of actual events. The recreation segments are not wholly factual.

The notion of briefing passengers prior to an emergency event is one that's almost entirely fictional, but one that's widely assumed to be the case as the vast majority of (living) 'experience' of such events comes solely from the likes of the Airplane and Airport Hollywood franchises and their ilk, and TV series such as Air Crash Investigation.

In the real world, as others have mentioned upthread, there are a wide range of pre 'arrival' preparations that are made, but passener briefings are exceptionally rare, for all sorts of reasons.

What I can say is that, especially in the UK, every single nuance of a survivable event is researched to the nth degree, and every word of the pre-flight passenger safety announcement has been carefully and considerately crafted based on the outcomes of past events. The scripts are not random; they're very, very specific.

Likewise, although the pictures on the safety card may be drawn in a cartoon-style, the detail applied to them is exceptional. There are all sorts of things shown that, once again, are the results of forensic research.

There is, however, a huge amount of psychology involved, and there's therefore an extremely fine line to draw between how much is explained, and why, and how much is simply made available to those who care to pay attention to it.

The British Midland Kegworth Crash, in particular, was apparently extremely consequential in changes to tiny details of safety briefings and card designs, as was the British Airtours Manchester fire prior to that.

I don't know how to make it more clear. Airline procedures and policies require crew to brief passengers in those situations.

They do, but only to a point in that it's the flight and cabin crew's overriding responsibility to manage the situation. I think where we're getting at cross-purposes here is that there may be a belief amongst some that there's a pre-event protocol that's as rigidly mandated as the pre-departure protocol.

There isn't, and therefore what may have happened prior to the Hudson US1549 ditching (say) could and would be completely different to what happened prior to BA38 coming down slightly short at Heathrow.

 

[hotelmode]

Some interesting theories, but, some highly unlikely scenarios.

In the unlikely event of a preplanned emergency landing you will get a further emergency brief with more details. It is procedure and it is mandated. Its just rare because preplanned emergencies don't happen very often. This isn't an engine failure/low fuel scenario, more onboard fire, landing gear type issue where an evacuation is likely.

 

[Fat Gaz]

I, and I think most others, are talking about a serious situation in flight where an emergency landing is going to take place and even a crash-landing/ditching is possible. I'm thinking something like double engine failure, under-carriage failure, electronics system failure etc. In those situations you could have 12 hours plus (e.g. under-carriage failure) between problem identification and landing.
I don't know how to make it more clear. Airline procedures and policies require crew to brief passengers in those situations.

Seriously? Name one example where a double engine failure gave crew 12 hours plus warning.

Would I rather be briefed how to take the brace position before landing or die from blunt force trauma from my head slamming into the seat in front of me?
Would I rather be briefed on the correct use of flotation devices before landing or die from inflating my life vest in the cabin and being forced into the top of the cabin and due from drowning?
I'll let you answer them.

You would have been briefed. At the start of the pushback when the cabin safety brief took place. If you chose not to listen it, that's down to you. You might get a 'be prepared for a ditching or be prepared to brace at best. If you are thinking the crew are going to hold a friendly Q&A on the subject, I think you might be slightly disappointed.

I've been following the latest posts in the thread and wondered if this might be the source of some of the misunderstandings.

For the avoidance of doubt, programmes such as Air Crash Investigation use dramatisations of actual events. The recreation segments are not wholly factual.

The notion of briefing passengers prior to an emergency event is one that's almost entirely fictional, but one that's widely assumed to be the case as the vast majority of (living) 'experience' of such events comes solely from the likes of the Airplane and Airport Hollywood franchises and their ilk, and TV series such as Air Crash Investigation.

In the real world, as others have mentioned upthread, there are a wide range of pre 'arrival' preparations that are made, but passener briefings are exceptionally rare, for all sorts of reasons.

What I can say is that, especially in the UK, every single nuance of a survivable event is researched to the nth degree, and every word of the pre-flight passenger safety announcement has been carefully and considerately crafted based on the outcomes of past events. The scripts are not random; they're very, very specific.

Likewise, although the pictures on the safety card may be drawn in a cartoon-style, the detail applied to them is exceptional. There are all sorts of things shown that, once again, are the results of forensic research.

There is, however, a huge amount of psychology involved, and there's therefore an extremely fine line to draw between how much is explained, and why, and how much is simply made available to those who care to pay attention to it.

The British Midland Kegworth Crash, in particular, was apparently extremely consequential in changes to tiny details of safety briefings and card designs, as was the British Airtours Manchester fire prior to that.



They do, but only to a point in that it's the flight and cabin crew's overriding responsibility to manage the situation. I think where we're getting at cross-purposes here is that there may be a belief amongst some that there's a pre-event protocol that's as rigidly mandated as the pre-departure protocol.

There isn't, and therefore what may have happened prior to the Hudson US1549 ditching (say) could and would be completely different to what happened prior to BA38 coming down slightly short at Heathrow.

Thank you for the clarity I was unable to provide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seriously? Name one example where a double engine failure gave crew 12 hours plus warning.

He was referring to a landing gear failure. Though that's not how it would be done - you don't go into the transatlantic (or whatever) if you know you've got a problem, you burn off/dump fuel and land as soon as is practicable. You do however have decent warning.

Double (or quadruple) engine failures are very, very rare. But in one such failure, the captain did speak to the cabin, with this wonderfully-BA quote, which is quite possibly the most British thing I have ever read in my life:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."

You can read more about that incident here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

You would have been briefed. At the start of the pushback when the cabin safety brief took place. If you chose not to listen it, that's down to you.

That is not how aircraft safety is approached, and it's a good job it isn't, too.

 

[Speed43125]

He was referring to a landing gear failure. Though that's not how it would be done - you don't go into the transatlantic (or whatever) if you know you've got a problem, you burn off/dump fuel and land as soon as is practicable. You do however have decent warning.

I think he's trying to allude to LOT polish airlines flight 16

 

[najaB]

He was referring to a landing gear failure. Though that's not how it would be done - you don't go into the transatlantic (or whatever) if you know you've got a problem, you burn off/dump fuel and land as soon as is practicable.

Errm...

I think he's trying to allude to LOT polish airlines flight 16

Exactly! If the only problem is that the landing gear won't extend then it doesn't make much difference if you have your emergency landing here now, or over there in eight hours.

 

[Fat Gaz]

He was referring to a landing gear failure. Though that's not how it would be done - you don't go into the transatlantic (or whatever) if you know you've got a problem, you burn off/dump fuel and land as soon as is practicable. You do however have decent warning.

Double (or quadruple) engine failures are very, very rare. But in one such failure, the captain did speak to the cabin, with this wonderfully-BA quote, which is quite possibly the most British thing I have ever read in my life:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."

You can read more about that incident here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

And that is the very reason pilots earn what they do. In that case, they did an excellent job. I will maintain someone was definitely watching over them.

 

[gsnedders]

I've been following the latest posts in the thread and wondered if this might be the source of some of the misunderstandings.

For the avoidance of doubt, programmes such as Air Crash Investigation use dramatisations of actual events. The recreation segments are not wholly factual.

The notion of briefing passengers prior to an emergency event is one that's almost entirely fictional, but one that's widely assumed to be the case as the vast majority of (living) 'experience' of such events comes solely from the likes of the Airplane and Airport Hollywood franchises and their ilk, and TV series such as Air Crash Investigation.

In the real world, as others have mentioned upthread, there are a wide range of pre 'arrival' preparations that are made, but passener briefings are exceptionally rare, for all sorts of reasons.

Here's an NTSB study on the Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes, including (page 53):

Each of the air carrier flight attendant manuals reviewed by the Safety Board made a distinction between planned evacuations and unplanned evacuations. Planned evacuations allow the crew to review procedures and to prepare passengers in flight for the landing and an orderly evacuation. Passengers can be given brace instructions, guidance on exit usage, and information on how and when exits should be operated

And okay, only a third of evacuations in that study were planned evacuations, but it's still far from unheard of.

I think he's trying to allude to LOT polish airlines flight 16

…where:

During the cabin preparation the passengers were calm, they carried out the crew instructions, there was no panic. The cabin crew demonstrated brace positions, secured all loose luggage and showed the emergency exits.

Briefing passengers is good practice, not least because it adds to survivability. You also almost certainly have more information in a planned evacuation scenario than you do during the pre-flight briefing, and hence can give more specific instructions. And passengers are much more likely to pay better attention when they know they're in an emergency situation (and yes, the planned evacuation briefing will admit that it's an emergency!), given recall of pre-flight briefings is typically poor, and especially when it might have been many hours prior.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly! If the only problem is that the landing gear won't extend then it doesn't make much difference if you have your emergency landing here now, or over there in eight hours.

So you'd think, but actually it's more usual to turn back straight away if you have a problem, which probably makes sense on the grounds that if there's one problem there's always the chance there's another one too, so being near an airport while you dump/burn off fuel is better than being over the Atlantic. I'll read up on that one, though.

(I do recall that it used to be the case, not a lot of 4-engined aircraft left now, that with a quad you could head onto a transatlantic with one engine out and that that did happen at least once - but I guess the concern would be whether the thing that caused one engine to fail could cause others to as well, for example some form of fuel contamination)

 

[najaB]

So you'd think, but actually it's more usual to turn back straight away if you have a problem, which probably makes sense on the grounds that if there's one problem there's always the chance there's another one too, so being near an airport while you dump/burn off fuel is better than being over the Atlantic. I'll read up on that one, though.

Which is why I specifically said if that was the only problem.

(I do recall that it used to be the case, not a lot of 4-engined aircraft left now, that with a quad you could head onto a transatlantic with one engine out and that that did happen at least once - but I guess the concern would be whether the thing that caused one engine to fail could cause others to as well, for example some form of fuel contamination)

It's a bit more nuanced than that (and in the BA instance depended on a difference between FAA and CAA regulations at the time), but in a nutshell on aircraft with three engines or less an engine failure was to be treated as an emergency and the crew were to land as soon as possible, where with four engines or more the CAA instruction was to land as soon as practical.

The BA lost one engine on take-off, so the crew spoke with control and after discussing the situation it was decided to continue to Heathrow since an engine change there would be easier than at LAX (so it was considered the most practicable course of action). It hit the headlines because the FAA rules didn't make the distinction and so a US crew would have been forced to return to LAX (or nearby alternate) and the flight had stronger than expected headwinds and so had to declare a fuel emergency on entering UK airspace. I'd have to look it up now but ISTR that they diverted (to Bristol?) in the end.

 

[TravelDream]

Seriously? Name one example where a double engine failure gave crew 12 hours plus warning.

I was very clearly not referring to double engine failure there. There are numerous emergency situations where the plane is able to stay airborne for hours and hours. LOT 16 as someone else pointed out is just one example. In that situation it was advisable to fly for as long as possible to land with the minimum safe amount of fuel to reduce risk of fire.
I notice also that you didn't respond to any of the points in my post.

Here's an NTSB study on the Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes, including (page 53):



And okay, only a third of evacuations in that study were planned evacuations, but it's still far from unheard of.


Briefing passengers is good practice, not least because it adds to survivability. You also almost certainly have more information in a planned evacuation scenario than you do during the pre-flight briefing, and hence can give more specific instructions. And passengers are much more likely to pay better attention when they know they're in an emergency situation (and yes, the planned evacuation briefing will admit that it's an emergency!), given recall of pre-flight briefings is typically poor, and especially when it might have been many hours prior.

Thanks for sharing the study. I am not sure where Fat Gaz gets his ideas from. All British airlines require crew to brief passengers as they did on LOT 16 when time and conditions allow. He alluded that others were getting them from Air Crash Investigation. That isn't the case.

 

[Mike395]

It's got a bit intertwined now with other discussion so I'm not going to split it at this point - but can we consider taking any further followup on the (interesting!) safety discussion to a dedicated thread please? Don't feel that anything aviation related on the forum has to belong in this thread specifically - it (much like the Caledonian Sleeper thread in NR General) is designed for day to day updates (and any brief discussion following on from this) rather than in depth discussion on certain topics, which would probably be better (and get more visibility!) in a dedicated thread within the Other Transport forum. Thank you!

 

[najaB]

Changing topic - 2020 was the worst year for airline safety for a long time (measured on fatalities per passenger km). Deaths were higher in 2020 (299) vs 2019 (275) despite commercial flights being down by around 42%.

Plane crash deaths rise in 2020 despite Covid pandemic

Some 299 people died in commercial plane crashes last year, rising from 257 casualties in 2019.

www.bbc.com

 

[TravelDream]

Changing topic - 2020 was the worst year for airline safety for a long time (measured on fatalities per passenger km). Deaths were higher in 2020 (299) vs 2019 (275) despite commercial flights being down by around 42%.

Plane crash deaths rise in 2020 despite Covid pandemic

Some 299 people died in commercial plane crashes last year, rising from 257 casualties in 2019.

www.bbc.com

I disagree with the premise of the article. Arguably it's because of the pandemic. Fewer flights mean a crash has a greater impact on statistics. Concorde only had one fatal crash in its decades long service, but statistically it was one of the most dangerous commercial aircraft to fly.

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Two of the crashes were down to wrongful military actions. Nothing scares me too much otherwise.

 

[najaB]

Arguably it's because of the pandemic. Fewer flights mean a crash has a greater impact on statistics.

That is the premise of the article.

 

[WestCoast]

Two of the crashes were down to wrongful military actions. Nothing scares me too much otherwise.

The previous years with the MAX crashes seemed far more concerning to me. Awaiting them coming back into service with interest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The previous years with the MAX crashes seemed far more concerning to me. Awaiting them coming back into service with interest.

Even if they didn't modify them that wouldn't happen again, as now anyone who hasn't spent the last couple of years with their head in a bucket of sand knows about the issue, so if it did happen again pilots would know about it and respond to it correctly.

 

[Fat Gaz]

I notice also that you didn't respond to any of the points in my post.

No, that's right. My comment below should explain why too.

Thanks for sharing the study. I am not sure where Fat Gaz gets his ideas from. All British airlines require crew to brief passengers as they did on LOT 16 when time and conditions allow. He alluded that others were getting them from Air Crash Investigation. That isn't the case.

Fat Gaz gets his ideas from having worked in the aviation industry. I'm still keen to learn about it too. If you read my earlier posts I'm willing to challenge on stuff, I'm happy to learn about things all day long but if what is being offered is at odds with my knowledge & experience - I'll challenge it with a view to processing the validity of the new information. I'm happy to apologise if I'm wrong too, there is an apology a few posts back of mine.
Briefing of passengers. I have never said that passengers shouldn't be. I have asked as to why people think they should, that is all.
He alluded that others were getting them from Air Crash Investigation. I haven't and that post that did wasn't by me.

Accuracy. That is all.

The thread won't be improved by continually contesting accuracy so how about moving forward?

The previous years with the MAX crashes seemed far more concerning to me. Awaiting them coming back into service with interest.

The FAA have cleared the MAX for service in the States. It's a waiting game to see what happens this side of the atlantic. Ryanair have hundreds on order under the banner of 737-8200 with extra seats and extra exits. Thompson & TUI have loads too.

 

[TravelDream]

That is the premise of the article.

Read the title and you will realise it is not. Despite shows the opposite of that. That is one of the comments in the article though.

No, that's right. My comment below should explain why too.

Fat Gaz gets his ideas from having worked in the aviation industry. I'm still keen to learn about it too. If you read my earlier posts I'm willing to challenge on stuff, I'm happy to learn about things all day long but if what is being offered is at odds with my knowledge & experience - I'll challenge it with a view to processing the validity of the new information. I'm happy to apologise if I'm wrong too, there is an apology a few posts back of mine.
Briefing of passengers. I have never said that passengers shouldn't be. I have asked as to why people think they should, that is all.
He alluded that others were getting them from Air Crash Investigation. I haven't and that post that did wasn't by me.

I have also worked (and slightly still work) in the aviation industry. Though you are right it isn't too helpful to be adversarial. We are probably talking about the same thing but from different perspectives due to the difficulty of forum style communication. Apologies if I have mis-attributed things to you. We all want to learn more of course .

 

[najaB]

Read the title and you will realise it is not.

The premise of the article is that deaths in accidents/incidents went up this year as compare to last despite flight numbers going down. Where does it say anything different to that?

 

[TravelDream]

The premise of the article is that deaths in accidents/incidents went up this year as compare to last despite flight numbers going down. Where does it say anything different to that?

Perhaps my English isn't up to standard (not my real native language), but the headline says exactly that.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps my English isn't up to standard (not my real native language), but the headline says exactly that.

The headline is "Plane crash deaths rise in 2020 despite Covid pandemic" - which is saying that there were more deaths in plane crashes in 2020, despite the pandemic which, later in the article, they say reduced commercial flights by 42%.

If deaths are higher but flights are fewer then statistically the rate of deaths per flight will have increased.

 

[FQTV]

Aer Lingus service is subject to being granted an exemption from US department of Transport. IAG is majority owned by EU citizens in order to comply with EU law. Only companies that are majority owned by British or American shareholders have automatic right to use the US-UK Air Services Agreement. Aer Lingus has setup a UK subsidiary and applied for an exemption from this requirement to launch the Manchester service. I think BA is covered by grandfather rights.

In the long term Aer Lingus might be better tackling the UK-US market by extending its long haul Dublin services to UK using 5th freedom rights. It could sell US pre clearance in Dublin as an advantage and it wouldn't need to meet US or UK ownership requirements. Pre covid it had plenty of Dublin - US flights and Dublin - UK flights. It should be able to link some together.

Aer Lingus hopes to begin marketing Manchester > US flights from this Friday (8th January 2021). We should then find out the routes and operating details.

 

[najaB]

Aer Lingus hopes to begin marketing Manchester > US flights from this Friday (8th January 2021). We should then find out the routes and operating details.

I see those being *reallY* well patronised if they start any time soon. Not.

 

[FQTV]

I see those being *reallY* well patronised if they start any time soon. Not.

I’m minded to agree!

There are actually some Aer Lingus fares lurking in the distribution systems which are only valid for travel from 1st July to the 31st August this year.

I can’t currently see when they were loaded, but they could be a precursor to the flights themselves being loaded for an initially short operating season.

 

[Crawley Ben]

Norwegian Airlines have finally thrown the towel in with regards to their long haul operations.

1100 jobs lost at Gatwick Airport (with more to follow in France, Spain and the USA).

Will concentrate on short haul flying only. Full details in link below.

Norwegian to focus on a strong European network

Norwegian’s Board of Directors has today outlined a simplified business structure and dedicated short haul route network. With this plan, Norwegian can build...

media.uk.norwegian.com

I work at Gatwick myself, so thoughts with those who are effected by this news today.

Ben

 

[Bald Rick]

Norwegian Airlines have finally thrown the towel in with regards to their long haul operations.

1100 jobs lost at Gatwick Airport (with more to follow in France, Spain and the USA).

Will concentrate on short haul flying only. Full details in link below.

Norwegian to focus on a strong European network

Norwegian’s Board of Directors has today outlined a simplified business structure and dedicated short haul route network. With this plan, Norwegian can build...

media.uk.norwegian.com

I work at Gatwick myself, so thoughts with those who are effected by this news today.

Ben

BA share price up 1.2% as a result!

 

[Wolfie]

BA share price up 1.2% as a result!

I bet BA are relieved that Norwegian refused their attempted takeover in 2019. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Norwegian are probably kicking themselves.

 

[najaB]

I bet BA are relieved that Norwegian refused their attempted takeover in 2019. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Norwegian are probably kicking themselves.

Well, yes and no. If BA (or another large airline) had taken them over then the dual impact of the 787 engine issues and 737 Max grounding would have been easier to mitigate since they (Norwegian) wouldn't have had to lease aircraft at such high rates.