Act Acting » Theatre Acting » AA Flight…Panic?

AA Flight…Panic?

Question:

Are you sure the flames came from the engine?

        As previous poster noted, the FAA report (NTSB, oops) said it was torching on the APU.  No big deal; neophyte flier caused evacuation and damage to the aircraft from plugs hitting the wings. — Bill Candee in NYC

Response:

I agree.  It is hard to believe, but UA had the same thing happen at LAX a few years back.  Not only was it hard to believe it was a 727-200, but it was a F/A riding as a passenger who STARTED the evacuation.  AND…she was the only injury!!!  Divine retribution??? Some passenger in the back yelled fire just as the aircraft was pushed back and was starting engines.  How they could have seen anything is beyond me! The F/A was sitting in an window-exit seat, opened it, and left the plane, with others following.  She jumped off the wing and injured her ankle. — jla – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – caused to appear as if it was written: It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight (1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. An AA spokesperson said it is not unusual for smoke and "sparks" coming from an engine being started. I have seen the smoke, but not the "sparks" in my travels.  Is it usual or unusual about the sparks? I would say that visible flame or sparks should be reported immediately. There have been various reports that P&W engines can occasionally generate visible sparks at engine-start, but I’ve never seen it. Which airplane and engines did this occur upon? That’s the strange thing:  a B727-200! Malc.

Response:

Are you sure the flames came from the engine?  It seems unlikely a pax could see flames during a 727 engine start, even if they were actually present.  On the other hand, the APU exhaust (on a 727-200) comes out of the right wing root behind the aft overwing exit, and APUs are known to occasionally "torch" during start, which can be mildly spectacular if it’s dark outside.  Still, I can’t blame a pax for starting an evacuation if they think the plane is on fire… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would say that visible flame or sparks should be reported immediately. There have been various reports that P&W engines can occasionally generate visible sparks at engine-start, but I’ve never seen it. Which airplane and engines did this occur upon? That’s the strange thing:  a B727-200!

Response:

The issue, as I understand it, isn’t that it’s not a good idea to notify the authorities ASAP of a fire — it’s that yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded place is likely to cause a panic, which *reduces* the likelihood of a quick and safe evacuation. IIRC, the standard illustration of where freedom of speech is to be curtailed is that we do not have the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre.

I thought that issue was about yelling fire when there was no fire.?? Michael

Response:

The issue, as I understand it, isn’t that it’s not a good idea to notify the authorities ASAP of a fire — it’s that yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded place is likely to cause a panic, which *reduces* the likelihood of a quick and safe evacuation. IIRC, the standard illustration of where freedom of speech is to be curtailed is that we do not have the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre. I thought that issue was about yelling fire when there was no fire.??

No, it’s about yelling ‘Fire!’ and causing a stampede which tends to kill more people than most fires. At least that’s how I’ve always heard it presented. Besides, it’s not at all clear that there WAS a fire in the relevant sense in the plane case.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry Mark – it is not always the case.  Good case in point was the British Midland 737 at Kegworth some years ago.  The passengers and the cabin crew knew which engine had "gone", but as the (as I believe) instruments in the cockpit were giving "false" information the crew shut down the wrong engine, or the one that was actually still working. If only one of those passengers or cabin crew had insisted on the cockpit Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and some cabin crew are reluctant to disturb the tech crew in any emergency, but I would rather someone kicked up a stink and insisted the cockpit crew be informed rather than leave things as they are thinking that all is ok in the pointy end. Cheers/Regards  Al. You misunderstand.  I don’t have any probelms with passengers passing on concerns to the crew, and absolutely no problem (in fact, I encourge it) with Flight Attendents voicing their concerns with the Flight Crew.  I do have a problem with passengers initiating evacuations.

Ok – so where were the crew to stop this evacuation??  Where I am from, the cabin crew station themselves at the rear galley, front galley (both ends of the plane) and a couple patrolling the aisle(s).  Unless the aircraft is breaking up and fire is enveloping the cabin, the decision to evacuate should be made by the crew (basically, if they are available to make the decision, and you are able to hear it, you should not initiate an evacuation).

Agreed.  And if they are strong enough and able enough to literally scream their lungs out "This way – follow me" surely they can shout out – "Stop – there is nothing wrong – please be seated".   There is to great a chance to turn a relatively innocuous situation (APU torching) into an event that seriously injures people and makes the news.

Agreed – see above. As far as your 737 example- the engine was shut down before any input would have come from the cabin.  Again, I don’t have a problem with passengers voicing concerns.  It would be appropriate to bring the APU torching to the attention of the Flight Attendents.  With your 737 example, the analogy to a passenger initiated evacuation would have been someone from 11D running up to the cockpit and pulling a fire handle. –Mark Rogers

In regards to the incident we are discussing, it is true that the engine was shut down very quickly, but it is important to note that the FO stated (when asked which engine had "blown") "It’s the le… it’s the right one".  Besides that there is a *considerable* time lag in shutting it down and being able to re-start it – (see below). Three of the six flight attendants aboard plus numerous passengers in the rear of the 737 knew it was the left engine that had gone as they had seen the "fireworks" that accompanied the shuddering and seen the "bright sparks", "flames", "flashes" and "torching" from No. 1 engine.  From the time of initial disturbances to shutdown, was fairly quick as you have stated. This was at 8.05pm local, and the actual "impact" was at 8.24 pm local – enough time in my opinion to alert the cockpit crew they had erred in shutting down the wrong engine. This is especially true when at 8.13 pm local (a full 11 minutes before impact) the Captain came onto the intercom to announce to the passengers that there "is a problem with the right engine which has produced some smoke in the cabin but we can advise the right side engine that has caused us some problems has been shut down and we are for the sake of caution making an emergency landing at East Midlands airport in approximately ten minutes." Neither the three cabin crew that saw the LEFT engine as the one giving problems assimilated the Captains message regarding shutting down the right side engine.  None of the rear passengers after hearing the Captains authoritive and reassuring tones (as it should be in event of any sort of emergency) felt sufficiently sure of themselves to mention the discrepancy of the right and left engines to mention it to the cabin crew. Given that there were 11 minutes between the Captains PA announcement to the cabin and actual impact, there was much more than ample time to "investigate" indeed which engine was affected and if the tech crew had indeed shut the wrong engine down and to rectify that mistake. Your analogy of the fire extinguisher in this particular case is to me a case of the tech crew using the H20 extinguisher when the "chemical" extinguisher was indeed the one they should have used. Cheers.  Al.

Response:

Ok – so where were the crew to stop this evacuation??  Where I am from, the cabin crew station themselves at the rear galley, front galley (both ends of the plane) and a couple patrolling the aisle(s).

This occurred during APU start – most likely during boarding about 15-20 minutes before departure.  The passenger probably initiated the evacuation using a window exit (he would be near the wing in order to see the torching).  An evacuation is very difficult to stop.  The flight attendants were probably at the front and rear of the aircraft, and wouldn’t have known who initiated the evacuation, or why, until it was all over. On larger aircraft it is virtually impossible to stop an evacuation. Opening an exit will trigger an ‘evac’ alarm.  Once this sounds, all the other flight attendants will initiate an evacuation using their doors.  The idea is that a 747 is too big to assess the situation in the back from the cockpit or first flight attendant position, and that if something is going on to warrant an evacuation, everyone should get out. Passenger Initiated Evacuations are a difficult problem with no easy solution.  The best thing is not to design APU’s with exhaust mechanisms on top of the wings, as in the 727. In regards to the incident we are discussing, it is true that the engine was shut down very quickly, but it is important to note that the FO stated (when asked which engine had "blown") "It’s the le… it’s the right one".  Besides that there is a *considerable* time lag in shutting it down and being able to re-start it – (see below).

This accident was tragic, and it had a lot to do with the fire indications to the engines being reversed.  The crew shut down the engine that was indicating that it was on fire – it just wasn’t the right one.  I can certainly see that type of mistake happening. The crew not only shut down the wrong engine, they blew a fire bottle into it (most likely both fire bottles).  Now they are unable to fight the fire in the bad engine, and unable to restart the good one (with halon throughout). I don’t think any amount of time or passenger input would have changed the outcome, once the engine was shut down and the bottles were discharged. Your analogy of the fire extinguisher in this particular case is to me a case of the tech crew using the H20 extinguisher when the "chemical" extinguisher was indeed the one they should have used.

I guess I don’t understand this. I’m saying I don’t have a problem with passengers providing input – I just think it is innappropriate for them to make desisions with less experience and information than the flight crew. Initiating an evacuation when the crew is available to determine if that is necessary qualifies, IMHO. –Mark Rogers – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Cheers.  Al.

Response:

I realize the intent of the post but the Air Florida flight didn’t have ice on the wings it had an iced over indicator that didn’t allow the crew to properly know vitals of the aircraft for a proper take off. John

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -If a passenger yelled "ice on the wing" on the doomed  flight out of Wash DC several years ago more might have survived.  I can’t see how this passenger could be held liable for acting scared! Maybe from now on the pilot will announce that engine fires are perfectly normal. It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight (1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. An AA spokesperson said it is not unusual for smoke and "sparks" coming from an engine being started. I have seen the smoke, but not the "sparks" in my travels.  Is it usual or unusual about the sparks? What is the liability, if any, of the passenger who yelled "fire"? Wayne

Response:

NTSB Identification: CHI98LA127 Scheduled 14 CFR 121 operation of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. Injuries: 1 Serious, 2 Minor, 153 Uninjured. (snip) . The cockpit crew was in the process of starting the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) when flames were seen coming from the APU exhaust. A passenger was heard to scream "Fire" at which time the uncommanded evacuation was initiated by passengers.  (snip)

Thank you.  This confirms what I suspected in a previous post; ie. that the passenger witnessed torching during the start of the APU, not flames coming from an engine. The APU exhaust system is designed to handle torching, and the aircraft was in no danger.  3 people were injured (one seriously) during a completely unnecessary evacuation initiated by a passenger.  Hardly erring on the side of caution, IMHO. –Mark Rogers

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry Mark – it is not always the case.  Good case in point was the British Midland 737 at Kegworth some years ago.  The passengers and the cabin crew knew which engine had "gone", but as the (as I believe) instruments in the cockpit were giving "false" information the crew shut down the wrong engine, or the one that was actually still working. If only one of those passengers or cabin crew had insisted on the cockpit Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and some cabin crew are reluctant to disturb the tech crew in any emergency, but I would rather someone kicked up a stink and insisted the cockpit crew be informed rather than leave things as they are thinking that all is ok in the pointy end. Cheers/Regards  Al.

You misunderstand.  I don’t have any probelms with passengers passing on concerns to the crew, and absolutely no problem (in fact, I encourge it) with Flight Attendents voicing their concerns with the Flight Crew.  I do have a problem with passengers initiating evacuations.  Unless the aircraft is breaking up and fire is enveloping the cabin, the decision to evacuate should be made by the crew (basically, if they are available to make the decision, and you are able to hear it, you should not initiate an evacuation).  There is to great a chance to turn a relatively innocuous situation (APU torching) into an event that seriously injures people and makes the news. As far as your 737 example- the engine was shut down before any input would have come from the cabin.  Again, I don’t have a problem with passengers voicing concerns.  It would be appropriate to bring the APU torching to the attention of the Flight Attendents.  With your 737 example, the analogy to a passenger initiated evacuation would have been someone from 11D running up to the cockpit and pulling a fire handle.   –Mark Rogers – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

NTSB Identification: CHI98LA127 Scheduled 14 CFR 121 operation of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. Accident occurred APR-20-98 at CHICAGO, IL Aircraft: Boeing 727-227, registration: N722AA Injuries: 1 Serious, 2 Minor, 153 Uninjured. On April 19, 1998, at 2030 central daylight time, a Boeing 727-227, N722AA, operated as American Airlines flight 1625, experienced an uncommanded passenger evacuation while parked at Gate L6 at the O’Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois. The three cockpit crewmembers and four flight attendants were not injured. One passenger suffered serious injuries, 2 passengers received minor injuries, and 146 passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an IFR flight plan was filed. The airplane received minor damage when the over wing emergency exit hatch was thrown onto the top of the left wing during the evacuation. The 14 CFR Part 121 flight had a destination of Kansas City, Missouri. The cockpit crew was in the process of starting the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) when flames were seen coming from the APU exhaust. A passenger was heard to scream "Fire" at which time the uncommanded evacuation was initiated by passengers. Passengers exited the airplane via the over wing exit, the rear airstair door, and the main entry door jet bridge. Three of the passengers who exited onto the wing were injured as they jumped off of the wing. One received a broken arm and the other two received minor leg and ankle injuries.

Response:

If a passenger yelled "ice on the wing" on the doomed  flight out of Wash DC several years ago more might have survived.  I can’t see how this passenger could be held liable for acting scared! Maybe from now on the pilot will announce that engine fires are perfectly normal. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight (1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. An AA spokesperson said it is not unusual for smoke and "sparks" coming from an engine being started. I have seen the smoke, but not the "sparks" in my travels.  Is it usual or unusual about the sparks? What is the liability, if any, of the passenger who yelled "fire"? Wayne

Response:

I have never seen flames coming out of a jet engine before, but I really don’t look at them that often. Liability for shouting "fire" would depend on the legal jurisdiction. One big question would be whether the behavior would be consider justified or not. I would be a lot of people would react similarly if they felt the engine was on fire. I am glad they errored for caution, much better than having a real problem and not have anyone speak up.

This isn’t erring on the side of caution, however. Believe it or not, the flight crew actually has the most information available to them regarding whether or not the engine is on fire.  The also have the training and experience to determine if an evacuation is necessary. By witnessing a fairly minor event (torching), a passenger initiated an evacuation.  This evacuation put far more people in danger than a little excess fuel being burned out the back of the engine. –Mark Rogers – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – IMHO, Michael

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have never seen flames coming out of a jet engine before, but I really don’t look at them that often. Liability for shouting "fire" would depend on the legal jurisdiction. One big question would be whether the behavior would be consider justified or not. I would be a lot of people would react similarly if they felt the engine was on fire. I am glad they errored for caution, much better than having a real problem and not have anyone speak up. This isn’t erring on the side of caution, however. Believe it or not, the flight crew actually has the most information available to them regarding whether or not the engine is on fire.  The also have the training and experience to determine if an evacuation is necessary. By witnessing a fairly minor event (torching), a passenger initiated an evacuation.  This evacuation put far more people in danger than a little excess fuel being burned out the back of the engine. –Mark Rogers

Sorry Mark – it is not always the case.  Good case in point was the British Midland 737 at Kegworth some years ago.  The passengers and the cabin crew knew which engine had "gone", but as the (as I believe) instruments in the cockpit were giving "false" information the crew shut down the wrong engine, or the one that was actually still working. If only one of those passengers or cabin crew had insisted on the cockpit Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and some cabin crew are reluctant to disturb the tech crew in any emergency, but I would rather someone kicked up a stink and insisted the cockpit crew be informed rather than leave things as they are thinking that all is ok in the pointy end. Cheers/Regards  Al.

Response:

I have never seen flames coming out of a jet engine before, but I really don’t look at them that often. Liability for shouting "fire" would depend on the legal jurisdiction. One big question would be whether the behavior would be consider justified or not. I would be a lot of people would react similarly if they felt the engine was on fire. I am glad they errored for caution, much better than having a real problem and not have anyone speak up. IMHO, Michael

Response:

I haven’t seen sparks but was on an L1011 in SLC early evening and the port engine spit out flames upon starting.  The flames looked as though they were going to start boiling the wing fuel tank.  It was pretty dramatic since it was dark out.  None of the passengers looked panicy but it sure could of freaked someone out. I guess these "hot starts" aren’t uncommon  with "TRI-to-STARts". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -An AA spokesperson said it is not unusual for smoke and "sparks" coming from an engine being started. I have seen the smoke, but not the "sparks" in my travels.  Is it usual or unusual about the sparks?

Response:

In article – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – caused to appear as if it was written: It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight (1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. An AA spokesperson said it is not unusual for smoke and "sparks" coming from an engine being started. I have seen the smoke, but not the "sparks" in my travels.  Is it usual or unusual about the sparks? I would say that visible flame or sparks should be reported immediately. There have been various reports that P&W engines can occasionally generate visible sparks at engine-start, but I’ve never seen it. Which airplane and engines did this occur upon? That’s the strange thing:  a B727-200!

Not surprised that the passenger who saw the sparks and smokes got panicky! –weiyun

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight (1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. What is the liability, if any, of the passenger who yelled "fire"? I reckon he must at least be liable for a good punch in the mouth for starting a panic instead of drawing any perceived problem to the attention of an FA, which is what any normal person would do. Peter McGurk

Hi Peter! While I absolutely agree with you that the passanger should not have yelled "fire" (the dumbest thing one can do in given situation), I dont think s/he should receive "a good punch in the mouth" for doing so. There are a number of factors that could have contributed to that scream: the person could have been scared of just being on a plane (yes, there are thousands of people even today that freak out when they get on board), let a lone seeing smoke and sparks coming out of the engines, so I am pretty sure that s/he created panic among the pax unintentionally. As for legal liability … hmmm I dont know what AA or FAA would have to say about that. Lets just be happy s/he didnt scream after take off :) ! Airboy

Response:

While I absolutely agree with you that the passanger should not have yelled "fire" (the dumbest thing one can do in given situation), I dont think s/he should receive "a good punch in the mouth" for doing so. There are a number of factors that could have contributed to that scream: the person could have been scared of just being on a plane (yes, there are thousands of people even today that freak out when they get on board), let a lone seeing smoke and sparks coming out of the engines, so I am pretty sure that s/he created panic among the pax unintentionally. As for legal liability … hmmm I dont know what AA or FAA would have to say about that. Lets just be happy s/he didnt scream after take off :) !

I suppose I’ll add my .02 cents to the flame .. If there was a decent amount of smoke / sparks coming out of the engine, which  many of us know is normal, especially in the older jets, I could very easily see where a "white knuckled" flyer could get scared and cause a panic. As you state above, there are thousands of people today who even freak out just being on an aircraft – either because their first time flyers or because of fear.  Afterall, the press would like you to believe that [seems that way at least] airplanes are not safe with all of the junk they have been reporting  lately.  From a spark setting of the fire in the center fuel-tank on TWA 800 to this ‘wiring problem’ now affecting 737’s that require re-wiring. With all this negative publicity as of late, I could very easily see where someone would see sparks, yell fire, and an evaculation occur.  Perhaps look at it this way – what if it were a real fire that had broken out on the engine on start up?  Would you rather of had the person shout fire and evacuate the aircraft immediately, or would you sit there, watch, verify that it was a fire by getting an FA’s attention [not always easy to do these days], have the  FA talk to the pilot, and then once the fire has spread [if it really was a fire] evacuate the aircraft in a condition where lives may of been lost because of the delay? I’d rather err on the side of caution and see an immediate evacuation of an aircraft if there were to be a possible fire.  However, I wasn’t there so I can’t comment on how much smoke / sparks came out of the engine, but I could certainly see where it would scare someone. Regards, Steve

Response:

<snip With all this negative publicity as of late, I could very easily see where someone would see sparks, yell fire, and an evaculation occur.  Perhaps look at it this way – what if it were a real fire that had broken out on the engine on start up?  Would you rather of had the person shout fire and evacuate the aircraft immediately, or would you sit there, watch, verify that it was a fire by getting an FA’s attention [not always easy to do these days], have the FA talk to the pilot, and then once the fire has spread [if it really was a fire] evacuate the aircraft in a condition where lives may of been lost because of the delay? I’d rather err on the side of caution and see an immediate evacuation of an aircraft if there were to be a possible fire.  However, I wasn’t there so I can’t comment on how much smoke / sparks came out of the engine, but I could certainly see where it would scare someone.

The issue, as I understand it, isn’t that it’s not a good idea to notify the authorities ASAP of a fire — it’s that yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded place is likely to cause a panic, which *reduces* the likelihood of a quick and safe evacuation. IIRC, the standard illustration of where freedom of speech is to be curtailed is that we do not have the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre. Interestingly, a few months ago I was at the theatre here in Philadelphia for a post-Broadway run of _Showboat_. Halfway thru, someone in the loge yelled ‘Fire!’ The actors stopped acting immediately, the houselights came on — and everybody just sat in their seats and waited to see what was happening. Some people (fire marshals?) arrived and went to the front of the loge — apparently one of the spotlights was burning. I must say, I got a little nervous since I know how fast an electrical fire can spread. The theatre was SRO, btw. Anyway, in about 5 minutes an actor announced that everything was fine, the houselights dimmed, and the play went on. I was pretty impressed that there was not the slightest bit of panic and no one left. (It was a great production of a great play, btw. :-) )

Response:

t… I would say that visible flame or sparks should be reported immediately. There have been various reports that P&W engines can occasionally generate visible sparks at engine-start, but I’ve never seen it. Which airplane and engines did this occur upon? That’s the strange thing:  a B727-200!

If this is true, I would think it far more likely that the passenger saw torching during the start of the APU. The APU (auxilliary power unit) is a small jet engine used to provide electric power and airconditioning while the aircraft is on the ground.  It also provides air to start the engines.  On a completely unrelated note, this is why the ‘air conditioning’ stops shortly after you begin pushing back from the gate – the air conditioning is turned off to provide more air to start the engines. Most aircraft have the APU in the tail.  The 727 has an engine where the APU would normally be, therefore the APU is located in the right main wheel well.  The exhaust is on top of the right wing. Occasionally during an APU start, fuel will build up before ignition occurrs.  This causes ‘torching’, or a large flame coming out of the top of the wing for 3-5 seconds.  This is perfectly acceptable (in fact the exhaust system is designed to allow this), although understandable disconcerting for a passenger who witnesses this. This is, of course, speculation, but it wouldn’t be the first time that APU torching caused a Passenger Initiated Evacuation (PIA- an actual industry term) on a 727. –Mark Rogers – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Malc.

Response:

:It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight :( 1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the :ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger :noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The :passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from :the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being :a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. :What is the liability, if any, of the passenger who yelled "fire"? : I reckon he must at least be liable for a good punch in the mouth for : starting a panic instead of drawing any perceived problem to the : attention of an FA, which is what any normal person would do. : Peter McGurk Good grief – I wonder how that wanker would cope sitting in a window seat in the rear half of a Tristar when those big Rolls-Royce engines cough, belch smoke and fart when they start up? What a bloody idiot. Scotty — University  of Guelph           (519) 824-4120 x2556 Guelph, Ontario "If it’s not Scottish it’s CR-R-R-R-AAAAAPPPPPP"

Response:

caused to appear as if it was written: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight (1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. An AA spokesperson said it is not unusual for smoke and "sparks" coming from an engine being started. I have seen the smoke, but not the "sparks" in my travels.  Is it usual or unusual about the sparks? I would say that visible flame or sparks should be reported immediately. There have been various reports that P&W engines can occasionally generate visible sparks at engine-start, but I’ve never seen it. Which airplane and engines did this occur upon?

That’s the strange thing:  a B727-200! Malc.

Response:

It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight (1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. What is the liability, if any, of the passenger who yelled "fire"?

I reckon he must at least be liable for a good punch in the mouth for starting a panic instead of drawing any perceived problem to the attention of an FA, which is what any normal person would do. Peter McGurk

Response:

It was reported this morning that an American Airlines (AA) flight (1625) from ORD, had a bit of a panic among passengers while on the ground.  As the engines were being started for departure a passenger noticed smoke and "sparks" coming from one of the engines.  The passenger yelled "fire" and a panic ensued.  Passengers evacuated from the rear of the aircraft.  Three (3) passengers were injured, one being a 10-yr old boy who suffered a broken arm. An AA spokesperson said it is not unusual for smoke and "sparks" coming from an engine being started. I have seen the smoke, but not the "sparks" in my travels.  Is it usual or unusual about the sparks? What is the liability, if any, of the passenger who yelled "fire"? Wayne

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply