AirTran evacuates plane in Atlanta

[dbaker]

AirTran evacuates plane in Atlanta

Passengers made an emergency evacuation from an AirTran Airways jet Friday after the pilots noticed a generator malfunction shortly after takeoff from Atlanta and returned to the airport.
*
The captain ordered the evacuation after noticing an electrical smell in the cabin, AirTran spokesman Tad Hutcheson said.
*
One passenger was injured when she scraped her knee while using the Boeing 717's emergency slide during the evacuation on the runway, said Hutcheson.
*
The jet had 118 passengers and five crew members on board.
*
Hutcheson said Flight 852 to Minneapolis, scheduled to depart at 2:05 p.m., was delayed more than an hour after the pilots saw a warning light for a malfunctioning thrust reverser as they taxied to the runway. They returned to the terminal.
*
After the plane was checked out by mechanics, the flight took off at 3:22 p.m., but the pilots saw another warning light indicating a malfunctioning generator, and returned to Hartsfield-Jackson International and landed. All but the passenger injured in the evacuation continued their trip on another AirTran jet, Hutcheson said.

It's unclear if the plane made one or two emergency landings. The handful of mechanical problems combined with a poorly written article make a bad combination.

[BovineOne]

burn baby, burn!

[jetmech717]

Bovineone said:

burn baby, burn!

Now thats real mature! I may point out other airlines that have incidents, but I do not wish them upon any of them. This is the risk of flying. Although I must say the plane did just as it was supposed to do as far as when 1 system goes down the other carries the load. This is simular to the LGA flight in that the "PCDU" was involved, and It did internally fail, and when it did it sent a "Burnt" smell through the cabin. In this case though the other side picked op the load and power was not interrupted. The captain made a safe landing to bring the A/C back for repair. Although the flight attendants over-reacted....Its better to be safe than sorry. In all reality the plane could have kept flying safely but no need to keep going when you just took-off. Boeing flew in the next morning because they want to look at the problem. They have a "modified" unit to use instead of the ones that are giving us the problems. I'm personally am glad to see the manufaturer get involved with their plane when its a design flaw. Word to the wise Bovine......Grow-up!!! People get scared in those situations (fearing the worst I'm sure) no matter how minor the problem is.
And Baker.........

The handful of mechanical problems combined with a poorly written article make a bad combination.

since when is a thrust reverser fault a handful of mechanical problems?

[haze]

Originally Posted by dbaker

It's unclear if the plane made one or two emergency landings. The handful of mechanical problems combined with a poorly written article make a bad combination.

...It's pretty clear there was only one emergency landing. Sorry to disappoint you. And since when do two minor warning lights make up "a handful of mechanical problems"?

For informational purposes, the aircraft in question was only 18 months old. dbaker omitted that last portion of the article, probably so as to not draw any attention to the youngness of AirTran's fleet. That wouldn't fit the agenda. And I already know your reply to this one

You sure you're not an attorney, dbaker? Just like when a judge instructs a jury to disregard statements, those words are already out there weaving their web. "Two" emergency landings, a "handful" of mechanical problems, omitting the young age of the aircraft? Mission accomplished for you, you got it out there even though there weren't two emergency landings and there weren't a handful of mechanical problems. If you're not already, you'd make a terrific lawyer if you ever decided to give up consulting.

[haze]

Originally Posted by BovineOne

burn baby, burn!

If any of you ever had any doubt as to the agenda of some of those on this message board, BovineOne just made my point crystal clear.

[haze]

Originally Posted by jetmech717

I may point out other airlines that have incidents, but I do not wish them upon any of them.

Excellent point, every airline encounters this exact situation on a regular basis. It happens, to everybody, everywhere, often. I come across articles just like this one all the time, regarding all makes of aircraft, occuring at all the airlines. I just never consider it big enough of a deal to comment about, because it's not

If we were to post all the incidents involving warning lights, electrical smells, returning to the gate for maintenance, and other minor glitches for all of the airlines on their message boards, there wouldn't be much room for other discussion. This is simply the nature of air travel, and seeing the way AirTran handled the situation makes me confident that they are taking every precaution in ensuring the safety of their passengers

[haze]

Originally Posted by jetmech717

The captain made a safe landing to bring the A/C back for repair...Its better to be safe than sorry. In all reality the plane could have kept flying safely but no need to keep going when you just took-off.

It's precisely this type of extra-cautiousness that comforts me every time I board an AirTran plane. I know they are going the extra mile to ensure my family's safety on every flight.

[karl]

Although I have had serious concerns about Airtran's performance in other incidents, and I have an ongoing concern about the low sales volume of the 717 and its resulting orphan status, it appears to me that they handled this situation appropriately.

[haze]

It's nice to know there are still level-headed people out there who practice objectivism, like Karl. Quite a contrast to The Bovine One

[haze]

Originally Posted by dbaker

AirTran evacuates plane in Atlanta

As Does United in Orlando

Posted 2/5/2004 9:23 AM Updated 2/5/2004 9:35

Plane evacuated after passenger smells smoke

ORLANDO (AP) — An airplane scheduled to fly from Orlando to Chicago on Wednesday afternoon was evacuated after someone inside the cabin smelled smoke.
There was no fire, officials said, and no one was injured. The smoky smell came from a mechanical problem in either the airplane's heating or air conditioning system.

The 137 passengers and six crew members aboard the United Airlines Boeing 757 walked from the airplane into the terminal, The Orlando Sentinel reported.

Orlando International Airport spokeswoman Carolyn Fennell said no one was injured.

The airline was determining whether to bring in another airplane or place passengers on other flights.

[dbaker]

I am concerned about United; it is known that airlines in financial trouble are impacted by their cost cutting down the road.

I would be curious to know how frequently United has these incidents in comparison to AirTran. Of course, United operates 3400 daily flights and AirTran operates 500. So that means UAL does 6800 takeoff/landings a day vs AirTran's 1000 and that's not even comparing the number of flights hours since UAL flies around the world and Airtran flies across parts of the US. So maybe it wouldn't be a fair comparison since it's very different leagues.

[karl]

Given the known (since Swissair 111, anyway) flammability of metallized polyethyelene terephthalate (MPET), the covering material on the thermal acoustic insulation blankets that most commercial aircraft flying today are awash in, and all of the other flammable materials aboard, such as hook-and-loop fasteners, silicone elastomeric end caps, foams, adhesives, and different kinds of splicing tapes, all located in inaccessible regions of the aircraft, plus that almost all aircraft flying are subject to wiring insulation faults, it is in my opionion imperative that any flight crew land and evacuate as quickly as possible upon detection of the first whiff of smoke, electrical arcing, etc, during aircraft operations.

These materials represent one of the greatest threats to the flying public today, and the FAA's slow rulemaking and long grace period in mandating the removal of MPET is, in my opinion, one of its worst decisions affecting flight safety. I understand the need to manage the costs on the carriers, particularly given most carriers' fragile economic state post-911, but it does not fill me with confidence knowing that the materials that brought 111 down permeate the aircraft I'm sitting in, every time I fly commercial.

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by karl

I have an ongoing concern about the low sales volume of the 717 and its resulting orphan status.

You are quite correct.

[jetmech717]

Baker said:

I am concerned about United; it is known that airlines in financial trouble are impacted by their cost cutting down the road.

I can tell you this Baker....even if (and I highly doubt it) even if United was "cutting cost" in their maintenance program...(and as soon as you can tell me how and airline can do this since every aircraft has a very strict scheduled maintenace program that must be adhered too). Even If they are cutting cost (somewhere) in the company...the smell of smoke or avionics giving a "burnt" smell can be common on an aircraft. You have miles and miles of wires, not to mention a entire compartment filled with boxes (LRU's) that pertain to every single system on the aircraft. The redundency of airplanes today is that if one sytem is lost the other will carry the load, so it is very likley that a generator can "burn-up" or oil can get into the air system from the APU or the oil cooled bearings of the aircondition turbines and there be a burnt smell or smoky smell. The safety of the aircraft is that if a system is going bad that it shuts itself down. All of this is possible even if you exhaust all of your efforts in the company to maintenance and the parts envolved. As soon as you can get over the fact that aviation is not 100% perfect and that parts do fail then you will be a changed man.

[717driver]

A Continental airlines 737 made an emergency landing in Atl last saturday after they lost an engine in flight. A Delta 767 made an emergency landing in atl on march 1 with an indication of a fire. A Miami air 737-800 landed in atl on march 4 with a complete hydraulic failure. I was working when all of these events occurred. This stuff happens all over the world everyday. Take your finger off the panic button a go live your life dbaker.

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by 717driver

A Continental airlines 737 made an emergency landing in Atl last saturday after they lost an engine in flight. A Delta 767 made an emergency landing in atl on march 1 with an indication of a fire. A Miami air 737-800 landed in atl on march 4 with a complete hydraulic failure. I was working when all of these events occurred. This stuff happens all over the world everyday. Take your finger off the panic button a go live your life dbaker.

Ever taken a class in statistics?

[717driver]

You can spin any information to suit your desired outcome. The inaccuracies on your warning page clearly prove my point. I understand you get most of your information from the FAA and NTSB reports. These agencies are federal government entities just like the IRS and FDA to name a few. I caution you to consider the caliber of the individuals who write these reports and the level of experience at these agencies. There were a number of cargo fires before vj592. About 8 yers before Value Jet was a company the FAA recommended that all aircraft be equiped with smoke detectors and fire suppression equipment. The airlines complained it was to costly and the FAA backed off. After the 1972 crash of EAL 401 the FAA mandated that all commercial aircraft be equipped with an aural altitude warning system. After the AA crash in cali columbia in 1995 the FAA mandated that boeing redesign the spoilers so that when the pilots, who were lost and decending into a mountain and forgot they had deployed the spoilers. Realized they had made a mistake, pushed the throttles forward and the spoilers would automatically retract. Delta 1985 dallas, The pilots never commanded max power in windshear. Air Florida 1982 737 takes off in a blizzard without turning on engine heat. How many times did US AIR And American Airlines crash between 1988 and 1998? I can cite case after case, the point is dbaker that Airlines will continue have accidents some preventable some not. your argument that AirTran is unsafe based on 1 fatal accident is simply unfounded. Every airline in the world uses contract maintenance, it is much to costly for any airline to employ a mechanic at every city they serve. As for the last two incidents, I can recall at least two cases on other airlines where the captain did not command a passenger evacuation and many lives were lost due to smoke inhalation. In most cases the captain has less than 10 seconds to make a decision. It is better to error on the side of safety. I am willing to discuss any topic on airline safety and airtran. Just remember that based on your warning page, In my informed and experienced opinion on this matter you lack credibility.

[haze]

Originally Posted by 717driver

You can spin any information to suit your desired outcome. The inaccuracies on your warning page clearly prove my point...Just remember that based on your warning page, In my informed and experienced opinion on this matter you lack credibility.

driver, you hit the nail on the head. It's an absolute sham

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by dbaker

Ever taken a class in statistics?

And I think your reply clearly proved my point that you haven't.

[B717mech]

dbaker said

Ever taken a class in statistics

Wow dbaker I am amazed that you even step out your door. Since you live your life by statistics. I took a statistics class. It sounds like you are a paranoid type of person and after you took that class it even made you worse. If you base everything in these post on statistics alone and also how airlines are operated then you my friend are in for a long rough life. You wouldn't drive, fly, or even get your pilots license. Do you play the lottery?