safetyDemo From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 310 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
It must have been serious if they didn't choose to return to SEA and then deplaned once they were on the ground. I, too, wonder what happened.
In other news ... nice to see a full flight this far away from the Christmas travel rush ... is SEA one of the routes F9 is cutting frequency on next year? (I've seen quite a few cuts in the OAG threads!)
Please direct your attention to the flight attendants in the cabin...
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2383 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1818 times:
Quoting nwaesc (Reply 2): I wonder when the last time YKM saw a large commercial jet was?
Last I recall is when an QX F28 diverted into there. That was obviously awhile ago, and an F28 isn't exactly a large jet.
Quoting wepaman (Reply 3): F9 flight 844 A319 was diverter due to smoke in the cabin. F9 crew declared an emergency and requested emergency ground support.
Good on the crew. I was involved in the development of the Boeing Smoke, Fire or Fumes checklists which followed the industry standard that was developed in 2005. Presumably, Airbus has done the same.
The philosophy calls for you to land at the nearest suitable airport for any smoke, fire or fumes (and of course, a burning smell counts) unless you can VISUALLY confirm that it's extinguished. You don't keep flying because you kinda sorta think the smoke or burning smell is sort of diminishing, maybe. You land on their nearest piece of concrete, period, regardless of where it is. If it had been a Swissair 111 or Air Canada 797 type of potential fire, F9 might not have made it back to SEA.