Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Emergency Slides On JetBlue A/c?  
User currently offlineSpeedbird19 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 449 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10421 times:

Just something that's been bugging me but, It's just occurred to me, why didn't they evacuate the pax using the escape slides? Or did they just deem the a/c safe and decide to use stairs?


Planeprincess
64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCORULEZ05 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10393 times:

Quoting Speedbird19 (Thread starter):
Or did they just deem the a/c safe and decide to use stairs?

The aircraft was safe enough to be evacuated via the stairs. There was no point in using the slides when the plane was ok (besides the gear). Many times people get injured going down the slides so it was a safety percaution. Just remember that lady that died after going down a slide of a Saudi B744. Slides weren't needed thankfully so everyone was able to evacuate calmly via the stairs.

And OF COURSE the A320 does have emergency slides....  Silly


User currently offlineA330 From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10386 times:

There clearly was no IMMEDIATE danger for loss of life, so then no evacuation should be initiated. Evacuations always result in injuries, so don't do them unless it is really necessary. The flight-crew made a very wise decision.


Shiek!
User currently offlineFlyPIJets From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10371 times:

They determined there was no urgent need to evacuate the a/c.


DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, F28, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, IL-62, L-1011, MD-82/83, YS-11, DHC-8, PA-28-161, ERJ 135/145, E-1
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1755 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Speedbird19 (Thread starter):
Just something that's been bugging me but, It's just occurred to me, why didn't they evacuate the pax using the escape slides? Or did they just deem the a/c safe and decide to use stairs?

Exactly that ...

Evacuating an aircraft on the slides is a very perilous endeavor. Someone is likely to break a leg, arm, ankle, etc on the way down. A lot of someones are going to end up with friction burns. And everyone would probably end up having to get checked out by the EMTs.

If you come to a stop, and the firefighters tell the pilot "no flames", and the pilot has no red lights, there's no reason to dump the slides ... far, far, far easier and much safer to roll up a set of stairs and let people just walk off.

- litz


User currently offlineSpeedbird19 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10341 times:

thought just as much  Wink I'm always inquisitive!


Planeprincess
User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1891 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10339 times:

I've another question...

Why didn't the pilots used speed brakes when they landed? Is that part of the emergency procedure?

Greetz!



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
User currently offlineSpeedbird19 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10296 times:

By the looks of the videos I've seen from the news, the plane was decending smoothly and slowly so there wouldn't of been any need for speedbrakes


Planeprincess
User currently offlineCORULEZ05 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10285 times:

Quoting 797 (Reply 6):
Why didn't the pilots used speed brakes when they landed? Is that part of the emergency procedure?

They didn't use thrust reversers to avoid getting pieces of metal from the landing gear sucked into the engines. I myself was surprised when I didn't see them deployed but afterwards, I thought about it and it made sense why they wouldn't use them. Of course not using them meant they used just about all of the 10k+ runway... 

[Edited 2005-09-22 22:34:04]

User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10284 times:

How much time till the first lawsuit? I say by tomorrow (why waist the weekend?)

User currently offlineCTHEWORLD From Mayotte, joined Dec 2004, 478 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10269 times:

Quoting 797 (Reply 6):
Why didn't the pilots used speed brakes when they landed? Is that part of the emergency procedure?

CG would have shifted forward, putting the nose gear on the runway too early


User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10247 times:

Quoting 797 (Reply 6):
I've another question...

Why didn't the pilots used speed brakes when they landed? Is that part of the emergency procedure?

Greetz!

Was wondering about the same, but would that not have fueld the flames we saw at the nosewheel?


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10241 times:

Quoting CORULEZ05 (Reply 8):
They didn't use thrust reversers to avoid getting pieces of metal from the landing gear sucked into the engines.

A sudden deceleration would throw way too much weight on the front wheels. They were trying to keep weight off the front wheels not on them. That plus the fact that the engines were shut down immediately after touchdown are some other reasons why no reverse thrust was used.


User currently offlineJetBluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2971 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10111 times:

Quoting Luisca (Reply 9):

I actually don't smell a single lawsuit on this one. No one was even remotely hurt, so they cannot get a penney.

JetBluefan1



Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10092 times:

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 13):
I actually don't smell a single lawsuit on this one. No one was even remotely hurt, so they cannot get a penney

But it happened in law-suit crazy USA on an US registered aircraft. What about the trauma that passengers will say they went through? The extra trauma watching the incident on PTVs? Were those people behind the fire crews mercenary lawyers smelling money to be made?!?

 sarcastic 



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9303 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10092 times:

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 13):
I actually don't smell a single lawsuit on this one. No one was even remotely hurt, so they cannot get a penney.

Someone will find a way.

"Negligence caused the landing gear to break which threatened my well being."

blah blah blah



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10051 times:

Even if you could make a case for negligence (which you could, the employer is generally held liable for the negligence of the employee, i.e. the mechanic or whoever, not the pilot), it would be hard to prove damages. Damages for mental anguish, etc. are actually pretty hard to prove, especially on their own and without other damages. No lawyer in his right mind would take up a case like this, when the odds of recovery are so slim and yuo're taking the case no contingency (e.g. paid only if you win).

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9986 times:

Quoting CORULEZ05 (Reply 1):
And OF COURSE the A320 does have emergency slides....

Only if it is overwater equipped, which jetBlue's are

Quoting 797 (Reply 6):

Why didn't the pilots used speed brakes when they landed?

Speed brakes or Thrust Reversers? Remember, they had to do basically all the braking on the rear wheels, which is a bit precarious when using TRs as well. They made the right call in everyway

Quoting CORULEZ05 (Reply 8):
Of course not using them meant they used just about all of the 10k+ runway...

11,096

Quoting Luisca (Reply 9):
How much time till the first lawsuit? I say by tomorrow (why waist the weekend?)



Quoting BCAL (Reply 14):


But it happened in law-suit crazy USA on an US registered aircraft. What about the trauma that passengers will say they went through? The extra trauma watching the incident on PTVs? Were those people behind the fire crews mercenary lawyers smelling money to be made?!?



Quoting STLGph (Reply 15):
Someone will find a way.

"Negligence caused the landing gear to break which threatened my well being."

 no  Ye who do not know about what ye speak shall not cast stones



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePualani From United States of America, joined May 2004, 301 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9907 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Only if it is overwater equipped, which jetBlue's are

Are you saying that A320s are not equipped with evac slides if they are not overwater qualified ? That doesn't sound right to me? Better check that info again.

pualani


User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2027 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9874 times:

Once the aircraft came to a halt on the runway, the fire department was on it within 30 seconds. Since there was no fire, that was reported to the cockpit. No EVAC command was given initially. An inspection of the front strut confirmed that it was still intact and was not in danger of collapse. Once that was confirmed, there was no need to do an emergency evacuation, which would have involved evacuating the aircraft within 90 seconds. This most certainly would have caused injuries and burns especially from the slides if people put their hands down on them going down.

An on ground emergency would be declared by the captain only and repeat only if the aircraft was in immediate danger of fire or structural failure and it would appear that from the landing, if the strut did not fail during the landing, it would not collaspe once the aircraft stopped. He did the correct and prudent thing by allowing the FD and maintenance inspectors to visually inspect the top of the strut for damage before allowing passengers off the aircraft.

From what I saw live on TV (yes I was watching and had my A320QRH out as well), the entire procedure was textbook.

baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9871 times:

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 13):

I actually don't smell a single lawsuit on this one. No one was even remotely hurt, so they cannot get a penney.

I don't think anyone was hurt in the SkyService flight, which was a Canadian aircraft, and there was a lawsuit filed.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Only if it is overwater equipped, which jetBlue's are

He means evacuation slides or evacuation chutes, not an auxiliary life raft.

AAndrew


User currently offlineSausageandmash From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9865 times:

All A320s are equipped with evacuation slides, whether overwater equipped or not. Some may have "slide rafts", which can be used as a raft in a ditching situation, but others will just have what are known as "slide/flotation aids", which cannot be sat on in ditching, simply held on to.

But all will have evacuation slides. How else is one expected to get out in an emergency? Next time you're on an A320 take a look at the drop from the door. I don't reckon it would be a good idea not to have slides.



Hello - it's me again
User currently offlinePRAirbus From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2005, 1129 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9773 times:

If there was no fire or imminent threat it is wise not to send paxs down the slides and prevent injuries. Keep in mind during an emergency evacuation human nature takes over (anxiety, stress, fear) and people could get injured. I agree w/the crew's decision to use ramp-stands instead. Good job!

User currently offlinePilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2539 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9733 times:

That's pretty pathetic if someone decides to sue, im sorry, we should find the bastard and give them 1 hour of detention in an A.net forum  Smile


The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6388 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9698 times:

Quoting 797 (Reply 6):
Why didn't the pilots used speed brakes when they landed?

There was no need for braking. They had one of the world's longest runways - way more than twice of what was needed for a normal landing.

What mattered was to keep the nose wheel lifted as long as possible. The speed brakes would have turbulated the airflow around the tailplane a little and therefore the nose would have come down at a slightly higher speed.

They probably used main wheel brakes as long as the tailplane still had plenty of authority to keep the nose up.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
25 Captaink : It was safe to leave aircraft using the airstairs. Using the slides as mentioned is or can be dangerous. Added to that it is an expense option. To rei
26 Lincoln : I asked this question in another thread and didn't get any responses so... Why was the L1 door and only the L1 door used? Wouldn't there have been som
27 Captaink : Good question.. maybe to prevent chaos.. control everyone by allowing them through L1.. The thing is, like you I assumed it would have been unsafe to
28 Crogalski : maybe to not shift the weight to the back, so that the front would come up? I believe its also called.. "Rising and Settling"...
29 RobertS975 : For the landing, the passengers were reseated as far back as possible to keep the CG as far aft as feasible, at least according to one report that I s
30 September11 : I was expecting them to use emergency slides ... I went like "I am going to watch emergency slides deploy on TV" .. What color is jetBlue's emergency
31 Lightsaber : Not harsh enough. The penalty should be moderating all A vs. B threads for a month on A.net! Lightsaber
32 FlyMIA : Airlines are protected in the US against law suits like that. Passengers know they are going on an airplane and once they buy the ticket it is just l
33 Bond007 : Bear in mind that also using the evac slides just for heck of it, changes the nature of the incident. It may or may not be reportable to the NTSB (see
34 Mir : Speedbrakes are used during landing in order to get rid of lift, thus getting the weight of the plane onto the wheels to make the brakes more effecti
35 320tech : Why was the L1 door and only the L1 door used? Maybe there was only one stairs truck handy. There would be no C of G problem with unloading pax via L2
36 HAWK21M : Operating T/Rs would get the NLG on the Ground faster.The Idea was to delay that. Im surprised the Fuse bolts didn't shear off.I wonder if the A320s
37 Ultrapig : Philo: One hour of detention in an aNet forum would be cruel and unsusal punsihment in violation of the 8th amendment
38 KALB : A previous poster wrote,"No lawyer in his right mind would take up a case like this, when the odds of recovery are so slim and yuo're taking the case
39 CORULEZ05 : huh? Only overwater equipped A320's have emergency slides? Doesn't sound right to me..........
40 Post contains images Flyguyclt : Here are some answers to the questions I have seen. ALL A-320 airplanes are equipped with Slides at Doors 1L 1R 2L 2R. Now, if it is over water equipp
41 Starlionblue : You're confusing overwater equipment. ALL airliners with a certain number of pax AND a certain height from door to ground are required to have slides
42 MikeyCpvd : How many passengers do the B6 Airbii accomodate? 139 customers doesn't leave a lot of empty seats available for re-seating.
43 N405MX : Also, the A320 have slides on the wing (below the emergency exits). The F/A´s have to disarm the slide from the inside, when you open an A318/19/20
44 GrandTheftAero : How would the CG shift from speed brake deployment?
45 Post contains links Crogalski : 156 http://www.jetblue.com./travelinfo/ourfleet/a320.asp
46 Arffguy : I don't believe for a minute that the passengers were sent to the rear of the plane to alter the C.G. It would be far safer to have them strapped in t
47 Tribird1011 : Maybe it won't shift the CG, but it will definitely put more weight on the nose wheel, which in this case you don't want. Think of it this way- when
48 Post contains images Avgroupie : I was traumatized just watching it at home on TV, listening to the doom and gloom experts. This may be a CAT 5 tort case....... having a nationwide c
49 Sanjet : Are you serious?!?! Aren't the brakes hydraulically controlled and the hyrdraulics pumps are engine driven. I would find that hard to believe, that w
50 Tribird1011 : The brakes are hydraulically controlled, but if the A320 is like the MD83 or F100, you only need the APU to be operational to have brakes. This has b
51 AeroPiggot : Has someone explained why the A320 didn't dump fuel, and land earlier? I read that they were circling for over 3 hours to burn off fuel, to get to MLW
52 September11 : I am not too sure -- I read this somewhere: that A320 was not equipped to dump fuel. Your right, 3 hours to burn fuel is long task.
53 LongbowPilot : The first comment was sufficient. Why do A.netters not read the full thread before replying. I mean the first comment I quoted was the first reply to
54 Post contains images COSPN : One Disadvantage to Live PTV's on board LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Actress Taryn Manning says flying in an airliner that was the subject of a bre
55 LongbowPilot : Of course they ask the actress on the plane and she has to be a "little" dramatic.
56 320tech : Are you serious?!?! Aren't the brakes hydraulically controlled and the hyrdraulics pumps are engine driven. I would find that hard to believe, that wo
57 Sanjet : Ok thanks....
58 Post contains images Lrgt : On any other airline, I would suspect that at least 1, if not MANY, lawsuits would be filed. However, my money would be on 0 lawsuits here...jetBlue
59 LongbowPilot : What planet are you from? Most people see dollar signs getting out of an incident like that. I'm sorry, saying passengers are level headed is redicul
60 Greggerm : Arffguy: "I don't believe for a minute that the passengers were sent to the rear of the plane to alter the C.G. It would be far safer to have them str
61 Post contains images Aa757first : I'm wondering the same thing. jetBlue passengers are airline passengers. If American was $10 cheaper, they would probably have taken them. Jeez, just
62 Lrgt : Remember that jetBlue does not sell on the GDS systems, so the passenger pool is not homogeneous.
63 Starlionblue : It's in the checklist. But as Greggerm said, this means filling in the available seats in the rear, not putting folks on the potty in the back.
64 Aa757first : Well you can go from Spirit.com to AirTran.com to AA.com to USAirways.com to jetBlue.com, can't you? Which would mean jetBlue's passengers look at, g
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No BUR-ORD On AA Or UA? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 18:47:40 by Travelin man
Why No Bin Extensions On NW Or US 757-200s? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 20:47:57 by 1337Delta764
Why No RNO-ORD On UA? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 04:56:40 by Cleared2land4
Why No Orlando-Vegas On Allegiant? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 20:34:39 by Boston92
Why No Western Aircraft On The Russian Register? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 18:08:28 by TradewindL1011
Why No Bin Extensions On Ex-TWA 757s? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 22:21:39 by 1337Delta764
Why No Red-eyes On WN? posted Thu Nov 3 2005 03:20:56 by Jsposaune
Why No Seat Conversion On New US? posted Mon Oct 31 2005 23:06:31 by HPRamper
Why No First Class On MAN-JFK On BA? posted Sun Oct 23 2005 00:19:13 by Wrighbrothers
Why No GSO-CLE On CO? posted Tue Aug 23 2005 23:37:29 by UncGSO