The article was somewhat judgemental IMO. The plane landed because of a fire *warning*, not a fire. As of now it is not yet specified what really happened. False fire / overheat warnings do occur when the detection system malfuctions or there is a duct leak. This is not common to the point of rampancy...but common enough that when there IS a warning, you instinctively know it's probably a false alarm. Of course in this business you error on the side of caution...as it should be. The "fail safe" nature of systems and proceedures worked just as they should.
OK ladies in gentlemen of the MEDIA
B4 you jump to anymore conclusions of a fire streaming from the tailpipe of the aircraft and the crew despertaely trying maintain control of the aircraft...
IT WAS AN AFT CARGO FIRE WARNING!!!
Aircraft is still intact and pax uninjured.
Please don't speculate:
*...A passenger plane has been forced to make an emergency landing after a fire on board.
GLA fire services reported smoke in the cargo hold. The field was closed for approx 30 mins and a full emergency procedure was out in place. Whilst in the air, another aircraft (Alitalia possibly) was asked to go close and look for smoke. Very technical eh?
Ignore my comment from before. Im sure that the 757 will be able to return to EWR with the pax. The other a/c was an Italian Air Force Hercules? Also was an RAF Nimrod and a Royal Navy Sea King Helicopter.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
The media has become as sensational in reporting things that the National Enquirer ought to be considered a legitimate news source any more.
A few months ago an AirTran DC9 going ATL-CAK had to return to ATL with smoke in the cabin. Well, naturally, one of the reporters for the FOX affilliate in CLE said that everyone survived the "crash". Amazing...the anchor tells the listeners it did an air return, but the stupid reporter calls it a "crash". I don't think that was just a slip of the tongue-it was designed to sensationalize the story.
Amazing.... because it was Continental that this happened to, you all jump up to defend the crew and hail them heroes. If this had been AirTran, you would have lined up to be the first to crucify them. Such a naughty double standard.
Speaking of jumping to conclusions. How do you know anyone here would have immediately condemend the crew if it had been AirTran? I think most people would have complimented the crew of whichever carrier would be involved in something like this. It shows a lot of skill and nerve to safely land when there's a potential problem like this. Don't be so quick to condemn the folks here.
I only say what I said because it seems that everytime AirTran has the slightest little incident, you can hardly get a word in edgewise through those who are screaming about shutting them down. That's all....
There's a difference between Air Tran and CO though. Air Tran has a bad safety record and frequent mishaps
but I believe that Air Tran is probably the most closely
watched US carrier as a result of its reputation.