Plane Caught Fire At AYT

96adrian · Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:34 am

A plane caught fire while on the runway at Antalya Airport early this morning. It was a Corendon Airlines 737 plane bound for TRD in Norway. One passenger says that there where flames coming from the cockpit. The slides didn't work, so the passengers went out on the wing and jumped down. Some damaged their legs and were sent to hospital.

Here is a link in Norwegian:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10062198

Does anyone know which aircraft was involved?

[Edited 2012-10-14 01:18:57]

EBGflyer · Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:29 am

Looks like a 737-800 on the pictures judging from the blended winglets.

Good everybody got out in time. Makes me think about the 1985 Manchester disaster, which I saw a documentary on only a few days ago and luckily history did not repeat itself. It is concerning to hear though that slides did not deploy properly.

Hopefully the reported injuries are only minor.

MerlinIIIB · Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:45 am

Post evacuation picture show take-off flap, not Flap40 required for overwing evacuation....

flood · Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:47 am

Quoting 96adrian (Thread starter):
Does anyone know which aircraft was involved?

Appears to be TC-TJK - according to airfleets an ex-FlyDubai bird which had its first flight in 2009.

http://www.airporthaber.com/havacili...rendon-ucaginda-yangin-panigi.html

MerlinIIIB · Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:48 am

Incident aircraft was TC-TJK. Total of 27 pax sent to hospital, 2 with broken legs and 25 with minor issues including smoke inhalation. Replacement aircraft TC-TJJ flight CAI773 is now over Sweden landing at Trondheim Vaernes 11:15 local.

RIXrat · Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:57 am

Kind of reminds me of the Saudia L-1011 disaster on flight 163 way back when in August of 1980 when there was fire and smoke within, but nothing outside.

MerlinIIIB · Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:08 am

Slides on both sides did deply. Overwing evacuation with take-off flap only may have contributed to number of casualties. Pax jumped from wing while observing smoke. Some passengers report flames in front of the aircraft during evacuation. This is not confirmed by the airline. Statement from the airline including picture (note flap configuration) available here:
http://www.airporthaber.com/havacili...rendon-ucaginda-yangin-panigi.html

airbuseric · Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:47 am

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 1):
It is concerning to hear though that slides did not deploy properly.

If the aircraft did not depart and slides not armed yet, it's not surprising. But ...

Quoting MerlinIIIB (Reply 6):
Slides on both sides did deply. Overwing evacuation with take-off flap only may have contributed to number of casualties.

Nothing concerning in the end...

migair54 · Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:42 am

In the picture i can see in another web the slides are all deployed. I can´t believe that no slide were deployed, they are arm even before the plane start moving, as soon as the doors are closed.

AAMDanny · Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:41 pm

Quoting migair54 (Reply 8):
In the picture i can see in another web the slides are all deployed. I can´t believe that no slide were deployed, they are arm even before the plane start moving, as soon as the doors are closed.

Your right, the slides should have been in the Armed mode. On the 737series its a simple method of literally manually attaching the girt bar to the girt apron, I think there was some confusion in the reporting by the looks of things, it looks like some passengers certainly exiting the cabin thru the over wing exits, but clearly the crew have opened the doors in ARMED mode.

Either way it will be interesting to see what comes out from the investigation into this incident.

migair54 · Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:51 pm

I think some people state that the slides didn´t deploy because they didn´t know that a B737 has no slides over the wings exits.

Because it´s very clear in the pics that the slides are deployed in all the 4 doors.

777236ER · Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:37 pm

Yet another example that Boeing need to stop delivering aircraft following rules grandfathered in from the 60s.

KaiGywer · Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:24 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Yet another example that Boeing need to stop delivering aircraft following rules grandfathered in from the 60s.

Huh?

AirlineCritic · Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:53 pm

Quoting migair54 (Reply 10):
I think some people state that the slides didn´t deploy because they didn´t know that a B737 has no slides over the wings exits.

Because it´s very clear in the pics that the slides are deployed in all the 4 doors.

To be fair, we do not know if the slides deployed at the beginning of the evacuation, during, or after.

bueb0g · Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:02 pm

http://avherald.com/h?article=457672a7&opt=1

Slides are clearly deployed.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 12):
Huh?

No slides required for the overwing exits due to regulations coming into force after the 737 program was active, and existing aircraft programs being grandfathered. 777236ER is saying Boeing should be installing the sides anyway.

SASDC8 · Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:27 pm

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 14):
No slides required for the overwing exits due to regulations coming into force after the 737 program was active, and existing aircraft programs being grandfathered. 777236ER is saying Boeing should be installing the sides anyway.

Yes but flaps should be at 40 degrees for overwing evacuation. The CC crew obviously did not do their job properly.

Norwegian media is now reporting that the flight attendants left the aircraft before evacuation was complete, and that the did not assist passengers in need of assistance. I know that people in emergency situations tend to think the saw things that really did not happen, but It true could Corendon Airlines get in trouble for it?

Glad nobody got a serious injury.

aluminumtubing · Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:34 pm

Quoting SASDC8 (Reply 15):
Yes but flaps should be at 40 degrees for overwing evacuation. The CC crew obviously did not do their job properly.

Yes, and Maybe, maybe not. YES, the flaps should be fully extended to aid the passengers as part of the emergency evacuation checklist. The cockpit crew MAY or MAY NOT have acted improperly. There could be a reason the flaps were not extended to 40 other than crew error. After, and ONLY after a PROPER investigation, should a determination be made as to how the crew acted.

SASDC8 · Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:42 pm

Quoting aluminumtubing (Reply 16):
After, and ONLY after a PROPER investigation, should a determination be made as to how the crew acted.

I totally agree with you, and I now see that my post was a bit more judgemental than it should have been. Sorry.

From other media reports it seems that CC crew did not have time to finish the checklist as part of the cockpit was on fire. Who will investigate this accident? Turkish authorities? NTSB? Boeing?

aluminumtubing · Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:49 pm

Quoting SASDC8 (Reply 17):
I totally agree with you, and I now see that my post was a bit more judgemental than it should have been. Sorry.

No problem. While you realize that, too many people on this site are far too quick to condemn pilots without knowing all the facts.

My guess is that local Turkish authorities would lead the investigation, and Boeing would certainly be an interested party.

777236ER · Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:52 pm

So you're relying on hydraulic pressure to safely evacuate? Gee, I can't imagine any situation where you'd not have hydraulic power and need to evacuate.

And you need to delay evacuation during a t/o to extend the flaps?

Never mind that the 737-800 is only about 29 people over 25.807 too, and the front doors are a nightmare when armed (so much so that crew often can't open it...no assist here!!)

Fabo · Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:11 pm

Geez, you really dont like them 737s, do you?

It is, btw, possible that the crew DID put the flaps lever in fully extended position, however some airlines mandate no hydraulic pressure during pushback due to nosewheel steering. Some airlines use pressure in single system and some I think pressurize both system and rely on nose gear pin for disconnection. Maybe a change of procedure will be mandated/recommended.

Otherwise 2 fractures of a planes worth of evacuation in a fire event is not that bad I think. Sure would be better if it stayed with injuries that did not need hospital treatment, but still.

777236ER · Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:25 pm

Quoting Fabo (Reply 20):
It is, btw, possible that the crew DID put the flaps lever in fully extended position, however some airlines mandate no hydraulic pressure during pushback due to nosewheel steering. Some airlines use pressure in single system

Yet another reason not to rely on flaps 40 for a safe evacuation

F9Animal · Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:31 pm

Quoting SASDC8 (Reply 15):
es but flaps should be at 40 degrees for overwing evacuation. The CC crew obviously did not do their job properly.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 21):
Yet another reason not to rely on flaps 40 for a safe evacuation

Keep in mind, the flight crew were probably evacuating themselves if the fire was in the front of the aircraft as reported. I mean, they probably did everything they could to a point, but if flames are licking at ya, what do you do? It is almost like taking the time to open a window from a two story apartment as flames are burning you. Do you take the time to open the window, or do you just jump through the glass?

boeingfixer · Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:02 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Yet another example that Boeing need to stop delivering aircraft following rules grandfathered in from the 60s.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 14):
No slides required for the overwing exits due to regulations coming into force after the 737 program was active, and existing aircraft programs being grandfathered. 777236ER is saying Boeing should be installing the sides anyway.

Both of you may want to refresh yourself with the regulation per FAR 25.810 regrading escape routes before throwing Boeing under the grandfathered bus. The current regulation states that if the escape route is over a flap, the height must be no more than 6 feet off the ground with the flaps in landing or takeoff position, which ever is higher from the ground.

I'm not at our hangar and can't measure the flaps at the moment but I would be hard pressed to say it's out of the regulation of 6 feet.

Cheers,

John

777236ER · Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:29 pm

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 23):
Both of you may want to refresh yourself with the regulation per FAR 25.810 regrading escape routes before throwing Boeing under the grandfathered bus. The current regulation states that if the escape route is over a flap, the height must be no more than 6 feet off the ground with the flaps in landing or takeoff position, which ever is higher from the ground.

I'm not at our hangar and can't measure the flaps at the moment but I would be hard pressed to say it's out of the regulation of 6 feet.

It's over 10ft

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec2.pdf

rfields5421 · Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:09 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 24):
It's over 10ft

Where do you see that number?

I've looked through the whole document, and the only vertical clearance information I see on the B737-800 is on page 46 of the document (page 36 of the PDF)

It says the forward door sill is 9 ft to 8 ft 6 inches off the ground. And the aft door is 10 ft 3 inches to 9 ft 9 inches off the ground.

It is your statement that the wing and the extended flaps is higher off the ground than the normal doors?

777236ER · Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:19 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 25):
Where do you see that number?

P33 shows the height to the over wing exit from the ground on the 737 classics as 10.4 to 10.6ft depending on weight. Curiously no data for the NGs.

25.810 takes no credit for flaps or wings, it's about height to the door. It makes it totally clear that a new type certificate with 737 over wing exits would need slides

Also, an aircraft with a 738 door config would be limited to 165 pax.

TheSonntag · Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:25 pm

As others have pointed out, we have to wait for the investigation.

For people drawing the attention to the flaps: It is true we have to see why they were not Flaps 40. However, all passengers came out safely from a burning cabin, even with some injuries. So certainly the crew has done a lot of things right. Maybe the situation was so severe it was important to evacuate, with insufficient time to wait until flaps 40 were set (which takes some time, too).

Lets not forget, even Sully didn't have time to press the "ditch" button before ditching at the hudson.

ltbewr · Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:38 pm

The big issue is what caused the fire/smoke condition in this incident. Was it a design, installation or mx issue ? Could some wiring been rubbing so to remove the insulation causing a short? I expect this will be thoroughly investigated by the Norwegian govt authority for aircraft and Boeing. Remines of the SR 111 crash situation. Fortunately this occurred on the ground rather than mid-air or it could have been a deadly crash.

kc135topboom · Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:39 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Yet another example that Boeing need to stop delivering aircraft following rules grandfathered in from the 60s.

So when Airbus gets the certification for the A-320NEO models, they should not grandfather the airplane to the 1980s? This perticular airplane was originally delivered in 2009, so it has been inservice for 3 years, at least.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 14):
777236ER is saying Boeing should be installing the sides anyway.

Yes, I know that, but what is his expertise in airplane accidents and evacuations? Boeing will install slides on any exit where it is not mandatory, as an option. But that is not a usual option ordered by the original customer who orders Boeing airplanes.

Quoting SASDC8 (Reply 15):
Norwegian media is now reporting that the flight attendants left the aircraft before evacuation was complete, and that the did not assist passengers in need of assistance. I know that people in emergency situations tend to think the saw things that really did not happen, but It true could Corendon Airlines get in trouble for it?

If that is true, and that is a big IF, yes, the airline could be in lots of trouble that could extend beyond a major fine up to threatening their operating certificate. I am not saying that is what will happen if the cabin crew did behave like that, but it is a possibility. If the crew did do that, then the training program will certantly take a big hit.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 21):
Yet another reason not to rely on flaps 40 for a safe evacuation

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 19):
Never mind that the 737-800 is only about 29 people over 25.807 too, and the front doors are a nightmare when armed (so much so that crew often can't open it...no assist here!!)

The airplane is fully certified by both the FAA and the EASA. They understand evacuations much more than you do. In any evacuation emergency, things can easily go wrong, and people can get hurt, or worse. With the flaps fully retracted, the distance from the ground to the top of the wing trailing edge, at the wing root, next to the fuselarge and standing on all the landing gear, even at light weights is still less than 6'. So the B-737 is in compliance with FAR 25.807, without any waviers needed for the overwing emergency escape doors. You might want to read FAR 125.189, too.

BTW, other airplanes that do not require an inflatable slide for the overwing exits are the B-707, B-727, B-737, B-717/MD-95, MD-80/-90, EMB-170/-190, and the F-100. Some commerical airliners don't have any slides at all, such as the ATR-42/-72, EMB-110/-120/-135/-145, F-50/-60, DHC-7/-8, Bae-146, Dornier 328/328JET, and the entire BBD-CRJ series (although slides are/were offered as options). This is because all of these airplanes meet the 6' rule.

Daysleeper · Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:07 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
So when Airbus gets the certification for the A-320NEO models, they should not grandfather the airplane to the 1980s?

In a word No.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
This perticular airplane was originally delivered in 2009, so it has been inservice for 3 years, at least.

I'm not sure what your point is here, other than evacuating an almost new 737 means 27 passengers will require hospital treatment - Which is insane, so perhaps that is your point?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Boeing will install slides on any exit where it is not mandatory

His entire point is, that it IS mandatory now, hence they should be installed.

BoeingVista · Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:21 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Yet another example that Boeing need to stop delivering aircraft following rules grandfathered in from the 60s.

Absolutely. I cant believe that Boeing has the nerve to try and grandfather the MAX and that they will be allowed to do this again.

Quoting Fabo (Reply 20):
Otherwise 2 fractures of a planes worth of evacuation in a fire event is not that bad I think.

It could easily have been 2 or more dead though.

BMI727 · Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:32 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Yet another example that Boeing need to stop delivering aircraft following rules grandfathered in from the 60s.

That doesn't appear to be the case here. Straight from FAR 25.810

Quote:
(d) Means must be provided to assist evacuees to reach the ground for all Type C exits located over the wing and, if the place on the airplane structure at which the escape route required in paragraph (c) of this section terminates is more than 6 feet from the ground with the airplane on the ground and the landing gear extended, for all other exit types.

(1) If the escape route is over the flap, the height of the terminal edge must be measured with the flap in the takeoff or landing position, whichever is higher from the ground.

Now looking at the Boeing ACAP document doesn't have conclusive measurements for the dimension in question, but a little bit of work shows that, according to the scale drawings, the bottom of the wing root (not the fairing) appears to be about 5 feet off the ground. The bottom of the aft cargo door, which would be approximately where the bottom of the flaps in takeoff position would be, has a maximum height of 5 ft. 11 in. Overall, it appears that the 737 basically meets all of the current criteria without requiring special consideration.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 24):
It's over 10ft

Wrong. The bottom of the overwing exit is ten feet off the ground. The "terminal edge" of the escape route, which in this case would be the flap in takeoff position, is barely over six feet, if at all.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 26):
25.810 takes no credit for flaps or wings, it's about height to the door.

Like hell it doesn't.

boeingfixer · Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:03 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 26):
25.810 takes no credit for flaps or wings, it's about height to the door. It makes it totally clear that a new type certificate with 737 over wing exits would need slides

Did you READ the regulation? It clearly states the distance from the flap to the ground. Before getting into arguments over regulations and bashing a manufacturer you should read and understand them.

I challenge you to point me to the part of FAR 25.810 where it says that a new TC for the 737 WILL require over wing slides.

BoeingVista · Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:04 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Wrong. The bottom of the overwing exit is ten feet off the ground. The "terminal edge" of the escape route, which in this case would be the flap in takeoff position, is barely over six feet, if at all.

So you slide and drop 6 feet... This seems like a safe escape practice to you?

BMI727 · Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:09 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 34):
So you slide and drop 6 feet... This seems like a safe escape practice to you?

You wouldn't slide and drop, you would walk to the edge and jump down about 6 feet. I won't say it's the safest thing to do, but I think that if you go to any playground you'll find at least a few kids performing similar feats, without the added motivation of escaping a flaming aircraft. I've not done it in a while, but I've survived it without injury a few dozen times, so I don't think it's a big deal.

Besides, I don't think the regulations are arbitrary.

RickNRoll · Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:31 pm

Quoting aluminumtubing (Reply 16):
Yes, and Maybe, maybe not. YES, the flaps should be fully extended to aid the passengers as part of the emergency evacuation checklist. The cockpit crew MAY or MAY NOT have acted improperly. There could be a reason the flaps were not extended to 40 other than crew error. After, and ONLY after a PROPER investigation, should a determination be made as to how the crew acted.

If the fire was in the cockpit, then the crew probably had to flee for their own safety. Either way, it's obviously not a workable procedure to expect the crew to set the flaps in an emergency like this. Boeing needs to do the right thing by it's customers and passengers.

BMI727 · Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:23 am

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 36):
Either way, it's obviously not a workable procedure to expect the crew to set the flaps in an emergency like this. Boeing needs to do the right thing by it's customers and passengers.

The certification requirements explicitly do not expect the crew to set the flaps to 40. It's part of the checklist, however certification assumes that it is not possible and the evacuation must be accomplished with the flaps in whatever state they happen to be in.

RickNRoll · Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:53 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):
The certification requirements explicitly do not expect the crew to set the flaps to 40. It's part of the checklist, however certification assumes that it is not possible and the evacuation must be accomplished with the flaps in whatever state they happen to be in.

If that height is enough to break bones, it's enough to split open someone's head, when there is no need for it, and newer aircraft are required to be safer. A broken leg by itself can be a very serious injury for an older person.

2175301 · Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:09 am

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 38):

If that height is enough to break bones, it's enough to split open someone's head, when there is no need for it, and newer aircraft are required to be safer. A broken leg by itself can be a very serious injury for an older person.

The problem is that elderly or people with certain medical conditions can break the bones by just falling down when standing on the ground. Thus, a jump from any height (even a few inches) may be enough to break their bones. Thus, just because someone breaks their bones is not a reasonable standard.

The question is how high can a normal healthy person jump without breaking bones. I suspect 6 ft is quite OK for that. I would question 10 ft as that likely takes some knowledge on how to land (but is doable for most healthy people with some training).

BoeingVista · Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:30 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
You wouldn't slide and drop, you would walk to the edge and jump down about 6 feet. I won't say it's the safest thing to do, but I think that if you go to any playground you'll find at least a few kids performing similar feats

Yeah but kids are made of rubber

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
without the added motivation of escaping a flaming aircraft.

And panicking 120KG guys adding extra motivation behind you and on top of you if you don't clear the area; at night, in rain or snow? Look I'm not saying its a recipe for death but standards of air safety have been improved, there is NO justification for allowing Boeing to build the MAX to 50 year old air safety regulations, well none apart from money.

BMI727 · Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:40 am

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 38):
If that height is enough to break bones, it's enough to split open someone's head, when there is no need for it, and newer aircraft are required to be safer. A broken leg by itself can be a very serious injury for an older person.

First of all, coming down the slides from a higher door is no bargain either. Also, let's remember that, due to emergency exit row requirements, the first people out, who will have to make the full jump, are very unlikely to be elderly or fragile. It's also likely that they (or others) will stick around to help others off the aircraft. It's not like you'll be tossing old people off a six foot platform.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 40):
Look I'm not saying its a recipe for death but standards of air safety have been improved, there is NO justification for allowing Boeing to build the MAX to 50 year old air safety regulations, well none apart from money.

As far as I can tell, the 737 meets current standards. If it's grandfathered in, it appears to only be a matter of inches.

aluminumtubing · Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:23 am

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 36):
If the fire was in the cockpit, then the crew probably had to flee for their own safety. Either way, it's obviously not a workable procedure to expect the crew to set the flaps in an emergency like this. Boeing needs to do the right thing by it's customers and passengers

That may very well be. I was only responding to the comment by the poster insinuating the pilots did not follow proper procedures. As a Captain, I always say it is never appropriate to comment on the actions of the crew until the investigation is complete. If Boeing and the FAA feel the procedure or slide configurations need to change, then so be it.

[Edited 2012-10-14 19:24:02]

idlewildchild · Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:30 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
You wouldn't slide and drop, you would walk to the edge and jump down about 6 feet. I won't say it's the safest thing to do, but I think that if you go to any playground you'll find at least a few kids performing similar feats, without the added motivation of escaping a flaming aircraft. I've not done it in a while, but I've survived it without injury a few dozen times, so I don't think it's a big deal. Besides, I don't think the regulations are arbitrary.

No offense but jumping 6 feet for a 10 year old versus a 55+ year old is a very different experience. And my guess is most passengers are closer to 55 than 10.

phxa340 · Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:34 am

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 30):
I'm not sure what your point is here, other than evacuating an almost new 737 means 27 passengers will require hospital treatment - Which is insane, so perhaps that is your point?

How many other 737s have been evacuated with ZERO injuries - 100s ? Until we know what happened , it could just mean that the crew and passengers deplaned in a very haphazard fashion.

BoeingVista · Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:34 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
As far as I can tell, the 737 meets current standards. If it's grandfathered in, it appears to only be a matter of inches.

Nope, it doesn't meet current RTO regulations.

rfields5421 · Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:40 am

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 39):
The problem is that elderly or people with certain medical conditions can break the bones by just falling down when standing on the ground.

Going down a slide is also quite frequently a cause for broken bones and internal injuries for people in that age group/ condition.

They frequently hit the bottom hard, and they don't get clear quickly and are hit by another person coming down the slide behind them.

Evacuating an aircraft in an emergency isn't safe for anyone. But it sure beats staying in a burning plane.

KaiGywer · Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:21 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 46):
Evacuating an aircraft in an emergency isn't safe for anyone. But it sure beats staying in a burning plane.

And that is the truth right there. People get injured all the time while sliding, people get injured while jumping. I'll take a broken leg or two over being prepared well done.

Gatorman96 · Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:08 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Yet another example that Boeing need to stop delivering aircraft following rules grandfathered in from the 60s.

So your telling me that fractures, among other injuries, don't occur when slides are in use? This is news to me...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net