As Captain What Would You Do?

[Kip Powick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghiDgAasrdM

[Don Hudson]

I'd do precisely what this captain did.

The captain did not lose his cool. Use of the word "angry" is just a media sales term - this captain was stating how it was going to be if he didn't get answers from someone in authority, "pronto".

If it was unsafe to evacuate, he needed to be given that information. If his aircraft was being unreasonably detained, he was due information upon which he could make a decision and inform others of the action he was going to take. There was no emergency declared by anyone, no hint of the problem but he was not permitted to proceed

As long as the captain is in command the law states that s/he's responsible and if others, including emergency vehicles, are interferring with the progress of the flight, s/he must be given the reasons why and on a timely basis.

FWIW, from the retired & hindsight chair.

[inchman]

I would have done exactly the same, as well.

I'm not a big fan of using the slides without an immediate emergency like a fire (or a movie bomb timer scene) but my next step, failing further information, would have been to declare an emergency and said "Get everything out of my way... I'm returning to the terminal". I would then taxi to an available gate (with or without approval or clearance) and get the passengers off the aircraft until things got cleared up.

It's amazing how fast information or services arrive when you do a "Crazy Ivan".

Addendum:

We're not provided with what information the pilot eventually got, but I'm not sure I would take off without a thorough explanation of the events leading up to my "detention".

[Kip Powick]

More details................

PILOT..........OK. We're surrounded by emergency vehicles, there's a reason for this Somebody's got to give us the reason or we're going to evacuate the aircraft. You got 60 seconds."

TOWER......."We have the information, can you possibly call [number blocked out]?" the control tower asked.

PILOT........"Negative, I demand the information right now over a frequency," the pilot said.

Authorities then told the pilot what they knew about the situation.

The planes had been isolated and inspected after someone called in a threat that one official described as a bomb threat and a second official said involved terrorists who were stowed away in the planes' wheel housings.

A Fin Air flight from Helsinki and the American Airlines flight from San Francisco were searched by law enforcement officials Monday afternoon after the call saying the specific flights each had a terrorist secreted in a wheel well, a Port Authority official told ABC News. A federal official also familiar with the threat described it as a bomb threat.

Both planes were eventually given the all-clear after no explosives or terrorists were found.

"The pilot came on, and he told us basically that he had no information but that we were being held due to a possible phone-in threat," Brian Teitelbaum, an American Airlines passenger, told ABC News affiliate WABC-TV Monday.

The FBI and Port Authority police conducted interviews with crew members. The incident caused a delay of about two hours, according to WABC.

"There was a little bit of nerves around in the plane, but the flight attendants and everything just kept it quiet," American Airlines passenger Ben Rosamond told WABC.

[Mitch Cronin]

Thanks Kip, I was itchin' to know what went on after that ultimatum was given.

Your original question is obviously beyond my scope, and the answers given so far have me convinced. ...but I have a question now...

Re: "The pilot came on, and he told us basically that he had no information but that we were being held due to a possible phone-in threat"

I'm not so sure that some better form of less-than-honest announcement might be kinder for many folks.... ? Maybe couch it with something like "some nutbar was caught where he shouldn't be and now the authorities want to inspect our airplane before we leave." I usually reckon communication to passengers should be bang-on honest, but in this sort of instance??? I dunno... You could come clean after parking at destination?

Any thoughts?

[Don Hudson]

Hi Mitch;

I would be honest with my passengers to the point where I would let them know that I was 'pressing' to find out more information from ATC. I would tell them that I would provide them with every piece of information ATC provided me with just as soon as I received it but that I had nothing further. I would tell them that would give them five minute updates even if I had nothing further from the authorities. That effectively accomplishes a couple of things...

I would not tell them that it was a mystery to me why we were being surrounded by official vehicles and I would not speculate as to possibilities, (turn-back, shut-down there/deplane normally, evac, etc.). The captain is the captain and only owes so much to others which is always left up to his/her judgement, but I would be talking to the In-charge in detail about 'possibilities' and ask him/her to ensure all FAs remain alert for same; like every takeoff run - rehearse the drills.

In the washup that followed I would ensure a full airing of the captain's views on the matter about the way things ought to be handled between professionals doing their job. I wouldn't tolerate excuses regarding keeping secrets due to "security". To hobble someone in command by choosing not to provide known information is to essentially take over that command and the captain can't permit that. Evacuation was the only remaining option left to the captain.

[Mitch Cronin]

I'm following all that Don, it's just the specific "phone-in threat" part I wonder about.... Is it necessary to add terrified passengers to your list of woes? If nothing goes boom, they'd forgive you when you tell them after all is well. If something does go boom, they'll either forgive you or wake up dead... Why do they need to know?

[Don Hudson]

Hi Mitch;

Re, "Why do they need to know?"

They don't. Unless/until I had clear information rather than just "a phone call", I would not say why we were being detained. The captain's job is to lead, reassure and judge options. For most, straightforward communications regarding a problem, even a serious one, is the best way, but not until the problem is defined.

When a threat is confirmed but still undefined, I would limit information to action being taken.

A clear, time-limited threat is easy.

[Moon The Loon]

Having spent many hours in the lineups at KJFK, and seeing the things one sees, this was a one-off.

I'll be honest: I don't know what I would have done under the initial conditions given. One thing that is a given at this airport is that if you are not an AGGRESSIVE Type A (not just a regular Type A) personality, the ground controllers will eat you alive. It might be a competency issue, it might be a language issue: if you don't follow their "guidance", you're in sh!t.

So there must have been some "before" stuff in the works to give the Captain the comfort of issuing the ultimatum he did.

It's a difficult thing to do, making a decision affecting 300 people, with little or no information.

My read of this incident is a retributive reaction by the PIC rather than a pure search "for the truth".

I may be so far out in left field, I'll get a gold medal in Sochi...

Reactions???

[mo32a]

If it was my call I would say "There has been an unconfirmed security threat against several aircraft and unfortunately we are one of them. The emergency service folks are checking things out to ensure our safety and then we should be on our way"

[Trader]

Moon, I agree when it come to taxiing at 'their' airport. But when it comes to your aircraft (and potentially life) then I think things change quickly!! I'd want to know what was going on immeditaely as well and I'd have no patience for getting strung along. It appears this captain took issue with this as well and, from what I heard, simply wanted clarification on why EMERG vehicles were at his aircraft.

[Super 80]

Another nuance with the US is something you might call "federal fatigue" where it seems like everywhere you turn there is some doofus sticking a badge in your face and saying "abundance of caution", "need to know basis" or "federal jurisdiction" without either explaining themselves or seemingly doing anything other than trying to justify next year's budget.

If someone is on the receiving end of that in what they perceive to potentially be a real emergency, they just might snap.

Then you have situations like the TSA and FBI acting on tips from psychics and people who feel the need to call the feds because their guardian angel told them not to get on the plane.

[boestar]

Kind of reminiscent of the McCarthy era in the US where everyone was a commie spy. Now everyone is a terrorist. Is it still paranoia when the whole world IS actually out to get you?

[Say Again, Over!]

Quite possibly, the controller didn't know either. We get a (validated) call from the authorities telling us to detain an aircraft, we're obligated to do so while they're under no obligation to tell us why. Of course, in this case, I would have been very happy to relay the ultimatum to whomever. In those instances, the controller is often the one stuck between the decision makers: the pilot and "the authorities".

I think the pilot acted professionally and calmly, even while frustrated... and I totally understand his frustration.

[Don Hudson]

Hi Say Again, Over!, re, "Quite possibly, the controller didn't know either.", absolutely - I believe the controller was indeed caught in the middle and was doing her (IIRC), best to provide information - the problem was upstream and that's what's so frustrating and here, risky. The captain must do what he must within the limitations of information s/he has, come what may. I am certain that he would have evacuated the airplane once he deemed it safe to do so (surrounding airplanes, engines shut-down, etc).

[inchman]

I have never heard of an evacuation where someone didn't get hurt; in some cases, especially from widebodies, seriously. I can't come up with an example, but I don't think I would be wrong if I said that people have died in evacuations, simply because of the evacuation.

Evacuating a widebody aircraft without "good" cause (being detained with no information is not good enough to evacuate, in my opinion). avHerald just had a story about a 340 with a spurious cargo hold fire indication in 2012 where the Captain evacuated the aircraft after landing, despite no indication from inside or outside the aircraft of smoke, and a couple of people got seriously hurt. Beyond that, the details of the evacuation have given me something to talk about in crew briefings, so I'm kinda glad he did.

Evacuating an aircraft based on no information other than being detained is pretty rash. As I said previously, Declare an Emergency and calmly taxi to the terminal. Answers will arrive pronto when the controller tells the folks on the phone that the aircraft is taxiing to the terminal. At that point, when they tell him what's really going on, the Captain can decide if it's serious enough to evacuate.

[Don Hudson]

Food for thought, inchman, thank you.

[Trader]

Too be fair--had that 'spurious' warning in fact been real and he had NOT evacuated he would be crucified!! You take the information you have and make the best possible decion based on that information. In the fire case you may not have smoke or other 'visible' information and, imo, this type of 'lesson' could lead crews not to evacuate when necessary. Hell, why believe the fire warning at all???

This captain was attempting to get information and getting no where. Did he actually plan to evacuate, who knows, but his demand and tone were exactly what was needed. The controller, who others noted may not have had the needed information was his one link, and his tone pushed her to get that information.

[inchman]

I don't disagree with the Virgin skipper's decision to get the aircraft on the ground with a fire warning, spurious or not, and we clearly don't have all of the information he had when he ordered the evacuation, and that's his decision, anyway. Yes, it's sort of a fire warning, but it is obviously not working as designed. Before you risk people's ankles, it might be a good idea to have a better reason than a malfunctioning warning. Fire services have infrared goggles so they can tell if there's a fire in a hold and, once you're on the ground surrounded by fire equipment, it's a pretty good bet that everyone will get out if a fire in an EROPS cargo hold that has otherwise exhibited no overt symptoms to this point starts to spread.

The point I was attempting to make is that evacuating a wide body aircraft is not something to be taken lightly. Throwing a couple hundred people 20 feet down slides is rarely going to go well, so just doing it just because that's what the sim scenario always leads to isn't the right direction.

[boestar]

Inchman:

A fire indication in the Cockpit is the pilots only indication. Waiting precious seconds or minutes for confirmation can be the difference between life and death. People have died due to hesitation in these sorts of cases. A Pilot should neve take an emergency indication and suspect its faulty. These systems have redundancy for a reason.

Fire warning in the cockpit means get the people off ASAP. period.

Yes there may be some injuries but most are minor sprained ankles with the odd broken one when evacuating a Wide body.

If you want a scary ride. take the slide from the UD of a 747. injuries are inevitable there.

[CD]

Here is one of the specific studies that have been undertaken with respect to injuries from precautionary evacuations:

DOT/FAA/AM-00/11 - Evacuee Injuries and Demographics in Transport Airplane Precautionary Emergency Evacuations

Abstract:

During a nine-year period from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1996, there were more than 500 transport airplane precautionary emergency evacuations (PEEvacs), occurring on average about once a week. Each year as many as 6,000 persons participated in these events. In many cases, passenger and crewmember injuries resulted from the PEEvacs, resulting in large personal costs to passengers and crewmembers, as well as financial costs estimated to be in excess of $11 million annually to airlines.

This study was undertaken to sample available evacuee and injury data related to a subset of those PEEvacs, including information on types and causes of evacuee injuries, and evacuee age and gender. Other demographics were sought, but that information was generally unavailable. Unique, direct contacts with airport management were used to supplement publicly available information on certain of the PEEvacs, including activation of emergency escape slides during PEEvacs, injuries caused by the PEEvacs, and outcomes.

Of the 136 airports identified as experiencing PEEvacs, 24 were selected to provide detailed data on injured evacuees for a 34-month interval lasting from December 1994 through November 1996. During this time frame, there were 109 precautionary evacuations at the 24 airports selected, i.e., approximately 70% of all reported evacuation events that occurred during the study period. Specific information on 193 persons injured during 19 of these evacuations was obtained and analyzed.

The results of this study confirm the need for improved incident reporting and continued research into preventing injuries associated with the use of emergency egress systems and precautionary emergency evacuations of transport airplanes. The results should be additionally useful when considering proposed changes to applicable regulations and to airline training programs and aircraft emergency operations.

BTW, I feel the upper deck slides of the A380 are far more 'exciting'...

[inchman]

Inchman:

A fire indication in the Cockpit is the pilots only indication. Waiting precious seconds or minutes for confirmation can be the difference between life and death. People have died due to hesitation in these sorts of cases. A Pilot should neve take an emergency indication and suspect its faulty. These systems have redundancy for a reason.

Fire warning in the cockpit means get the people off ASAP. period.

Yes there may be some injuries but most are minor sprained ankles with the odd broken one when evacuating a Wide body.

If you want a scary ride. take the slide from the UD of a 747. injuries are inevitable there.

Sorry, I disagree.

It is our job to evaluate, using all available sources, the risk to our passengers of various courses of action.

An intermittent smoke indication, on the ground, with no other symptoms is an indication of nothing except a sensor problem that should elevate your attention to other indications of potential fire. As you say, these systems are redundant and, in the event of a true smoke event, would more than likely show a solid condition. In addition, the cargo compartment is full of retardant that, apparently, has had no way to escape (thus, no breach), since there was no smoke or retardant in the cabin or exiting the fuselage.

Even the Captain in the Virgin incident said that "simulator training might predispose pilots to make decisions to evacuate when faced with actual circumstances similar to those of a training scenario.", implying (IMO) that, in hindsight, evacuation might not have necessarily been the best course of action. Otherwise, why would he say it that way?

[boestar]

Not necessarily. It depends on the failure mode. Sensors aren't fool proof either. it could be intermittent when actually detecting a fire. Of course this is supposed to be tested on the first flight of the day every day so who knows.

I stand by indication of fire = evacuate. Sort it all out after the fact.