nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

JCX BXC

The seat map for the B767-200 being leased by EI next year are available on the Aer Lingus website, the seating is 2,3,2 in economy (As was suspected) and 2,2,2 in business

There are 189 economy seats and 12 Business seats making a total of the reported 201 seats.

Anyone know whether the B767 will be repainted, partially or entirely, in the EI colours for the 6 months that its leased for?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cloudio9

Av herald reported that the pilots had oxygen masks on, including the time they were taxiing. That would potentially have made clear cabin communication difficult.

smurfjed

I’m told there is significant damage to the exit doors and that it is a significant six figure sum for repair

How was the damage caused?
When we introduced the A320 we had to do a demonstrated evacuation for certification purposes, half of the exits were used and these slides needed to be replaced, but the exit doors just went back into the slot.

[Deleted User]

smurfjed wrote: »

How was the damage caused?
When we introduced the A320 we had to do a demonstrated evacuation for certification purposes, half of the exits were used and these slides needed to be replaced, but the exit doors just went back into the slot.

Both were thrown from above the wing on to the concrete below. As can be seen in pictures.

kona

Noxegon wrote: »

I think you're being a bit hard on the passengers here.

I dont think so, passengers in these seats are briefed before sitting here if they are happy to assist, and told what to do.
You cannot have passengers having a solo run here, what if there was a fire in a engine or the engine was still running, what if one fell and broke their neck?
They have already caused thousands of euros of damage to a aircraft.

Noxegon

kona wrote: »

I dont think so, passengers in these seats are briefed before sitting here if they are happy to assist, and told what to do.

Lets assume for a moment that you're in a bedroom of a house where the fire alarm is sounding. There's smoke coming from underneath the only exterior door. You're standing next to a window. Do you

a) break the window and make your escape, or
b) sit there while the smoke gets thicker and wait for someone to tell you that it's okay to break the window?

If there is no obvious danger then it is perfectly reasonable to wait for instructions. However, if there is obvious danger then survival instincts kick in.

kona

Noxegon wrote: »

Lets assume for a moment that you're in a bedroom of a house where the fire alarm is sounding. There's smoke coming from underneath the only exterior door. You're standing next to a window. Do you

a) break the window and make your escape, or
b) sit there while the smoke gets thicker and wait for someone to tell you that it's okay to break the window?

If there is no obvious danger then it is perfectly reasonable to wait for instructions. However, if there is obvious danger then survival instincts kick in.

Well how about we dont assume anything, smoke was in the cockpit and not the cabin and judging by wjat ive seen most passengers acted properly and got off without drama.. The aircraft landed and taxi onto a stand, they managed to put steps up to the door and get off that way.
Somebody decided they knew better than trained crew and decided exit through a route they were not instructed to. They got away lightly imo their actions could have hurt somebody unnecessarily, they certainly put peoplein more danger than they had to.

They crew is trained to evacuate passengers. Passengers are trained to do **** all other than what they are told to do. You cannot have passengers deciding ob what to do in a situation. If it was serious enough the crew would have initiated a evacuation.

Locker10a

kona wrote: »

Noxegon wrote: »

Lets assume for a moment that you're in a bedroom of a house where the fire alarm is sounding. There's smoke coming from underneath the only exterior door. You're standing next to a window. Do you

a) break the window and make your escape, or
b) sit there while the smoke gets thicker and wait for someone to tell you that it's okay to break the window?

If there is no obvious danger then it is perfectly reasonable to wait for instructions. However, if there is obvious danger then survival instincts kick in.

Well how about we dont assume anything, smoke was in the cockpit and not the cabin and judging by wjat ive seen most passengers acted properly and got off without drama.. The aircraft landed and taxi onto a stand, they managed to put steps up to the door and get off that way.
Somebody decided they knew better than trained crew and decided exit through a route they were not instructed to. They got away lightly imo their actions could have hurt somebody unnecessarily, they certainly put peoplein more danger than they had to.

They crew is trained to evacuate passengers. Passengers are trained to do **** all other than what they are told to do. You cannot have passengers deciding ob what to do in a situation. If it was serious enough the crew would have initiated a evacuation.

Absolutely, and the exit hatches thrown to the ground could have literally killed one of the ground crew or fire Crew who were present outside the aircraft, If i recall correctly those hatches weigh 20kg+

[Deleted User]

Noxegon

kona wrote: »

smoke was in the cockpit and not the cabin

There are reports that say there was smoke in the cabin, not least AVHerald. If those reports are correct, then I stand by what I said; survival instinct takes over and expecting anything else from passengers is unrealistic.

If there was no obvious danger and passengers took it upon themselves to open the exits then I agree that the book should be thrown at them.

[Deleted User]

Noxegon wrote: »

There are reports that say there was smoke in the cabin, not least AVHerald. If those reports are correct, then I stand by what I said; survival instinct takes over and expecting anything else from passengers is unrealistic.

If there was no obvious danger and passengers took it upon themselves to open the exits then I agree that the book should be thrown at them.

You're more than welcome to listen to the playback yourself and listen yourself to the cockpit crew saying there is NO fumes in the cabin, information which they will have gotten from the cabin crew members directly. Your choice, believe AV Herald or the cockpit crew saying it to ATC.

goingnowhere

ATC tape "no smoke in the cabin"

[Deleted User]

After assessing the situation the crew reported, still with oxygen masks donned, that there was smoke in cabin and cockpit, they wanted to taxi to the apron. The aircraft taxied to the stand

This bit from AV Herald is totally inaccurate, listening to LiveATC archive the crew clearly say there is NO fumes in the cabin. So I wouldn't rely on that source.

Noxegon

Okay, I haven't listened to the recording but I'll accept the consensus on this one.

Throw the book at them then.

HTCOne

I can say as an ATCO that evacuating without crew ordering it is a monumentally stupid thing to do. Let's say there was a fire, in the gear or in an engine, those pax would have jumped straight into it, or allowed smoke in to kill numerous other passengers. You wait for the command because the crew know what's going on. If there's a fire on one side, they'll evacuate on the other. They also take prevailing wind conditions into account ie which direction flames/smoke are likely to be spread by the wind.

Just jumping out not only endangers you but everyone else on the aircraft.

Mebuntu

I've listened to the playback of the ATC comms. After landing the aircraft stopped on the runway to assess the situation. They advised afterwards that there was still fumes in the cockpit and windows were open but there was NOTHING in the cabin. Therefore there was NO need for anybody in the cabin to be panicking. They then elected to taxi back on to the stand.

This is totally irrelevant. The pax at the doors would know nothing of this conversation.

It also doesn't matter whether or not they saw smoke in the cabin.

People seem to have been in a rush to blame the pax in this case. Before any blame is apportioned we need to know the facts of what exactly happened in the time frame.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/aer-lingus-plane-forced-to-make-emergency-landing-in-cork-1.3278267

Passenger Barry O’Sullivan told Cork’s Red FM: “Once we got on to the ground the captain came on the tannoy to say ‘evacuate immediately please and leave bags after you’.”

The "once we got on the ground" comment cannot be accurate as that would have been on the runway.

Prior to the landing the exit row passengers would have been primed to evacuate (i.e. open the doors) if they heard an instruction from the crew so to do.As the landing took place they will have seen all of the fire and rescue services on standby which would have set hearts pounding. As the aircraft taxyed in they would still be on alert.

If, on arrival on stand as the aircraft came to a halt and before ANY doors were opened, the exact words ‘evacuate immediately please and leave bags after you’ came from the Captain over the tannoy that could easily be taken to have meant what it said. The word disembark would have been more appropriate and leave no room for misinterpretation.

Of course, maybe the Captain actually said something like "evacuate by the main cabin doors" but if he didn't qualify it then the pax were justified in believing the instruction meant what it said and did what they had been told to do.

The jury is still out until we know exactly what happened and what was said.

kona

Mebuntu wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/aer-lingus-plane-forced-to-make-emergency-landing-in-cork-1.3278267

Passenger Barry O’Sullivan told Cork’s Red FM: “Once we got on to the ground the captain came on the tannoy to say ‘evacuate immediately please and leave bags after you’.”

The "once we got on the ground" comment cannot be accurate as that would have been on the runway.

Prior to the landing the exit row passengers would have been primed to evacuate (i.e. open the doors) if they heard an instruction from the crew so to do.As the landing took place they will have seen all of the fire and rescue services on standby which would have set hearts pounding. As the aircraft taxyed in they would still be on alert.

.

I know crew during their training are told exactly what to say and have to do recurrent training every year.

Id be very suprised if the crew didnt say word for word what they were trained to say

[Deleted User]

“Totally irrelevant” ? Seriously ? Considering several others have based their hypothesis on information that said the complete opposite it most certainly is not “Totally irrelevant”. It is a key piece of very relevant information. It shows the situation in the aircraft at that precise moment in time. Add to the fact that there was no sign of smoke etc outside of the aircraft at any point then you have a lot of relevant information.

The only missing bit of information is what the crew said to the passengers just prior to them leaving the aircraft. Unless a video pops up at some stage we will just have to wait on the report.

Mebuntu

Deleted User wrote: »

“Totally irrelevant” ? Seriously ? Considering several others have based their hypothesis on information that said the complete opposite it most certainly is not “Totally irrelevant”. It is a key piece of very relevant information. It shows the situation in the aircraft at that precise moment in time. Add to the fact that there was no sign of smoke etc outside of the aircraft at any point then you have a lot of relevant information.

It was totally irrelevant in the context of why the passengers opened the doors. All the passengers knew was that they were returning due to a "technical fault". They knew nothing about smoke in the cabin because, as you mention, there wasn't any. So, they were primed to evacuate for a reason they didn't know anything about. From the moment of landing they would have been waiting anxiously to hear the word "evacuate". This would have been heightened by the sight of the fire engines.

If the crew was satisfied that, despite the smoke in the cockpit, there was no need to evacuate but, nevertheless, wanted everyone off quickly on arrival on stand they could easily have made an announcement on the taxi in on the lines off, "Nothing to worry about but when we arrive on stand we want all of you to leave your bags behind and disembark the aircraft as quickly as possible using front and back steps". The only info we have at the moment is that they were told to evacuate - that all-important word - as per that report in the IT.

Like I said earlier we need to know what was actually said. It may well turn out that the door-openers on both sides of the aircraft were eejits and panicked but we cannot say at this point that they were.

JCX BXC

Mebuntu wrote: »

Like I said earlier we need to know what was actually said. It may well turn out that the door-openers on both sides of the aircraft were eejits and panicked but we cannot say at this point that they were.

However we can say that regardless of why they opened the doors, they should not have opened the doors, and that they endangered themselves and others by doing so, as well as making the airline endure a financial loss from this mistake on behalf of a few passengers.

Will be interesting to see thought exactly what was said to the passengers, and who might get the ultimate blame for this.

robyntmorton

The trouble is it only takes one person in the overwing exits to misinterpret the instruction given to kick it all off. Another passenger sees it, thinks “Sh!t I have to do that too” and before you know it the doors have been chucked onto the apron, the slides are deployed and you have passengers standing on the wing wondering what to do next.

We don’t know the exact instruction given, so we don’t know whether it was a self preservation instinct kicking in, or someone being an idiot. We will have to see what the findings are.

Cloudio9

Do Aer Lingus check if the exit row passengers can understand English ?

[Deleted User]

Mebuntu wrote: »

It was totally irrelevant in the context of why the passengers opened the doors. All the passengers knew was that they were returning due to a "technical fault". They knew nothing about smoke in the cabin because, as you mention, there wasn't any. So, they were primed to evacuate for a reason they didn't know anything about. From the moment of landing they would have been waiting anxiously to hear the word "evacuate". This would have been heightened by the sight of the fire engines.

If the crew was satisfied that, despite the smoke in the cockpit, there was no need to evacuate but, nevertheless, wanted everyone off quickly on arrival on stand they could easily have made an announcement on the taxi in on the lines off, "Nothing to worry about but when we arrive on stand we want all of you to leave your bags behind and disembark the aircraft as quickly as possible using front and back steps". The only info we have at the moment is that they were told to evacuate - that all-important word - as per that report in the IT.

Like I said earlier we need to know what was actually said. It may well turn out that the door-openers on both sides of the aircraft were eejits and panicked but we cannot say at this point that they were.

Stop moving the goalposts Mebuntu, you've taken something I have said out of the context it was said in originally (post 3404) and declared it "totally irrelevant" based on something else completely. The issue I have is with your term "totally irrelevant" it is Relevant both in terms of the incident and in terms of the context of the conversation I posted it in. It will also be relevant when it is included in the AAIU investigation report.

Can you post the link to where you say they were "primed to evacuate" please, because the same source for the evacuate word says in an article they knew nothing about it until they landed and saw all the emergency services surrounding them.

Another passenger on the same flight says this

Mr McDonagh said that, upon landing in Cork, people were instructed to leave their belongings onboard and to exit the plane as quickly as possible.

no mention of the word evacuate there.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/smoke-in-cockpit-forces-flight-to-return-to-cork-airport-462167.html

Mebuntu

JCX BXC wrote: »

However we can say that regardless of why they opened the doors, they should not have opened the doors, and that they endangered themselves and others by doing so, as well as making the airline endure a financial loss from this mistake on behalf of a few passengers.

You can only say that with the benefit of hindsight and, most likely, a better understanding of aviation than most passengers on board. You were not sitting in those seats enduring the experience.

JCX BXC

Mebuntu wrote: »

You can only say that with the benefit of hindsight and, most likely, a better understanding of aviation than most passengers on board. You were not sitting in those seats enduring the experience.

Eh, no, I'm sorry, they're facts. You can't just decide when facts are relevant.

They should not have opened those doors, that's a clear fact. Do you deny this? Why they opened the doors is another matter, which is what I assume we all hope to find out.

It is also becoming quite clear that it was a mistake on behalf of the passengers, there are no reports of them being told to evacuate using the emergency exits or that the crew told them to open them, hence it was either eagerness or misunderstanding. However, with both, you still come to the conclusion that it was a mistake. You still come to the conclusion that they shouldn't have been opened.

Hence, you can go on and on about how we weren't in their shoes, but if you're objecting to someone stating a simple fact then you're not going to get very far.

Mebuntu

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you post the link to where you say they were "primed to evacuate" please, because the same source for the evacuate word says in an article they knew nothing about it until they landed and saw all the emergency services surrounding them.

Earlier in this thread (or maybe it was the other one) it was pointed out that the CC would have briefed the exit door occupiers regarding an evacuation if it was called.

Another passenger on the same flight says this no mention of the word evacuate there.

That's fair enough if that's what actually happened.

My whole point in this thread is merely to state that it was too early to make a judgment until all the facts are known whereas others were condemning the passengers from the word go without knowing yet what actually happened.

kona

Mebuntu wrote: »

Earlier in this thread (or maybe it was the other one) it was pointed out that the CC would have briefed the exit door occupiers regarding an evacuation if it was called.

That's fair enough if that's what actually happened.

My whole point in this thread is merely to state that it was too early to make a judgment until all the facts are known whereas others were condemning the passengers from the word go without knowing yet what actually happened.

Its obvious to anybody who has experience of aircraft what happend there. Its extremely dangerous and worrying to be honest.

It will ve interesting to see who gets the blame....and perhaps the bill.

Locker10a

Mebuntu wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you post the link to where you say they were "primed to evacuate" please, because the same source for the evacuate word says in an article they knew nothing about it until they landed and saw all the emergency services surrounding them.

Earlier in this thread (or maybe it was the other one) it was pointed out that the CC would have briefed the exit door occupiers regarding an evacuation if it was called.

Another passenger on the same flight says this no mention of the word evacuate there.

That's fair enough if that's what actually happened.

My whole point in this thread is merely to state that it was too early to make a judgment until all the facts are known whereas others were condemning the passengers from the word go without knowing yet what actually happened.

Able bodied passengers would only be briefed in a preplanned emergency along with all passengers. Say the gear had failed and it was know it would collapse on landing, the crew would give an inflight safety demo to prepare pax on how to brace and how to evacuate. In this case exit row pax receive an more in-depth brief on what to to and what signals to listen out for.
This was a “technical issue” now I could be wrong but the cabin wouldn’t have been prepared for possible catastrophic emergency landing . Unless there was some serious breakdown in communication.
What I believe happened here is the captain orders a rapid disembarkation(using steps) and someone jumped the gun and cracked open the emergency exits and slides

Mebuntu

Sorry, I haven't been back earlier to respond but I am tasked with "other duties" on Sat morn

...and more this aft!!

I have made all my points in support of the possibility that the pax may not have been entirely at fault and won't be making any more. The report when it comes out will reveal all.

However, there are a couple of other matters that arise.

It will be interesting to see who gets the blame....and perhaps the bill.

It would create a dangerous precedent if the pax got the bill unless it was proven to be a case of a few lads having a laugh.

Able bodied passengers would only be briefed in a preplanned emergency along with all passengers. Say the gear had failed and it was know it would collapse on landing, the crew would give an inflight safety demo to prepare pax on how to brace and how to evacuate. In this case exit row pax receive an more in-depth brief on what to to and what signals to listen out for.
This was a “technical issue” now I could be wrong but the cabin wouldn’t have been prepared for possible catastrophic emergency landing . Unless there was some serious breakdown in communication.

Point taken but, in the case of smoke in the cockpit, would the possibility that there was a fire somewhere onboard make it equally important to impart the possibility of an evacuation and the details thereof to the exit-doorers?

What I believe happened here is the captain orders a rapid disembarkation(using steps) and someone jumped the gun and cracked open the emergency exits and slides

If that's what he said then you are, of course, correct.

Van.Bosch

What has all this got to do with Aer Lingus fleet?

JCX BXC

Van.Bosch wrote: »

What has all this got to do with Aer Lingus fleet?

The aircraft being part of the Aer Lingus fleet, I'd imagine it has alot to do with it?