[IanFromHKG]

While I can see that it is tough on people who are trying to make an emergency seem more “normal” or who revert to “standard” disembarkation routines, I do think that it would be a good idea to make an example of some of the idiots who took hand luggage. First step, perhaps, an airline ban with press announcements made to that effect but without passengers being named. Then after the next incident, public naming-and-shaming, and a stern warning that in future incidents criminal prosecutions would ensue. The criminal offence laws to do this are already in place so far as I am aware – disobeying crew safety instructions (and no doubt a myriad of other offences).

[biarritzsurf9]

Shouldn’t BA be grounding the GE powered 777-200 fleet until the cause of the incident be known? Qantas grounded their A380 fleet after the un-contained engine failure incident in Singapore after all ….

[SimonS1]

I would have thought that was a big overreaction.

[FinnKZ229]

There is a relevant section in the book “QF32” by Richard de Crespigny in which he gave his account as the Pilot in Charge of the Qantas 380 which suffered catastrophic engine failure after leaving Singapore.
After the plane had successfully landed again at Singapore they began the evacuation using the escape slides and the passengers were told to leave all their luggage and bags on the plane. One passenger turned up at the door with his rollalong bag where he was stopped by the CSD. The passenger’s attitude was “Well I’m here now, what are you going to do about it”. The CSD took the bag and threw to the other side of the cabin and then ordered the passenger down the slide.
They had a little more time for the evacuation than the BA plane in Las Vegas, but not a lot more. I firmly believe that passengers need to be told on the Airline’s website, in the inflight magazine, in the safety briefing, and in the safety card in no uncertain terms that they can’t take their belongings with them during an emergency evacuation. I agree that they should make an example of the relevant passengers on that BA flight.

[Cheeryguy]

That’s rather confusing as the QF 32 didn’t evacuate with slides. Passengers disembarked using one set of steps.

[LuganoPirate]

That’s now three BA aircraft written off in almost as many years. BA38, the 747 at JNB and now this incident. I wonder what BA’s insurance premiums are now like?

[MrMichael]

Probably not as high as AF’s LP. I think the important thing here is that BA have not managed to kill anyone. Or are you suggesting it’s an insurance scam to get rid of their tired old airframes 😉

[SimonS1]

@FinnKZ229 – how many people do you think read this stuff on the website, safety card and in flight magazine?

And isn’t it already covered in the safety demo?

[AnthonyDunn]

@ LuganoPirate – 14/09/2015 06:32 BST

Ha, ha ha! You remind me of the FCO fire and there were accusations all over the local meedjah that the airport authority had allowed the fire to take place so that they could claim on the insurance for the rebuilding costs rather than have to fund it themselves… Stranger things have been known to happen.

[FinnKZ229]

@ Cheeryguy – apologies – you’re quite correct, it was a single set of steps. It’s been a while since I read the excellent book. However it was the principle of rigid enforcement that struck me.

@SimonS1 I agree with your comment about reading this stuff on the website, safety card and in the briefing. The point that I was trying to make was that I believe that the risk to others should be emphasised and it should also be stressed that stringent action will be taken against passengers who disobey this part of the safety instructions. It probably won’t happen for the same reason that the airlines don’t want to upset the customers by enforcing their rules on carry on baggage!

[biarritzsurf9]

Boeing and GE Warned About Airplane Engine That Exploded

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/14/exclusive-boeing-and-ge-warned-about-airplane-engine-that-exploded.html

[MrMichael]

If what the Daily Beast is saying is correct, then serious questions are going to have to be answered, and maybe, just maybe Biaritzsurf your right that these engines should be grounded until such time as the cause is confirmed not to be an inherent fault with the engine, or reassurance can be made of a fix. However it needs to be a decision for the FAA, and if what the report you link to is right, I imagine it will happen shortly. The repercussions for GE and indeed the whole airline industry using those engines will be huge.

[SimonS1]

@FinnKZ229 – yes I don’t disagree that it should be emphasised, just that as yet no-one has come up with a way of doing it that is guaranteed to stick in peoples’ minds in an emergency scenario. TBH I can’t see airlines (or the authorities) prosecuting passengers in such situations unless there are fatalities and it can be proven that there was a direct cause/effect.

It’s a very different scenario to the carry on baggage, I don’t think you can compare an every day situation to an highly irregular emergency one. A lot of people have a lot to say about the LAX incident, however the vast majority of them have never been in an emergency situation before and therefore can’t have any appreciation how passengers behave under extreme stress.

[Flyerboy1]

Well done BA crew, you did a fantastic job, and to AnthonyDunn, I’m sure all BA crew are trained exactly the same regardless of where they are based I’m sure,

[FDOS_UK]

I wonder how many of the cabin crew, who did a great job, are now faced with a salary cut or compulsory redundancy?

[Author]

Posts