3 ms·

> Excellent evacuation job This couldn't be further from the truth. From what I've read, this was handled terribly. There was confusion and no evacuation was

> Excellent evacuation job This couldn't be further from the truth. From what I've read, this was handled terribly. There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves. If it were a crew-directed evacuation they would have blocked the door leading to the still-running engine as you pointed out. It took the firefighters over six minutes to respond to the site of the burning aircraft. In the US and Europe this would be unheard of, the fire brigade would be rolling as soon as the aircraft hit the ground. The only reason hundreds of people are not dead is directly attributable to the Japanese being an overly polite and orderly culture. If this were China or elsewhere in Asia there would be hundreds of people dead right now, trampled over in the chaos, while the remaining hundred or so survivors would be exiting with their roll-aboard bags in tow.

nradov 3y ago
Six minutes is a decent response time for ARFF in a large, active airport with no advance warning. They can't just drive straight to the incident site; instead they have to wait for ground clearance to enter any taxiways or runways because there are still other aircraft moving around.
- wannacboatmovie 3y ago
  The rule in the USA (set by FAA) is maximum 3 minutes, preferably 2, or they deny your certification and you don't get to be an airport. So I would not characterize 6 minutes as decent. In fact, it's pretty damn terrible. Source: 14 CFR 139.319: Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier aircraft from its assigned post or reach any other specified point of comparable distance on the movement area that is available to air carriers, and begin application of extinguishing agent.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Practically speaking, does this mean guys are just hanging out in the truck 24 hours a day decked out in full gear?
    - wannacboatmovie 3y ago
      Physically in the truck? No. But nearby? Yes. It's literally their job to jump into action at a moment's notice when seconds count. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sphs_Nqt2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sphs_Nqt2c
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Note that that section applies to FAR 139.319 (h)(1)(ii) which is “When requested by the Administrator, demonstrate compliance with the response requirements specified in this section.” I read that to mean “in a planned test, must have a 3 minute alarm to application time”. That means it’s the intended performance target but a 3m30s response to an actual crash will maximally get a request from the Administrator to demonstrate a 3:00 time, rather than a revocation or lowering of ARFF Index of the airport.
falsandtru 3y ago
> There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves. Here is an in-flight video. It appears that the passengers did not manage the evacuation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AgoKvh-mU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AgoKvh-mU
- wannacboatmovie 3y ago
  The video shows passengers sitting calmly in a burning aircraft quickly filling with smoke, I presume awaiting further instruction, which may or may not have come from the crew. The scene almost defies belief.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    For a 20 second clip. It is unclear if the plane is stopped at that start of the clip, and the attendants have to assess which exits aren’t on fire, arm and deploy the safe ones, and then issue orders. Until then, staying calm and out of their way is probably good. They got nearly 400 people out with only 14 minor injuries.
    - falsandtru 3y ago
      A person in the back who appears to be a crew is standing with her seatbelt unbuckled, so the aircraft is probably stopped. The behavior of the passengers also indicates that it was after landing.
      - wannacboatmovie 3y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - rasz 3y ago
    The scene is very Sewol children told to stay so they dont move while boat sinks https://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/16/world/asia/south-korea-sinking-ship-students/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/16/world/asia/south-korea-si...
error503 3y ago
> This couldn't be further from the truth. Let's wait for facts (ie. the accident report) before making such statements. > There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. Of course there was confusion, that is inevitable. Again, we do not have solid information on what PAs were made, but from the looks of the damage and the likely accident sequence, the main avionics bay was pretty much completely destroyed. It's fairly likely the pilots were not able to make any evacuation order by PA on account of half the plane's electronics being on fire a kilometre behind them. > The passengers managed it themselves. If it were a crew-directed evacuation they would have blocked the door leading to the still-running engine as you pointed out. Video clearly shows an orderly evacuation, supervised by cabin crew, who can be seen directing from the exits with flashlights and leaving last. I don't know where you got the idea it was passenger managed from. It appears that the exits facing the worst of the fire were not deployed which is additional evidence of a properly managed evacuation. I don't know their SOP wrt. running engines, or if this engine was even 'running' and not just freewheeling (it doesn't seem to be producing meaningful air movement), but it appears they made a rational decision to use the R1 exit, since everyone survived and the evacuation was pretty quick (~2 minutes). > It took the firefighters over six minutes to respond to the site of the burning aircraft. In the US and Europe this would be unheard of, the fire brigade would be rolling as soon as the aircraft hit the ground. I haven't found video of the very early moments after the aircraft stopped, but there appears to already be foam laid down under and on the aircraft and at least two trucks attending during the late stages of the evacuation, so I don't know where you got this 6 minutes from. Given the circumstances, the crew waiting 6 minutes to begin evacuating doesn't sound reasonable. > The only reason hundreds of people are not dead is directly attributable to the Japanese being an overly polite and orderly culture. Yes, the passengers are also an important part of an effective evacuation, and it is why you should not ignore the safety briefing and follow the instructions of the crew. Good on the passengers for effecting a successful evacuation in this case. You might well be right it would have gone down differently elsewhere, with the eventual report yet again espousing the importance of leaving the baggage behind and maintaining order. This is reason to praise the passengers' behaviour and learn from it, not somehow criticize it as 'overly polite and orderly'. I am sure there were things that could have been done better, but this was a successful and quick evacuation. It's far too early to decide what went well and what could be done better, but it's pretty clear that it was a good job - everyone got out quickly and with minimal injury.
phantomathkg 3y ago
> From what I've read, this was handled terribly. Source please?
JCharante 3y ago
I heard that the engine 2 was still running during the evacuation and that the front door on the right was used for evacuation, that sounds really scary and I'm very glad no one was sucked into the engine.
gosub100 3y ago
> The only reason hundreds of people are not dead is directly attributable to the Japanese being an overly polite and orderly culture. Contrast this to the South Korean ferry disaster [1] where hundreds of Koreans (inb4 someone pops me with "Japanese and Korean are completely different countries..." - yes, I am aware) died as a result of being orderly and compliant. It's just an interesting counterexample where people not speaking up or questioning leadership led to their deaths. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol
- wannacboatmovie 3y ago
  I would not call it a counterexample. In fact we saw similar behavior here. These people escaped death by the skin of their taints. In my opinion the crew should have initiated evacuation much sooner than they did. Despite this, the passengers' behavior also prevented chaos. Any further delay would have surely resulted in casualties. It's a bit of a paradox.
  - idontwantthis 3y ago
    We all wish you were there, I’m sure.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > In my opinion the crew should have initiated evacuation much sooner than they did There are aircraft incidents where the evacuation led to deaths that wouldn't have happened otherwise (stuff like fire engines striking evacuees, parts falling off the airplane, fire, etc.). An evacuation is something always considered/discussed and not automatically undertaken.

nradov 3y ago

Six minutes is a decent response time for ARFF in a large, active airport with no advance warning. They can't just drive straight to the incident site; instead they have to wait for ground clearance to enter any taxiways or runways because there are still other aircraft moving around.

wannacboatmovie 3y ago
The rule in the USA (set by FAA) is maximum 3 minutes, preferably 2, or they deny your certification and you don't get to be an airport. So I would not characterize 6 minutes as decent. In fact, it's pretty damn terrible. Source: 14 CFR 139.319: Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier aircraft from its assigned post or reach any other specified point of comparable distance on the movement area that is available to air carriers, and begin application of extinguishing agent.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Practically speaking, does this mean guys are just hanging out in the truck 24 hours a day decked out in full gear?
  - wannacboatmovie 3y ago
    Physically in the truck? No. But nearby? Yes. It's literally their job to jump into action at a moment's notice when seconds count. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sphs_Nqt2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sphs_Nqt2c
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Note that that section applies to FAR 139.319 (h)(1)(ii) which is “When requested by the Administrator, demonstrate compliance with the response requirements specified in this section.” I read that to mean “in a planned test, must have a 3 minute alarm to application time”. That means it’s the intended performance target but a 3m30s response to an actual crash will maximally get a request from the Administrator to demonstrate a 3:00 time, rather than a revocation or lowering of ARFF Index of the airport.

falsandtru 3y ago

> There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves. Here is an in-flight video. It appears that the passengers did not manage the evacuation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AgoKvh-mU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AgoKvh-mU

wannacboatmovie 3y ago
The video shows passengers sitting calmly in a burning aircraft quickly filling with smoke, I presume awaiting further instruction, which may or may not have come from the crew. The scene almost defies belief.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  For a 20 second clip. It is unclear if the plane is stopped at that start of the clip, and the attendants have to assess which exits aren’t on fire, arm and deploy the safe ones, and then issue orders. Until then, staying calm and out of their way is probably good. They got nearly 400 people out with only 14 minor injuries.
  - falsandtru 3y ago
    A person in the back who appears to be a crew is standing with her seatbelt unbuckled, so the aircraft is probably stopped. The behavior of the passengers also indicates that it was after landing.
    - wannacboatmovie 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- rasz 3y ago
  The scene is very Sewol children told to stay so they dont move while boat sinks https://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/16/world/asia/south-korea-sinking-ship-students/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/16/world/asia/south-korea-si...

error503 3y ago

> This couldn't be further from the truth. Let's wait for facts (ie. the accident report) before making such statements. > There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. Of course there was confusion, that is inevitable. Again, we do not have solid information on what PAs were made, but from the looks of the damage and the likely accident sequence, the main avionics bay was pretty much completely destroyed. It's fairly likely the pilots were not able to make any evacuation order by PA on account of half the plane's electronics being on fire a kilometre behind them. > The passengers managed it themselves. If it were a crew-directed evacuation they would have blocked the door leading to the still-running engine as you pointed out. Video clearly shows an orderly evacuation, supervised by cabin crew, who can be seen directing from the exits with flashlights and leaving last. I don't know where you got the idea it was passenger managed from. It appears that the exits facing the worst of the fire were not deployed which is additional evidence of a properly managed evacuation. I don't know their SOP wrt. running engines, or if this engine was even 'running' and not just freewheeling (it doesn't seem to be producing meaningful air movement), but it appears they made a rational decision to use the R1 exit, since everyone survived and the evacuation was pretty quick (~2 minutes). > It took the firefighters over six minutes to respond to the site of the burning aircraft. In the US and Europe this would be unheard of, the fire brigade would be rolling as soon as the aircraft hit the ground. I haven't found video of the very early moments after the aircraft stopped, but there appears to already be foam laid down under and on the aircraft and at least two trucks attending during the late stages of the evacuation, so I don't know where you got this 6 minutes from. Given the circumstances, the crew waiting 6 minutes to begin evacuating doesn't sound reasonable. > The only reason hundreds of people are not dead is directly attributable to the Japanese being an overly polite and orderly culture. Yes, the passengers are also an important part of an effective evacuation, and it is why you should not ignore the safety briefing and follow the instructions of the crew. Good on the passengers for effecting a successful evacuation in this case. You might well be right it would have gone down differently elsewhere, with the eventual report yet again espousing the importance of leaving the baggage behind and maintaining order. This is reason to praise the passengers' behaviour and learn from it, not somehow criticize it as 'overly polite and orderly'. I am sure there were things that could have been done better, but this was a successful and quick evacuation. It's far too early to decide what went well and what could be done better, but it's pretty clear that it was a good job - everyone got out quickly and with minimal injury.

phantomathkg 3y ago

> From what I've read, this was handled terribly. Source please?

JCharante 3y ago

I heard that the engine 2 was still running during the evacuation and that the front door on the right was used for evacuation, that sounds really scary and I'm very glad no one was sucked into the engine.

gosub100 3y ago

> The only reason hundreds of people are not dead is directly attributable to the Japanese being an overly polite and orderly culture. Contrast this to the South Korean ferry disaster [1] where hundreds of Koreans (inb4 someone pops me with "Japanese and Korean are completely different countries..." - yes, I am aware) died as a result of being orderly and compliant. It's just an interesting counterexample where people not speaking up or questioning leadership led to their deaths. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol

wannacboatmovie 3y ago
I would not call it a counterexample. In fact we saw similar behavior here. These people escaped death by the skin of their taints. In my opinion the crew should have initiated evacuation much sooner than they did. Despite this, the passengers' behavior also prevented chaos. Any further delay would have surely resulted in casualties. It's a bit of a paradox.
- idontwantthis 3y ago
  We all wish you were there, I’m sure.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > In my opinion the crew should have initiated evacuation much sooner than they did There are aircraft incidents where the evacuation led to deaths that wouldn't have happened otherwise (stuff like fire engines striking evacuees, parts falling off the airplane, fire, etc.). An evacuation is something always considered/discussed and not automatically undertaken.