Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

[newlygrounded]

Pardon the "ignorance", but what the hell is the issue?

The crew had a fire warning light come on - they ran the checklist, saw no visible signs of fire, and decided to RTB. Seems like a prudent enough decision.

While on the short jaunt back to the departure airport the medic saw smoke coming from the engine (after the light shut off, seems like an indication something could be FUBAR with the detection system - at least in my uniformed view), so the crew shut it down and landed safely.

Gosh, it just boggles the mind how this could have turned out any better than it did...

I think his point was that the medic thought there was smoke coming from the engine, but in reality there was none, or at least nothing abnormal.

Either that, or somebody got REALLY creative with their ferry permit

and this WAS a medic. I wouldn't expect a pilot to accurately convey critical medical information to me about a patient, either.

FO could have easily gone back and looked for themselves.

It's shameful how quickly pilots will throw each other under the bus. "You could have easily done x"

Oh were you there?

[pelmet]

I think his point was that the medic thought there was smoke coming from the engine, but in reality there was none, or at least nothing abnormal.

Either that, or somebody got REALLY creative with their ferry permit

and this WAS a medic. I wouldn't expect a pilot to accurately convey critical medical information to me about a patient, either.

FO could have easily gone back and looked for themselves.

It's shameful how quickly pilots will throw each other under the bus. "You could have easily done x"

Oh were you there?

Your response does not change the reality of the information I am posting. That information is........repeated examples of bad information being given to pilots and why they should not trust things such as passengers claiming smoke. If that is throwing pilots under the bus instead of keeping this reality secret, then so be it.

[PilotDAR]

We were doing a test flight in Germany many years ago, towing the survey bird under the DC3T.....



We'd told Helogoland ATC what we were doing. A few minutes later, we had a stressed call from ATC, saying that it had been reported that we'd dropped something from the plane. The Captain reminded ATC that we were towing, no you dropped something.... I looked at the video, the bird was still on the line, had we dropped something else! The plane flew fine, and everything was still there when we landed an hour later. Over active imagination of a ground observer!

[Jiffy]

Another task added to the load. Good call to proceed home. Many years (30) of C.Guard sar spent looking for reflections in the night. Usually in bad wx. LOL.

[pelmet]

From the TSB.......

C-FHEN, a Westjet Encore De Havilland Aircraft of Canada DHC-8-402 (Dash 8 Q400) was
conducting flight WEN3108 from Terrace (CYXT), BC, to Vancouver International (CYVR), BC,
with 4 crewmembers and 30 passengers on board. After landing at CYVR, a passenger and cabin
crew member observed what was suspected to be a brake or wheel fire on the left main gear. The
captain requested aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) personnel to attend. The ARFF team that
arrived found no evidence of fire and determined that the brake temperatures were within the
normal range. The passengers deplaned normally and the aircraft was returned to service.

[pelmet]

Another passenger reporting a fire then a hole in the engine.......


C-GENU, a WestJet Encore Limited De Havilland Aircraft of Canada DHC-8-402 (Dash 8 Q400) departed Vancouver International Airport (CYVR), BC, on flight WEN3592, under instrument flight rules, to Cranbrook/Canadian Rockies Airport (CYXC), BC. When the aircraft began its descent from cruise altitude, passengers reported seeing flames and/or sparks coming from the left engine (Pratt & Whitney Canada PW150A). A flight attendant looked at the left engine nacelle and reported the presence of flames to the flight deck approximately 21 minutes before landing in CYXC. All engine indications seen on the flight deck were normal. The flight crew asked a cabin crew member to look at the engine to verify what was being seen. Approximately 1 minute later, it was reported that flames were no longer visible by the cabin crew member but were still visible to a passenger. The aircraft subsequently began deviations to avoid thunderstorms in the area. The passenger had taken a photo of the engine nacelle and reported that they believed there was small hole in the left engine nacelle, with sparks being visible within the hole. A visual inspection of the engine nacelle was not performed by either pilot, nor was the photo taken by the passenger seen by either pilot during the flight. Approximately 10 seconds after the hole was first reported, it was concluded that it was a normal feature of the nacelle and that the reported sparks were engine exhaust.

Communication between the cabin and flight deck regarding the reported flames and sparks concluded approximately 2 minutes after the first report of flames to the flight deck. Engine indications on the flight deck remained normal, and the flight landed without further incident in CYXC. After landing, oil was found dripping from the left nacelle. A maintenance inspection discovered that the left engine oil cooler was leaking oil. The investigation determined that the reported hole in the engine nacelle was a dark patch of engine oil which had collected on the lower side surface of the engine nacelle during flight. The left engine oil cooler was replaced, and an engine ground run was performed without occurrence of sparks or flames. The aircraft was subsequently returned to service.


.....from TSB.

[pelmet]

From TSB....

C-GCWJ, a Boeing 737-700 operated by Westjet Airlines Inc., was operating as flight WS4037
from Fort MacKay/Firebag Airport (CYFI), AB, to Calgary International Airport (CYYC), AB. After
boarding was complete, ground personnel reported what appeared to be flashes or sparks in the
vicinity of the horizontal stabilizer. The flight crew shut down both engines, ordered a rapid
deplanement of the aircraft out the main cabin door and requested assistance from aircraft rescue
and firefighting (ARFF). All passengers de-planed without incident.

Observation concluded that the apparent flashes were caused by snow and de-icing fluid
interacting with the logo light. Company maintenance reviewed video and pictures to confirm the
assessment. The passengers were boarded and the flight continued without further issues.

[itsgrosswhatinet]

I wonder if it might be the first time seeing snow for them.

[pelmet]

You've called FAs ditzes with no aviation experience,

No...now you are giving bad info. I said some are ditzes(I used the term 'occasional' actually), which includes ones with very little and in some cases a fair amount of experience. Sorry, the truth is not very nice sometimes. Some prefer to hide it, I prefer to just acknowledge reality.

I was reminded of this post recently.

Alcohol can make interesting stories come out. I ran into a former flight attendant at a social gathering the other night. She mentioned that she had downed a few shots. At first, I didn't think that much about her being unable to read the face of a wall clock for time until later(after all digital is the way now, I suppose)

Anyways, she had worked for a couple of years at a well-known Canadian carrier. I asked if she had any interesting stories and the first one she told me about was a medical emergency, at an early point in her short aviation career. According to her description, something about an air bubble in the lung of an old lady that burst(not sure what exactly that means). Whatever it was, the old lady needed oxygen. While one of the cabin crew was successful in retrieving an O2 bottle, neither of them could figure out how to start flow from the bottle. Banging on the top of the bottle did not start the flow. The other one suggested calling the cockpit crew for advice but it was decided not to as they might get fired for not knowing how to operate the bottle(I suppose that was a higher priority than getting O2 flow). Somehow, they were able to finally get some O2 flow(although she is still not sure how) and the passenger survived the emergency landing. She stated that she does not perform well under pressure(I guess neither of them do) and knew at that point that she was not meant for a job like this(yet stayed for about two more years).

I think that the occasional ditz with no aviation experience statement stands the real world test.

[pdw]

.

[pdw]

She told you a good story, one you asked for, and seems like did so accurately. I didn’t know they’d had a bottle like that aboard for such emergency. Probably had never used it (was assumed one would know ‘how to open’). A little tricky first time under pressure … esp when a passenger suddenly suffocating.

[bobcaygeon]

Sure, I'll stop being a dick. Pelmet starts a thread "..bad info pilots can be given" and then condescend them by stating "Amazing." And lastly quote the CADORs. The pilots were told that there were flames coming out the tailpipe. Not by just a passenger, but also a "Crew member". They declared an emergency and returned. Would it have been amazing if they continued on and had to shut down in flight and land at destination? This thread doesn't benefit anyone.....the only discussion its creating is the blame on pilots. I asked in your last thread if/who you fly for, and you didn't answer then, so I still wonder if you just look at CADORS everyday and judge others, or if you have experience in a commercial operation. I'll tell you a story about tailpipes. I was flying home on the airline I worked for, and noticed sparks intermittently coming from the tailpipe on one of the engines. I told the crew, they said all the gauges were normal, and carried on. They snagged it when we landed, and took another airplane. The next day the plane went out and on the 3rd leg, they had an engine failure. One of the 2nd stage turbine blades had come loose and was rubbing until it finally broke free and took out the 3rd stage turbine. Anyways I won't get in the way of the stellar discussion that's ongoing....

The problem with you Maynard, is that as soon as you finally try to add to a thread, you prove how lacking in basic knowledge you are(and perhaps should just go back to your completely useless posts).

It is obvious that you don't have the capability to understand basic written information. Yes I said "Amazing" but what is obvious to most others is that this comment is about the bad info from the back(ie. a report of an engine fire when there is no fire), not about the unfortunate pilots who received the bad information. Yet you somehow come to a conclusion that I am condemning the pilots, even after I wrote this as well....

My only real point is.......to give an example of the quality of information one might get from the cabin and to consider that before assessing.

There is no comment on what the flight deck crew did which seems quite reasonable although your suggestion of a pilot taking a look is an option.

Just be aware of trusting the info you are given, including by a flight crew member in the back. It may be very exaggerated and extremely exaggerated from a passenger.

You appear to be unable to comprehend, despite what I wrote that I am criticizing those in the back of the aircraft for what obviously was bad info. Instead you only seem to be able to conclude that I am blaming the pilots when I specifically give an example of bad information being given to pilots as mentioned in the thread title and then say what the pilots did was reasonable. Yes, I did subsequently agree with someone else that one of the pilots could have taken a look for themselves and perhaps one might want to consider the pros and cons of doing so and the potential serious consequences of not doing so as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

And yes, I read the Cadors almost every day because they are emailed to me almost every day. Somehow, I am supposed to tell you who I work for yet I don't see you telling me the name of your employer and I don't really care to know who it is as it is completely irrelevant to the discussion(although you are not the first to demand this info for some strange reason, which one has to wonder what that might be).

As for your story about sparks from an engine and the end result of that situation, I would like to think that most of the rest of us can understand that your experience and the fact that others in the past have experienced seeing actual failures has nothing to do with the reality that.........bad information sometimes gets passed on to pilots. From cabin crew, from ATC, from mechanics, and from other pilots. Just because good information sometimes and quite likely usually gets passed along to pilots doesn't change the former.

This thread is was started in a forum specifically dedicated to incidents and learning from them. Unlike what you say about it benefitting no one, aside from yourself, I believe there is a benefit from this as it at least asks the question, like in any incident, is there anything else that could be done in a situation like this where there is an unverified report of a potentially fatal problem. Especially when the expected response to an event such as an engine fire is to land ASAP, which could be in a remote location in the Pacific or a very marginal airport somewhere else.

I suppose we also get to learn other things about unfortunate traits in some people, such as we see responses from individuals like you.....misinterpreting basic written information and then acting the way you do making false accusations. Now if you care to actually discuss and disagree on what I actually said with other credible alternatives, then that's fine.


Until then, my recommendation for you is to read something several times in order to actually understand it and then comment. See...you can get good info on this thread.

I can verify the Maynard is experienced, a little long winded, likes chicken wings, and cold beer. Unless the Dash 8 has been modified too one engine due to high fuel prices this is a non-issue. The "old school" mentality of not shutting an engine continues to drive me nuts. Too many events of running it the engine until it quits on approach/landing

[pelmet]

While a rapid deplanement down stairs on a Dash-8 in mild weather is not really a big deal, as a concept, I recommend that one of the pilots consider confirming for themselves before taking further action. Too many cabin crew call anything visible and any fume as smoke(happened to me once). Then the pilots assume fire.

C-GNCF, a De Havilland DHC-8-314 operated by Perimeter Aviation, was preparing to depart Winnipeg/James Armstrong Richardson International Airport (CYWG), MB, on an IFR flight to the St. Theresa Point Airport (CYST), MB. While the engines were being started, the cabin crew attendant called the flight deck to report a hissing sound from the door seal area and passenger ear discomfort. The attendant then noticed what appeared to be smoke filling the passenger compartment. The captain initiated an aircraft shutdown with a rapid deplanement. The passengers were safety evacuated. The airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) department attended and cleared the aircraft. The operator's maintenance could not find the source of the smoke. It was suspected that the smoke was condensation due to a stuck pressurization controller.


....from TSB.

[pdw]

I recommend that one of the pilots consider confirming for themselves before taking further action.

The “ear discomfort” is reported first, along with the door whistling noise. If not normal, pilots already have instant cause for suspecting shopwork needed from the attendants first informative call alone, esp if their ears suddenly hurting too. Then comes the second imperative call from the attendant confirming suspicious vapour looking like smoke, seals the decision more quickly … to act on snagging it or whatever. Of course pilots should be aware it might not be smoke, but I can’t imagine they would be taking off with this description until mech-troubleshooting complete ( ie pax deplaned if that’s going to take longer). Likely also confirmed only later what the fault actually was?