Sunwing flight diverted due to smoking passengers

[grimey]

I think the cost of what the crew did, hasn't been weighed against how their actions would affect future business in this discussion so far.

Would you rather the airline landed where you had no vacation plans, or would you rather they dealt with them after they landed? If they weren't being violent, ban them from the airline, and offer a full or partial refund the cost of the flight for the other passengers.

[Canoehead]

Love the armchair quarterbacking. It's kinda funny, but at the same time annoying.

Crew (with or without company input) made the decision to land based on the best available information at the time. No amount of opinion from the AvCanada forum is going to make them think they made the wrong choice.

Imagine if things had gone on another 45 mins and CB's started to pop because the 'mystery cigarette' had been jammed into someplace obscure. Everyone would be calling them idiots for not landing sooner. As always, better to be judged by one (or the "experts") than to be carried by six.

[Cat Driver]

Imagine if things had gone on another 45 mins and CB's started to pop because the 'mystery cigarette' had been jammed into someplace obscure.

Just thinking about that makes my blood run cold with fear.

These delayed ignition emergencies are truly frightening to even think about.

[sky's the limit]

Poor old Doc is really getting a lot of flack here, so I am going to ask a few questions and see if maybe he has some valid points.

First:

Was safety really compromised by the act of smoking on board an airliner?

For decades smoking was normal on all airlines except for take off and landing.

Tens of millions of people smoked on airliners and as far as I recall there was never a passenger death or injury on board of an airplane due to passengers smoking.

Therefore there was no real immediate safety issue.

However it would seem the passengers were not complying with crew instructions.

602.05 (1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.

(2) Every crew member on board an aircraft shall, during flight time, comply with the instructions of the pilot-in-command or of any person whom the pilot-in-command has authorized to act on behalf of the pilot-in-command.

None of us here really know who exactly made the decision to divert but it sure looks like it was a costly diversion based on the slap on the wrist these passengers got from a Bermuda court.

Maybe this fiasco will give these airlines a chance to review how they handle the next clash between cabin crew and passengers.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

stl

[Shiny Side Up]

I think the cost of what the crew did, hasn't been weighed against how their actions would affect future business in this discussion so far.

Would you rather the airline landed where you had no vacation plans, or would you rather they dealt with them after they landed?

Actually in many cases yes, get them off the plane if they can't find a way to stop the activity that's being disruptive. The way other passengers behave on an airplane in so many cases is grossly unacceptable, if this was done more often, backed up of course by some severe legal ramifications for them, people might settle down a bit.

[Doc]

I think the cost of what the crew did, hasn't been weighed against how their actions would affect future business in this discussion so far.

Would you rather the airline landed where you had no vacation plans, or would you rather they dealt with them after they landed?

Actually in many cases yes, get them off the plane if they can't find a way to stop the activity that's being disruptive. The way other passengers behave on an airplane in so many cases is grossly unacceptable, if this was done more often, backed up of course by some severe legal ramifications for them, people might settle down a bit.

I've seen more than my share of bossy flight attendants. Some really like to flaunt the authority they seem to think is their job, post 9/11. Where is the consumer's protection against these airborne storm troopers? Lets not miss the fact, the passengers ARE PAYING everybody's salaries here, and entitled to respect, and a friendly face. If you ain't buying, you shouldn't be flying.

[bizjets101]

Saudi HZ-AHK flight SV163 - 301 fatalities - fire was first reported in cargo bay, not enough of aircraft left to determine cause. Deaths due to total failure to egress from aircraft, rescue crew breached the hull 23 minutes after touchdown. Captain had ordered crew not to open doors until fighting passengers all returned to their seats!!!


Air Canada C-FTLU flight 797 - 23 fatalities - fire first reported in bathroom trash container - two investigations could not verify cause due to damage to aircraft.
Commonly to believed to be caused by smoking - though this was same aircraft that lost bulkhead inflight, and received extensive repairs and wiring repairs in the rear of the aircraft.

In regards to Sunwing, CTV reported the following;

And besides their defiant attitudes, McWilliams told CTVNews.ca the three refused to say where they had stashed their spent cigarette butts.

"Not knowing where they were disposed of prevented us from checking whether they had been extinguished properly," McWilliams explained in a telephone interview Monday.

The combination of unruly behaviour and the fire hazard posed by potentially still-smouldering cigarette butts hidden somewhere on the plane made this a "very, very serious infraction," McWilliams said.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/sunwing-to ... z2KByNhyWu

[Meatservo]

Accidents where the aircraft is actually able to carry out a safe landing, and then people die as it is consumed by flames, are particularly horrifying to me. It strikes me as incredibly unfair that danger should continue after the crew has brought the aircraft to earth without damage, only for it to be destroyed afterwards.

[Doc]

bizjets101. Nice shot of Stan Roger's last known address.
Staying away from Bermuda now, this DC9 fire. on some level might have been blamed, by the TSB, on a smouldering cigarette. I will call total bullshit on the TSB for that one! Shame on you! You couldn't find the real culprit, obviously because any evidence would have been devoured by flame.....so you choose to blame a cigarette??? PROVE IT! You CAN'T! A typical political white wash, sanitized for the lowest common denominator.....Joe Average Clueless Public.
Duh, Gee, like we guess it might have been smoking....Yah, and pigs might fly.
Anybody ever actually tried to get a fire going with a "smouldering" cigarette? Get back to me on how it went. Seriously, try it. Try sheets. Try dry leaves. Try ass wipe. I don't mean burn a hole.....I mean start a FIRE!

[Redneck_pilot86]

We had some guys working on our farm one time, they threw a cig out the window and it lit some grass on fire. 4 men responding immediately with shovels were unable to put out the fire, it got away from them and ended up burning something over 50 acres of our farm. So yes, it can happen.

[CD]

Doc... Relax - I think you need to eat a Snickers... Besides, you do know that when pigs fly, they fly first class.

From the NTSB report AAR86-02 for Air Canada 797 in Cincinnati:

3. Conclusions

3.1 Findings

3. A fire propagated through the amenities section of-the aft lavatory and had burned undetected for almost 15 minutes before the smoke was first noticed.
4. The fire was not set deliberately nor was it the result of an explosive or incendiary device.
5. The Safety Board could not identify the origin of the fire.
6. The first malfunction to evidence itself to the flightcrew was the simultaneous tripping of the three flush motor circuit breakers, about 11 minutes before the smoke was discovered. The flightcrew did not consider this to be a serious problem.
7. The smoke in the aft lavatory was discovered by a flight attendant. The smoke was reported to the captain as a fire.
8. The source of the smoke was never identified either by the flight attendants or the first officer. The captain was never told nor did he inquire as to the precise location and extent of the “fire,” which had been reported to him. Crewmember reports that the fire was abating misled the captain about the fire severity and he delayed his decision to declare an emergency and descend.
9. Because of the delayed decision to descend, the airplane lost the opportunity to be landed at Louisville. Had the airplane been landed at Louisville, it could have been landed 3 to 5 minutes earlier than it actually did land at Cincinnati. The delayed decision to descend and land contributed to the severity of the accident.

11. The fire consumed the lavatory walls, propagated into the ceiling, and then began to move forward. Smoke, toxic fumes, and heated gases began to enter the cabin, spread forward, and collect along the ceiling of the cabin.
12. The flight attendants’ passing out wet towels to the passengers and instructing them to breathe through the towels or through articles of clothing aided in the survival of some of the passengers.
13. The first officer turned off the air conditioning and pressurization packs in the belief that the airflow was feeding the fire. The resulting loss of circulation accelerated the accumulation of smoke, heat, and toxic gases in the cabin and likely decreased the time available for evacuation.

16. A flashfire occurred within the cabin within 60 to 90 seconds after the doors and overwing window exits were opened. Flames from this’ fire were not evident until after the survivors had left the airplane. Flames from the original fire never were evident within the airplane or to persons on the ground.

3.2 Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable causes of the accident were a fire of undetermined origin, an underestimate of fire severity, and misleading fire progress information provided to the captain.

The time taken to evaluate the nature of the fire and to decide to initiate an emergency descent contributed to the severity of the accident.

Another fire associated with a lavatory that could not be absolutely determined was Varig 820, a 707 that crashed near Paris in 1973. In 1974, the FAA issued AD 74-08-09 (now at R3 as of February 2012) to "...prevent possible fires that could result from smoking materials being dropped into lavatory paper or linen waste receptacles."

[flyinthebug]

I think CD may be right Doc. Pigs do actually fly now...with Blackberry in hand! (includes some of those nazi flight attendants you spoke of too) lol. Best 31 sec video ive seen in awhile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-r4Z1K_LDc

[Shiny Side Up]

I've seen more than my share of bossy flight attendants. Some really like to flaunt the authority they seem to think is their job, post 9/11. Where is the consumer's protection against these airborne storm troopers? Lets not miss the fact, the passengers ARE PAYING everybody's salaries here, and entitled to respect, and a friendly face. If you ain't buying, you shouldn't be flying.

Personally I've seen few, and even if there are a fair ammount of them out there, they are by far outnumbered by the passengers who should be barred from air travel. I could crew a 737 with bossy bad service attendants that I've seen, but I could fill a fleet of A380s with the ammount of passengers whom I've had the misfortune of sharing a seating row with. Where's the flight attendants protection from these people? Where's my protection from these people?

Its like a majority of the population didn't learn the basic rules of travel most of us learned in the back seat of Dad's car. I refuse to believe that such a large segment of the population has such bladder problems. Every flight I've been on the fasten seat belts sign seems to trigger a need to empty one's bowels in at least six of my fellow passengers. There's always one idiot who deems it was wise to go on a whiskey bender the night before travel, complete with a binge on beans and cabbage. Don't get me started on the children.

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

I feel like that puts a kibosh on the whole
"i've never heard of anyone dying as a direct result of smoking on an airplane theory"
i'm too lazy/hands too full with baby to look it up, but didn't a smoker tamper with the lav.
fire detector, causing a wire short of some kind once upon a time? mayday episode?
anybody?
They shouldn't smoke anyway.

Doc do you smoke?
I've only seen that kind of defensiveness on smokers, like my husband.
and mother (god rest her soul)

[Sidebar]

... this DC9 fire. on some level might have been blamed, by the TSB, on a smouldering cigarette. I will call total bullshit on the TSB for that one! Shame on you!

I call bullshit on you Doc. Get your facts straight. It was an NTSB investigation, not TSB. Furthermore, the NTSB probable cause was "a fire of undetermined origin."

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR86-02.pdf

[GyvAir]

Missing ashtray grounds Jazz Air flight:

http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/7 ... Air_flight

[Doc]

... this DC9 fire. on some level might have been blamed, by the TSB, on a smouldering cigarette. I will call total bullshit on the TSB for that one! Shame on you!

I call bullshit on you Doc. Get your facts straight. It was an NTSB investigation, not TSB. Furthermore, the NTSB probable cause was "a fire of undetermined origin."

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR86-02.pdf

3.2 Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable causes of the accident were a fire of undetermined origin, an underestimate of fire severity, and misleading fire progress information provided to the captain.

The time taken to evaluate the nature of the fire and to decide to initiate an emergency descent contributed to the severity of the accident.

Don't see the word "cigarette" in this anywhere? Perhaps Sidebar, you do?

BTW, CTCC....never smoked in my life. I have lots of other bad habits though.....

[CID]

Just a guess here. Doc is a smoker?

[flyinthebug]

Just a guess here. Doc is a smoker?

A quote from Doc in the post directly above yours...

BTW, CTCC....never smoked in my life. I have lots of other bad habits though.....

Knowing "Doc" in real life, I can assure you he is a non-smoker.

[LousyFisherman]

Not meaning to second guess but I would have continued to the Dominican Republic.
A night in a DR jail would be much more effective in straightening out the jerks than a night in a Bermudan jail.

Good thing I'm not a commercial pilot eh?

LF

[fleet16b]

A few references for you:

CAR 602.05 - Compliance with Instructions
CAR 602.06 - Smoking

Non-Smokers Health Act
Non-Smokers Health Regulations

While the other links contain information likely applicable to this situation, I'll just quote the requirements of section 602.06:

602.06 Smoking

(1) No person shall smoke on board an aircraft during take-off or landing or when directed not to smoke by the pilot-in-command.

(2) No person shall smoke in an aircraft lavatory.

(3) No person shall tamper with or disable a smoke detector installed in an aircraft lavatory without permission from a crew member or the operator of the aircraft.

I just came back from a Sunwing vacation last week.
The preflight announcement clearly stated that there was no smoking allowed at anytime on the flight and that the washrooms were equipped with smoke detectors.
So there you have it , as per the CAR above , this announcement by the crew would cover it