British Tourists flee Phuket Air plane

Anyway, bottom line – leave it to the crew who are acting in a professional capacity and in the best interests of themselves, the passengers and the airline.

Andy

Amen.

Anyway, bottom line – leave it to the crew who are acting in a professional capacity and in the best interests of themselves, the passengers and the airline.

Andy

Amen.

None of us really know exactly what was happening with the fuel on that Phuket Air plane in SHJ, because the whole incident has been reported differently in various publications.

However, fundamentally I think that there are far too many armchair pilots out there who, when travelling on an airplane, see or hear something they don’t understand and panic por think they know better. I believe that it is incumbent on us all to accept that aircrew are professional, trained, and know far more about what they’re doing and the workings of the equipment they operate than do any general passengers (including ourselves – 99% of us here don’t really understand the detailed workings of a 747). On that basis, passengers should leave well alone with operational matters and accept that no matter how unusual a situation seems, the crew do not have some form of death wish.

I have, for example, seen passengers panic about smoke coming into the cabin through overhead vents when in fact all it was was an over-enthusiastic air conditioning system restling with very humid tropical atmosphere. Where does one draw the line, when do we regard passenger reaction as unnecessary over-reaction bordering on dangerous interference, and accept that the crew would be right to tell them to sit down and STFU? Ironically of course, there have been worse things gone on in the industry from time to time – I saw one or two of them in during my past time in the airlines – but the passengers don’t panic because they can’t see what’s happening and therefore aren’t aware. Ignorance is bliss, maybe?

I suspect that some of the passengers involved in the Phuket Air incident are just the sort of people who would be prepared to drive a car in questionable or unroadworthy condition, or drive too close behind the vehicle in front on a motorway, but that those same people would resent any judgemental comments being made about their motoring habits.

Anyway, bottom line – leave it to the crew who are acting in a professional capacity and in the best interests of themselves, the passengers and the airline.

Andy

None of us really know exactly what was happening with the fuel on that Phuket Air plane in SHJ, because the whole incident has been reported differently in various publications.

However, fundamentally I think that there are far too many armchair pilots out there who, when travelling on an airplane, see or hear something they don’t understand and panic por think they know better. I believe that it is incumbent on us all to accept that aircrew are professional, trained, and know far more about what they’re doing and the workings of the equipment they operate than do any general passengers (including ourselves – 99% of us here don’t really understand the detailed workings of a 747). On that basis, passengers should leave well alone with operational matters and accept that no matter how unusual a situation seems, the crew do not have some form of death wish.

I have, for example, seen passengers panic about smoke coming into the cabin through overhead vents when in fact all it was was an over-enthusiastic air conditioning system restling with very humid tropical atmosphere. Where does one draw the line, when do we regard passenger reaction as unnecessary over-reaction bordering on dangerous interference, and accept that the crew would be right to tell them to sit down and STFU? Ironically of course, there have been worse things gone on in the industry from time to time – I saw one or two of them in during my past time in the airlines – but the passengers don’t panic because they can’t see what’s happening and therefore aren’t aware. Ignorance is bliss, maybe?

I suspect that some of the passengers involved in the Phuket Air incident are just the sort of people who would be prepared to drive a car in questionable or unroadworthy condition, or drive too close behind the vehicle in front on a motorway, but that those same people would resent any judgemental comments being made about their motoring habits.

Anyway, bottom line – leave it to the crew who are acting in a professional capacity and in the best interests of themselves, the passengers and the airline.

Andy

Imagine someone is waving a gun at your family and 400 hundred others etc.

Imagine the SLF attempting to ‘storm’ the flightdeck of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, with the fuel vent/surge system functioning exactly as it is meant to. What are the crew to think….in the unlikely event that a Sky Marshall is onboard, what would they think or do?
Difficult situation I know, but the SLF are usually spectacularly ignorant of the technical aspects of avaition.

Imagine someone is waving a gun at your family and 400 hundred others etc.

Imagine the SLF attempting to ‘storm’ the flightdeck of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, with the fuel vent/surge system functioning exactly as it is meant to. What are the crew to think….in the unlikely event that a Sky Marshall is onboard, what would they think or do?
Difficult situation I know, but the SLF are usually spectacularly ignorant of the technical aspects of avaition.

So planning or threatening to storm flight deck is ok by you?
Might wanna start an airline with that attitude. Terrorists will love it.

No-one has said that. What I have said is in these circumstances, the reaction of the passengers could be seen as justified. The key words being; “in these circumstances”.

In this situation the passengers could only be 100% sure they were safe if they took these or similar actions or had the vision of hindsight. What should they do; wait until they die and then decide they should have acted. Of course, in all probability the pilots have the situation under control and the passengers are over-reacting, BUT, mistakes happen and the only way of reassurance for these passengers was to stop the flight.

Whilst I respect some of the views mentioned here, I do think they are taken from the point of view of the expert or enthusiast with little thought for the average fearful passenger in that situation who, in their mind, is facing death!

A strange analahy but here goes:-
Imagine someone is waving a gun at your family and 400 hundred others. Do you rugby tackle the guy and de-mobilise him or do you wait and see what happens, because that is what common sense may say? Of course, when you’ve rugby tackled the guy you find he was an actor with a toy gun and ther 400 others were extras on a set? With hindsight, you wouldn’t have done it. But at the time, you thought you were saving hundreds of lives and what is the worst that has happened, filming was delayed for an hour.

So planning or threatening to storm flight deck is ok by you?
Might wanna start an airline with that attitude. Terrorists will love it.

No-one has said that. What I have said is in these circumstances, the reaction of the passengers could be seen as justified. The key words being; “in these circumstances”.

In this situation the passengers could only be 100% sure they were safe if they took these or similar actions or had the vision of hindsight. What should they do; wait until they die and then decide they should have acted. Of course, in all probability the pilots have the situation under control and the passengers are over-reacting, BUT, mistakes happen and the only way of reassurance for these passengers was to stop the flight.

Whilst I respect some of the views mentioned here, I do think they are taken from the point of view of the expert or enthusiast with little thought for the average fearful passenger in that situation who, in their mind, is facing death!

A strange analahy but here goes:-
Imagine someone is waving a gun at your family and 400 hundred others. Do you rugby tackle the guy and de-mobilise him or do you wait and see what happens, because that is what common sense may say? Of course, when you’ve rugby tackled the guy you find he was an actor with a toy gun and ther 400 others were extras on a set? With hindsight, you wouldn’t have done it. But at the time, you thought you were saving hundreds of lives and what is the worst that has happened, filming was delayed for an hour.

Hmmmm…. I completely disagree with you on this one !

So planning or threatening to storm flight deck is ok by you?
Might wanna start an airline with that attitude. Terrorists will love it.

I disagree with your disagreeing. 😀

Hmmmm…. I completely disagree with you on this one !

So planning or threatening to storm flight deck is ok by you?
Might wanna start an airline with that attitude. Terrorists will love it.

I disagree with your disagreeing. 😀

Rationality would tell you if it was serious.. the flight would not go ahead.
I’d be concerned of course and perhaps make sure someone from the flight crew is alerted but I’d not do what some of these idiots did.

Not wanting to continue does not make their actions any less serious. What they did was tantamount to hi-jacking.

Hmmmm…. I completely disagree with you on this one !

Rationality would tell you if it was serious.. the flight would not go ahead.
I’d be concerned of course and perhaps make sure someone from the flight crew is alerted but I’d not do what some of these idiots did.

Not wanting to continue does not make their actions any less serious. What they did was tantamount to hi-jacking.

Hmmmm…. I completely disagree with you on this one !

GD, storming the ****-pit is wrong – clearly.

However, my view isn’t just about the passengers reactions, it is based on why they reacted like that. If you believe you are going to die and believe your actions will save you and those of 400 others, then surely storming the ****-pit is a justified response – if extreme.

This isn’t just about the crime as it were, but the motive for it and when you put the rationale to the scene, then I think what the passengers did was plausible. Its not as if the passengers have killed anyone or endangered anyone, they actively believed they were helping and were saving lives – surely this must count for something.

I agree entirely, and I still can’t believe the amount of ‘rational’ heads on here who STILL can’t understand why a sizeable percentage of the travelling public at large, get VERY nervous about air travel these days? Especially when these types of things happen.

Hey, let’s go back to 9/11 or the AF Concorde crash and accuse those passengers of being “too” sensible by not running up and down the aisles !

Calling this a crime is nothing but an insult from some of you so called ‘wise guys’.

GD, storming the ****-pit is wrong – clearly.

However, my view isn’t just about the passengers reactions, it is based on why they reacted like that. If you believe you are going to die and believe your actions will save you and those of 400 others, then surely storming the ****-pit is a justified response – if extreme.

This isn’t just about the crime as it were, but the motive for it and when you put the rationale to the scene, then I think what the passengers did was plausible. Its not as if the passengers have killed anyone or endangered anyone, they actively believed they were helping and were saving lives – surely this must count for something.

I agree entirely, and I still can’t believe the amount of ‘rational’ heads on here who STILL can’t understand why a sizeable percentage of the travelling public at large, get VERY nervous about air travel these days? Especially when these types of things happen.

Hey, let’s go back to 9/11 or the AF Concorde crash and accuse those passengers of being “too” sensible by not running up and down the aisles !

Calling this a crime is nothing but an insult from some of you so called ‘wise guys’.

Thank you sir!!! 🙂

You can sit beside me on a plane anyday 😀

Thank you sir!!! 🙂

You can sit beside me on a plane anyday 😀

agreed :D!

Thank you sir!!! 🙂

agreed :D!

Thank you sir!!! 🙂

Pembo, I respect your opinion and everything you say makes sense.

The problem I have more than anything is when passengers overreact to a situation that doesn’t warrant doing so. Now, this particular situation with fuel being discharged from the wing, perhaps that might warrant an overreaction, PERHAPS. And understanbly so, as you mentioned, if a person feers his/her life in in danger, than it is justifiable. However, in that event, it does prevent the crew from doing their job effectively.

I have witnessed two situations where a passenger or passengers overreacted, and flight were delayed, even though there was no immediate danger.

Situation 1 was on a UA flight from MEL to SYD where the wind had caused the fan in one of the engines to rotate in the wrong direction and get stuck. When the pilots attempted to start the engines, said engine would not start. The pilot explained the situation and fully explained the complicated process that would alleviate the problem. This process entailed a mechanic cliimbing into said engine, and simply giving the fan a nudge in the right direction thereby making it “unstuck,” climbing down and off we go. Needless to say, one or more pax freaked out and demanded to be let off this plane, as they deemed said plane unflyable. Well, in the process of letting the passengers off the plane, one of them forgot one of their carry on items onboard. So what happens next? An entire TSA crew came onboard with metal detectors and scanned the entire plane to make sure no dangerous items were left onboard. Given size of the aircraft (747-400), this was by no means a quick task. So we finally departed for the short 45 minute hop to SYD after a 2 hour delay that was completely unnecessary. Why? because a few passengers decided to freak out and they should not have. Therefore, their flying privileges should be revoked and if they wish to travel between Melbourne and Sydney in the future, they should make the 7-10 hour drive.

agreed :D!

Pembo, I respect your opinion and everything you say makes sense.

The problem I have more than anything is when passengers overreact to a situation that doesn’t warrant doing so. Now, this particular situation with fuel being discharged from the wing, perhaps that might warrant an overreaction, PERHAPS. And understanbly so, as you mentioned, if a person feers his/her life in in danger, than it is justifiable. However, in that event, it does prevent the crew from doing their job effectively.

I have witnessed two situations where a passenger or passengers overreacted, and flight were delayed, even though there was no immediate danger.

Situation 1 was on a UA flight from MEL to SYD where the wind had caused the fan in one of the engines to rotate in the wrong direction and get stuck. When the pilots attempted to start the engines, said engine would not start. The pilot explained the situation and fully explained the complicated process that would alleviate the problem. This process entailed a mechanic cliimbing into said engine, and simply giving the fan a nudge in the right direction thereby making it “unstuck,” climbing down and off we go. Needless to say, one or more pax freaked out and demanded to be let off this plane, as they deemed said plane unflyable. Well, in the process of letting the passengers off the plane, one of them forgot one of their carry on items onboard. So what happens next? An entire TSA crew came onboard with metal detectors and scanned the entire plane to make sure no dangerous items were left onboard. Given size of the aircraft (747-400), this was by no means a quick task. So we finally departed for the short 45 minute hop to SYD after a 2 hour delay that was completely unnecessary. Why? because a few passengers decided to freak out and they should not have. Therefore, their flying privileges should be revoked and if they wish to travel between Melbourne and Sydney in the future, they should make the 7-10 hour drive.

agreed :D!