Is it smoke or fumes? What’s the flippin’ difference when your a few thousand feet up in an airplane. That’s like asking “is that a panther or a leopard chasing after us”.
@@kellyweingart3692 should've been smoke. Fumes could be the AC, issues with bleed air, engines, the apu, etc. Smoke indicates a fire above other things. During a critical phase in flight, like landing and takeoff, I understand why the captain wanted to be sure as doing the wrong things can be fatal but it was frustrating despite knowing this myself.
I was flying at that carrier then and that incident initiated many changes. We line guys were told that had they been 10 to 15 minutes further away from the airport the fire would have burned thru the flight control cables and engine controls. Who knows for sure but luck was definitely on their side that day.
The captain and copilot were extremely foolish for constantly debating whether the issue was fumes or smoke. Treating the situation as non-urgent, and not requesting that emergency crew be waiting for them on the runway when landing. This could have ended very badly.
@@donnabaardsen5372 I totally agree with you. How old are you and how long have you been flying? In your critique you must allow for the time of the incident and the training norm and experience of the pilots at the time. That incident created change in CRM courses across all airlines.
@@jakejacobs7584 who the hell cares? Another pilot tells you it's bad, it means it is bad. Plus who cares if it's just smoke or fumes? This was after Air Canada 797. Such things tend to escalate extremely quickly. Something is wrong, land ASAP, evacuate and then debate if it is fumes or smoke.
@@piotrstrzyzowski3336 Were you flying then? Do you have experience from the time? I do, I was copilot on a DC-3 once going from Cleveland to Cincinnati when the right engine caught fire about 15 minutes after takeoff. Luckily the old man I was sitting next to knew an airfield nearby and even though the runway was covered in snow on a moon lit night we made it. The engine continued to burn and fell off the wing before the fire department made it to us. we didn't call, the farmers in the area did. there were no cell phones
Hi KB. Yes, complete denial as it was portrayed. But I don't believe that the captain was a complete twit. The entire fumes versus smoke thing made it look so. It was like a bad comedy. Fumes (so what), smoke (well, maybe there's a problem), flames (well, we're all dead now).
@@roderickcampbell2105 It played just like Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on first?”, but it wasn’t comedy…It was life and death. Thank goodness they were so close to landing.
@@KB3AOL Hi KB3. It was certainly a very close thing and wonderful that they were so close to landing. An Air Canada MD that had smoke landed in Cincinnati (I think). Still about half the people on board died. The cabin ignited after touchdown. Seconds to live or die.
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable flying on a plane captained by somebody who didn't take this situation more seriously than this. Thankfully things didn't end up worse.
@@donnabaardsen5372 Hello Donna. I have empathy with your comment, but I don't believe one can generally solve problems by firing people. Also, this is a rendition or treatment of a situation. Perhaps the flight crew would offer other information.
@@PJHEATERMAN Hi PJ. I think I get your point, and more proactive certainly comes to mind. Assume the worst and act. The cabin crew and deadhead FO deserve commendation. This had every appearance of a disaster but everyone made it out. The captain to FO comms came across to me as "bafflegab". Now CRM has improved things. It has saved lives. But yes, the crew had almost no options and they got the darn thing down and no one was killed.
Everybody: THE PLANE IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!! Captain: I'll make a note for maintenance to check for fires sometime when they don't have anything else to do.
For an incident with no fatalities and only minor aircraft damage, the NTSB sure made a lot of “recommendations”. A lot of bang for the safety buck. Lucky outcome
Yeah, lots of recommendations, coz they got incredibly lucky on this 1. Usually with this kind of problem on an aircraft combined with such utter failure on the parts of both the pilots this wouldve been a "nobody survived" incident.
Had the FAA implemented the recommendation to install fire detection and extinguishing equipment in all cargo compartments, ValuJet 592 may have either come back to land in time to save lives or never taken off in the first place, depending on the actual time the fire started.
@@deepthinker999 Yeah, I believe the theory is that one of the canisters was jostled enough while taxiing to discharge, although I suppose it's just as likely that it happened during the takeoff roll. Either way, though, had there been smoke/fire detectors in the cargo hold, they would have gotten a warning well before the tire exploded at 10,000 feet.
They never declared an emergency? Should have had the the equipment rolled out and waiting. Fortunately everyone survived, this would be a great case study on how not to handle an emergency.
Ah, yes, the days before ValuJet 592 . . . Never heard of this incident before. If the entire industry had taken this more seriously, VJ 592 might not have happened. But the ValuJet accident was the huge watershed world-changing accident, that made EVERYONE finally pay attention to the dangers presented by not following the rules about the transportation of hazardous materials. But VJ592 ended up in a smoking hole in the Everglades, a truly horrific crash scene. After that one, smoke from a burning pizza in the galley was enough to declare an emergency and land immediately (a Continental flight did exactly that a few months after the ValuJet crash). There was a huge retraining effort for shippers and cargo handlers, and the rules were followed and enforced to the letter. And by and large it's still that way today. Yeah, the captain was a dolt who didn't want to believe there was a legitimate issue, but even if he did there simply wasn't much else he could do, except declare an emergency and have the fire trucks meet the airplane on the runway. They really couldn't expedite the landing much faster than what they were already doing, and to do so would have increased the risk, by flying an unstablized approach, and coming in too fast. As it was, they got it down and evacuated the airplane, getting everyone off safely, for the most part.
That last part is just another link in the chain of unbelievable luck, they had that day. Coz had they been just a little further out from the airport, not yet in the landing sequence, they wouldnt have made it. They made the needed emergency landing by accident, coz they were already coming in for landing. As they ignored the vital information and stark warnings from the deadheader, they clearly would not have declared an emergency (proven by the fact that they didnt) for a faster landing, had they not already been on their way in. And every1 wouldve died.
... the captain does have a lot on his plate .... in his mind he made the wisest of decisions ... ... as a result of VJ592 crash a new respect for cargo in general took effect ...
The industry AND the FAA should have taken it more seriously. VJ592 wasn't the first incident like this, it was just so deadly. But, the FAA boys were just asleep at the wheel, playing Solitaire on their desktops.
Gah... that captain's reaction was maddening, especially to the deadheading first officer. "Your floor's about to collapse, bro..." "No big deal." I mean, yes, the only thing he could do was what he was already doing, but it probably would have been better to have the evacuation asap. It could have turned into another Air Canada DC-9 incident in a hurry. 😞
Not the first time that the guys at the pointy end have taken little notice of an imminent disaster going on behind them. I’d open the cockpit door and look. Very lucky escape…
Who cares if its "smoke" or "fumes"? The heat and the softening of the floor make it a fire, whether smoldering or in flames. I really thought either the control cables would be severed or there would be a flashover when they opened the doors to evacuate.
I agree with everyone here. That captain was the real danger to everyone in that situation. Imagine him and the copilot calmly going back and forth over whether it was smoke or fumes! The deadheading pilot KNEW how dangerous the situation was. The captain and copilot should have been fired! Especially for not alerting the tower, and asking for emergency crew to be waiting for them in the runway.
@@donnabaardsen5372 Not how you fix problems. This was just horrendous communication. In aviation, fumes (ranging from not a problem to interesting) and smoke (high change of fire) are very different. And during approach and landing, doing the wrong thing with poor information and communication can be fatal. So I would train them on proper communication and emergency procedures.
As a pilot all you can do is focus on flying the airplane. The captain and first officer had no options, they can't pull over to the side of the road. If you're not a pilot you can't understand the situation.
@@PJHEATERMAN They could have called for the trucks, and stopped before the taxiway to evacuate. In fires, it even a few seconds can be the difference between this and an entire planeload of passengers burning up.
@@PJHEATERMAN I'm a pilot. I do understand the situation and is just not like that. You are responsable for the life of everyone in board, and a late decision to evacuate and not having the emergency team meet you in the runway can lead to death or severe injuries in the passengers and crew. Search for Saudia flight 163. I'm pretty sure Allec has already reviewed it.
The floor is getting soft, being told by a fellow pilot. These 2 were absolutely maddening. I tell people I watch these videos and it makes me feel even better about flying in 2023. Back then was the wild wild west of aviation...
No it wasn't! I worked for AA, and was a flight attendant for years! I never experienced a flight like this! It wasn't a "Wild, wild west back then! Our safety was our #1 priority, as well as customer service, and the #1 "on-time" airline!
@@ILoveLucy21. So DC-10s didn't have doors blow out? Wind shear and downdrafts were predictable? And everything was triple redundant? In the past 15 years, we've had 1 fatality on a domestic airline. Back then, you'd have hundreds die on individual crashes, sometimes multiple times per year. It certainly was the wild wild west in comparison...
I worked for South African Airways when we lost a 747 near Mauritius, though according to the official report, it wasn’t carrying anything dangerous on the cargo manifest, the rumours were rife amongst the staff, but we’ll never be able to prove it. I have very little faith in OFFICIAL reports. I remember too, the Air New Zealand DC10 crash, the airline and government tried to cover that up too. I trust none of them.
As a lead instructor in hazardous materials transportation, I highly agree with a many of the comments that this flight was very lucky they were so close to landing when the fire was detected. Even a few more minutes could have been catastrophic. The shipper is responsible for identification, packaging, marking, labeling and documentation of hazmat shipments for transport. They would have been fined at lest $75,000 for this violation, although I did not look it up. Training for such shippers is mandatory at least every two years per IATA (ICAO) and DOT regulations in 49 CFR, Subpart H. As a former airman, I can also state that fire is the single worst possible emergency aboard aircraft, and it truly surprises me at the reluctance of this captain to immediately declare a mayday and call for fire and rescue equipment and an immediate evacuation upon reaching a stop on the runway. These people are truly lucky to be alive!
I work for an environmental waste management company. The list of chemicals and the fact that some weren't labeled made me want to bang my head on my desk.
@@vickiweber4718 And contrary to what many people think, it was the law back in 1988 in the USA that hazardous materials be clearly labeled and instructions for shipping followed exactly to the letter.
This was 1988,not the Dark Ages. Hard to believe there was very little control of cargo coming on board. I can partly accept some single aisle aircraft like the MD - 80's don't have full emergency systems, probably no fuel dump option, and I accept this was a "local" flight but the whole episode feels like it's from the 1950"s or early 60's. Weird. I was on the edge for this one. A little complacency (a lot maybe), and I would have liked some communications transcripts, but I'm very relieved everyone got out. Interesting to find anyone on board and if everyone in the cabin was aware. Great channel.
That captain could have caused a similar incident to the Saudia 163 disaster with how little he cared about something like the plane being on fire and the floor sagging. That was lucky nobody died.
It is a minor miracle the floor did not give way mid flight. God was on their side on this day. And that off duty FO may have saved the day. Get that damn plane on the ground is always the best course of action if there is any unknown problem.
They were so lucky! The fumes vs smoke conversation was almost comical (who's on first), but it was such a serious situation. I wanted to slap the captain. The dead head pilot is the hero in this story.
Unbelievable that the MD80(3) wasn't equipped with sensors and extinguishers, especially in light of what happened to the ValueJet DC-9 which crashed into the Everglades years before because of exactly the same situation.
ValueJet was due to oxygen canisters, but your point is well taken. Even a fire safety system wouldn’t have been able to extinguish that inferno unfortunately.
Specifically (IIRC), spare passenger oxygen cannisters to which the required end caps had not been installed. ValueJet is gone now, but there's always Allegiant for anyone who likes to experience unnecessary risks while flying.
@@deepthinker999 "Or Spirit that uses duct tape on their wings." Spirit had found duct tape to not work well for even temporary repair of engine turbine blades -- it softened too quickly in the heat -- and they weren't about to just throw away nearly a whole roll of duct tape... (Actually, that "incident" shows aluminum tape being applied to an engine nacelle, and was/is an FAA-approved procedure using an FAA-approved tape.)
We learned about this incident while in initial training at my first airline several years ago. The lesson included a video recreation of the crew audio communications, made by the AA training department. One of the contributing factors not made entirely clear in the above clip or the NTSB report is the cross talk or unfortunate timing of much of the communications. During much of the initial cabin call about the smoke, ATC issued instructions via radio at the same time that the flight attendant and deadhead pilot were trying to explain the situation via the interphone. Thus, even if the captain had wanted, or tried to listen to the interphone, he was dealing with the radio at that moment. As a result, all the information he received was being relayed second-hand from his FO during a busy critical phase of flight. Some of the later interphone conversations were complicated by multiple people being on the line at the same time--kind of like being on a conference call where people keep talking over each other. On the airplane, there are several interphone handsets throughout the cabin, and at one point, the FO, the deadheading pilot, forward FA, and aft FA were all trying to communicate via the interphone at about the same time. I suspect some of the "smoke or fumes" problem comes from that, for example there's an instance where the FO is asking whether it's smoke or fumes to one FA just as another FA is picking up the interphone in a different part of the cabin. The noise may have covered up the "smoke" part of the question because the response is "bad fumes," which leads the FO to tell the CA it's "just fumes." I also recall our instructor saying that it was basically the deadheading pilot that initiated the evacuation--he waited for nearly two minutes after landing, and when he realized nothing was happening, called the cockpit and said, "We better get out of here!" which finally got the captain's attention.
Damn, did they get lucky on this 1! The FO didnt seem to really listen to the Flight Attendant or the deadheading FO, even when the deadheader provided urgent information and recommendations. He clearly understood the seriousness and communicated it, but the FO just didnt register and hence didnt convey any urgency to the captain. And the captain seemed to not have much interest in further information himself or taking the smoke seriously, just kept asking "just fumes, right?", when the information about the aisle floor softening clearly tells u, theres a LOT more wrong than fumes or smoke. It mustve been really frustrating to be the deadheading FO, who clearly diagnosed the problem and urged for immidiate landing and calling for the equipment to meet them, yet he could do nothing about the very serious situation, do nothing to save himself and his fellow passengers beyond that, and he was speaking to deaf ears.
I wonder and suppose the peroxide was 30%..... Pretty stout. All for some hillbilly clothes dye. Just imagine if there was a little nitric acid 69% strength mixed in with that little bundle of joy...
For an MD-8x plane, eh. Cargo shouldn't have been dangerous or allowed as far as I'm aware. Tell that to airports without ground radar, if anymore exists.
This could easily have been another ValuJet 592 or Air Canada 797....lucky they weren't far from their destination when it took hold. Surprised that in 1988 this new plane didn't have cargo smoke detectors or fire extinguishers, I assumed they had been around for a very long time
"...just fumes..." Uhgh, seriously? In this case, fumes were a serious problem. I work for an environmental waste management company. When the chemicals were listed, and it was mentioned that some weren't labeled, I thought, "Well, that explains a lot!"
How much more obvious could the first officers both have been to the captain. He is told the floor is softening. So regardless of seeing smoke or "just fumes" in the cabin there is clearly a problem compromising the structural integrity. If the floor was softened by fire or somehow by corrosive fumes what's the difference if the damage is the same potentially? True the plane was already nearing landing though what if it wasn't would the pilot have declared emergency intent. It sounds like he may not have treated it as urgent as it was.
I think it is very helpful to remember that the Spanish word for the verb “to smoke” is fumar. Fumar sharing an origin with the English “fumes”. This is classic confirmation bias, the captain was searching for the description that fit his preconceived notion of the source of the odor. That the APU was not functioning is beside the point. The captain had his answer, facts be damned. The truth is fumes shouldn’t exist on a plane, smoke shouldn’t exist on a plane. Anything that smells like burning plastic, electrical “fumes”, or some “chemical reaction” should be treated as the worst case scenario, always. Your plane is filled with electrical wires and plastic, anything “burning” is serious
The reason I asked to differentiate between smoke and fumes was that the plane had been written up the day before as having had fumes in the cabin from some oil leaking into the a/c system. I was flying the plane, talking to ATC, doing the check list and trying to listen to the copilot. He did not express urgency that you might assume from reading the transcript, and certainly didn't relay everything he was being told. I was NOT going to evac 120 people and get people hurt for no reason if we had the same situation as the previous day, fumes. That is why I was trying to differentiate and I wasn't getting definite answers. My focus was getting on the ground and I could not have done so any faster. We were #1 for the airport, headed straight in, VFR with the airport in sight. The first I heard of a sagging floor was when we pulled off the runway and was told so by the d/h first officer. So, for all you high time second guessers, have at it. I didn't have the NTSB report form the guy in seat 26a or the comm from all the folks in the back with which to make my decisions. Got all that info about 6 months later. Gee, it would have been so much easier to have that info at the time. BTW, the Super 80 cargo compartments were supposed to be air tight. If you had a fire it was supposed to smother itself. Who knew we were packing chemicals that were check in as "laundry equipment?" Have a nice day!
Thank you for the factual update. You got everyone on the ground with no loss of life, and you should be commended for that. You stated that you were flying the plane and talking to ATC. However, to the best of my knowledge, the pilot monitoring communicates with ATC. Were the procedures in this regard different in 1988 than they are now?
@@Eternal_Tech Procedures are the same as today, but you can't talk on the inter phone and to ATC at the same time. I was concentrating on flying and he was trying to coordinate with the back.
It does seem like the captain wrote off the FA/dhd pilot reports a bit, blaming them on the APU that wasn't even running. Thank God they were close to landing when this occured.
As soon as you realise there is smoke in the cabin you need to land without delay, the Captain was too hesitant,he was lucky, it could have been much worse. That captain should have been fired(No pun intended).
I agree that the captain didn't seem to accept the gravity of the situation. However, in this and other incidents, the pilots are somewhat insulated from events in the passenger cabin, relying on reports from the flight attendants. More cameras both inside and outside the plane might alert the crew to what is happening.
@Bobrodgers99 Except the deadhead FO was clear that there was a SERIOUS and grave problem, he said it in coded terms so it wouldn't frighten the passengers but the cockpit and capt didn't accept his qualified observations quickly enough.
Cameras are another source of frustration in these situations. Currently the FO has to go into the cabin to check on a damaged engine. The new F35 fighter jet has 360 degree visibility. Most American cars are equipped with a rear facing camera. When will the FAA catch up?
Flight Attendant: "I'm on fire now, we are all burning up back here, the wings have just fallen off and the rear of the plane has disintegrated'' Pilots: "No worries, just let us know if anything else happens or gets worse"
Hey Alec! I am a retired American Airlines flight attendant, & the MD-80/83 was my very FAVORITE plane to work on!!!❤ Just wanted to throw in that your seat configuration is incorrect. It is a narrow body aircraft, and is a two seat on one side, and 3 seat on the other side.😊
I'm surprised not to see a scathing critique of the flight crew's reactions to the situation. To be sure, the only thing they could have done in addition to landing was to have equipment meet them on the ground, but when a deadheading pilot informs you that the floor is softening, this is much more than just a worried passenger's assessment. At that point you must know there is a fire, you must declare MAYDAY, and you must have equipment meet you.
The captain "wanted" a preconceived explanation and discarded any other. His questions were systematically addressed to exclude smoke. It's human, but very dangerous. Had the event evolve more bcritically with a strong fire at the taxi and the outcome would be much worse, eventually with the loss of lives (see the Aeroflot Sukhoi accident in Sheremetyevo). Accepting the imminence of fire, he would call for firefighters assistance. Very good video.
It's amazing how this aircraft remained in service for almost 30 years after this incident occurred, with no further disasters; especially structurally-related.
The Captain and the First Officer need serious training that just because there's no smoke doesn't mean its not an emergency. Maybe the Deadhead Officer and the Flight Attendant can educate them...
IMHO hazardous materials should never be transported on commercial flights due to the risks involved. Who’s to say that hazardous materials won’t shift in their boxes or containers while being transported to the airport? It just seems like an accident waiting to happen.
Any mention saying the pilots put their O2 masks on as they confirmed unknown fumes in the cockpit knowing the issues in the cabin? If someone passes wind I would grab a mask if available.
Air Canada 797 was maybe 5 years before this? This crew could have easily ended up in the same situation. The nonchalant attitude of the captain in particular is concerning. What's more appalling is how hazmat can end up on an airplane without the crew's knowledge, and be hidden away in the baggage hold with no fire detection or suppression. The party responsible for sending those dangerous goods onto that flight with no labels and no mention of it to AA should be held criminally responsible for almost bringing down a commercial aircraft. Nowadays there is no way you can just casually send an unmarked drum of volatile chemicals somewhere by air. I don't know what the regulations were surrounding this in the US, but I am guessing there were no significant changes to them until ValuJet (1996- 8 years after this incident), because these things are usually written in blood.
This was 1988, CRM was 10 years in at that point. But yeah, its a continual work in progress updated after every time like this to protect against another bit of human stupidity, that was not already observed or predicted.
Captain, for the third time: But Is it smoke or just fumes? JUST DECLARE THE F#$&"# EMERGENCY ALREADY!!! It seems as if AA was charging him with the emergency service if he declared the emergency. Luckily this happened close to landing. Had happened midflight, the outcome would have been far worst.
*Deadheading FO should have headed to the cockpit to make sure the dire nature of the situation was communicated to the the FO and Captain, and get the jet on the ground ASAP!* I kept yelling at my monitor for him to get up to the cockpit and tell them the facts!*
Do you know why one is a captain and another is a copilot very often? A better seniority number from being hired before the other. Unlike most professions where merit is used to promote.
These were chemicals being transported by 2 sales/chemical reps for a company that did acid/ stone washing back in the 80’s. I remember it well. The chemical company had to pay millions to repair the aircraft!
That Capt was a little too dense. As soon as he got the plane down, stop ASAP, and evacuate on the runway. Why bother to taxi. It was fortunate nobody was killed.
This was a real nail biter to say the least. What would have happened if they had not been within a few minutes of landing the aircraft? The fire must have been a raging inferno underneath the cabin floor to actually soften the floor, unless the floor was very very thin.
Just think. Luck. Location. They were close to landing at that time. This was an incident that so easily could have ended up being a total catastrophe. So close ! Wow ! Unbelievable. Very lucky !
I flew every other weekend from Wichita Falls in Houston Hobby when I was ADAF. On American. The leg from D/FW to HOU was on MD-83s (1991-1995). I wonder if that plane was the plane assigned to the route. It’s 280 miles from DFW to HOU
Just cannot understand why no fire detection in the cargo area. Many incidents with this part of the plane having a fire while in flight, and no one thought of installing a system to detect and activate a suppression device? Wow.,
Is it smoke or fumes? What’s the flippin’ difference when your a few thousand feet up in an airplane. That’s like asking “is that a panther or a leopard chasing after us”.
👍😂 I would've fired them both.
@@donnabaardsen5372 Donna, you have already fired them both five times!
I learned that there is a big difference. But the floor melting should've been the last red flag to them that they had an on board fire
First Officer Geordi La Forge could tell them it was fumes
@@kellyweingart3692 should've been smoke. Fumes could be the AC, issues with bleed air, engines, the apu, etc. Smoke indicates a fire above other things. During a critical phase in flight, like landing and takeoff, I understand why the captain wanted to be sure as doing the wrong things can be fatal but it was frustrating despite knowing this myself.
Deadhead: the entire airplane is on fire, need to land ASAP!
CAPTAIN: So, just fumes right?
Exactly. I would've fired the captain and copilot.
Captain: Spray some Febreze, we will be landing soon enough
Dude had fumes in his head!
Don't try to minimize the problem, Mr First Officer! Afraid the Captain will freak out if you say the word "smoke?"
the captain was not getting enough oxygen before the fire.
I was flying at that carrier then and that incident initiated many changes. We line guys were told that had they been 10 to 15 minutes further away from the airport the fire would have burned thru the flight control cables and engine controls. Who knows for sure but luck was definitely on their side that day.
The captain and copilot were extremely foolish for constantly debating whether the issue was fumes or smoke. Treating the situation as non-urgent, and not requesting that emergency crew be waiting for them on the runway when landing. This could have ended very badly.
@@donnabaardsen5372 I totally agree with you. How old are you and how long have you been flying? In your critique you must allow for the time of the incident and the training norm and experience of the pilots at the time.
That incident created change in CRM courses across all airlines.
@@jakejacobs7584 who the hell cares? Another pilot tells you it's bad, it means it is bad. Plus who cares if it's just smoke or fumes? This was after Air Canada 797. Such things tend to escalate extremely quickly. Something is wrong, land ASAP, evacuate and then debate if it is fumes or smoke.
@@piotrstrzyzowski3336 Were you flying then? Do you have experience from the time? I do, I was copilot on a DC-3 once going from Cleveland to Cincinnati when the right engine caught fire about 15 minutes after takeoff. Luckily the old man I was sitting next to knew an airfield nearby and even though the runway was covered in snow on a moon lit night we made it. The engine continued to burn and fell off the wing before the fire department made it to us. we didn't call, the farmers in the area did. there were no cell phones
Not exactly United 232 level CRM by this crew, at least they got the aircraft down and no one was seriously injured or killed.
Out of the 3 pilots only the one pilot who was off duty seemed to have command of the situation with actions and solutions.
This is some of the worst communication between crew members that I’ve ever seen. And the captain was in complete denial.
I agree 💯 percent. BOTH should have been fired.
Hi KB. Yes, complete denial as it was portrayed. But I don't believe that the captain was a complete twit. The entire fumes versus smoke thing made it look so. It was like a bad comedy. Fumes (so what), smoke (well, maybe there's a problem), flames (well, we're all dead now).
@@roderickcampbell2105 It played just like Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on first?”, but it wasn’t comedy…It was life and death. Thank goodness they were so close to landing.
@@donnabaardsen5372 I’m including the communication between the cockpit and cabin crew. Simply horrendous on everyone’s part.
@@KB3AOL Hi KB3. It was certainly a very close thing and wonderful that they were so close to landing. An Air Canada MD that had smoke landed in Cincinnati (I think). Still about half the people on board died. The cabin ignited after touchdown. Seconds to live or die.
The Captain read the NTSB report and was absolutely fuming.
He was like, "what the hell are they smoking?" 😂
Or was he smoking?
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable flying on a plane captained by somebody who didn't take this situation more seriously than this. Thankfully things didn't end up worse.
They BOTH should've been fired.
@@donnabaardsen5372 Hello Donna. I have empathy with your comment, but I don't believe one can generally solve problems by firing people. Also, this is a rendition or treatment of a situation. Perhaps the flight crew would offer other information.
And what could have the crew done differently?
@@PJHEATERMAN Hi PJ. I think I get your point, and more proactive certainly comes to mind. Assume the worst and act. The cabin crew and deadhead FO deserve commendation. This had every appearance of a disaster but everyone made it out. The captain to FO comms came across to me as "bafflegab". Now CRM has improved things. It has saved lives. But yes, the crew had almost no options and they got the darn thing down and no one was killed.
@@PJHEATERMAN "could have" NOT "could of" !
Everybody: THE PLANE IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!!
Captain: I'll make a note for maintenance to check for fires sometime when they don't have anything else to do.
It's just fumes, right?
For an incident with no fatalities and only minor aircraft damage, the NTSB sure made a lot of “recommendations”. A lot of bang for the safety buck. Lucky outcome
Yeah, lots of recommendations, coz they got incredibly lucky on this 1. Usually with this kind of problem on an aircraft combined with such utter failure on the parts of both the pilots this wouldve been a "nobody survived" incident.
Had the FAA implemented the recommendation to install fire detection and extinguishing equipment in all cargo compartments, ValuJet 592 may have either come back to land in time to save lives or never taken off in the first place, depending on the actual time the fire started.
@@jonathankleinow2073 My understanding is that the consensus opinion was that the fire had already started at take off.
@@deepthinker999 Yeah, I believe the theory is that one of the canisters was jostled enough while taxiing to discharge, although I suppose it's just as likely that it happened during the takeoff roll. Either way, though, had there been smoke/fire detectors in the cargo hold, they would have gotten a warning well before the tire exploded at 10,000 feet.
I agree completely with morganbrown. Best way to look at it…
Very lucky the fire danger occured when the flight destination was close by.
Imagine if the destination was NY or Baltimore---the plane would be engulfed by fire before they reached the Appalachians!
They never declared an emergency? Should have had the the equipment rolled out and waiting. Fortunately everyone survived, this would be a great case study on how not to handle an emergency.
The captain must have already been inhaling the fumes
Who would have thought that loading unlabeled chemicals on a passenger flight was a bad idea?
Google "Value jet 592" Sad and created a major overhaul of FAA regulations.
@@PJHEATERMAN I had the exact thought.
Yeah...no harm no foul, amirite? LOL!
Haz Mat is loaded all the time. Think of batteries. They brought a flight down!!!!
"The floor is buckling"- Pilot... no problem just step over it!
Ah, yes, the days before ValuJet 592 . . . Never heard of this incident before. If the entire industry had taken this more seriously, VJ 592 might not have happened.
But the ValuJet accident was the huge watershed world-changing accident, that made EVERYONE finally pay attention to the dangers presented by not following the rules about the transportation of hazardous materials. But VJ592 ended up in a smoking hole in the Everglades, a truly horrific crash scene. After that one, smoke from a burning pizza in the galley was enough to declare an emergency and land immediately (a Continental flight did exactly that a few months after the ValuJet crash). There was a huge retraining effort for shippers and cargo handlers, and the rules were followed and enforced to the letter. And by and large it's still that way today.
Yeah, the captain was a dolt who didn't want to believe there was a legitimate issue, but even if he did there simply wasn't much else he could do, except declare an emergency and have the fire trucks meet the airplane on the runway. They really couldn't expedite the landing much faster than what they were already doing, and to do so would have increased the risk, by flying an unstablized approach, and coming in too fast. As it was, they got it down and evacuated the airplane, getting everyone off safely, for the most part.
That last part is just another link in the chain of unbelievable luck, they had that day. Coz had they been just a little further out from the airport, not yet in the landing sequence, they wouldnt have made it. They made the needed emergency landing by accident, coz they were already coming in for landing. As they ignored the vital information and stark warnings from the deadheader, they clearly would not have declared an emergency (proven by the fact that they didnt) for a faster landing, had they not already been on their way in. And every1 wouldve died.
... the captain does have a lot on his plate .... in his mind he made the wisest of decisions ...
... as a result of VJ592 crash a new respect for cargo in general took effect ...
The industry AND the FAA should have taken it more seriously. VJ592 wasn't the first incident like this, it was just so deadly. But, the FAA boys were just asleep at the wheel, playing Solitaire on their desktops.
Gah... that captain's reaction was maddening, especially to the deadheading first officer. "Your floor's about to collapse, bro..." "No big deal." I mean, yes, the only thing he could do was what he was already doing, but it probably would have been better to have the evacuation asap. It could have turned into another Air Canada DC-9 incident in a hurry. 😞
Or a Saudia one...
Not the first time that the guys at the pointy end have taken little notice of an imminent disaster going on behind them. I’d open the cockpit door and look. Very lucky escape…
How many times does a captain have to ask if it's just fumes of if there's actually smoke?
Who cares if its "smoke" or "fumes"? The heat and the softening of the floor make it a fire, whether smoldering or in flames. I really thought either the control cables would be severed or there would be a flashover when they opened the doors to evacuate.
Exactly
@@christosvoskresye smoke means fire which can spread faster than fumes. The captain asked before the floor started melting.
I agree with everyone here. That captain was the real danger to everyone in that situation. Imagine him and the copilot calmly going back and forth over whether it was smoke or fumes! The deadheading pilot KNEW how dangerous the situation was. The captain and copilot should have been fired! Especially for not alerting the tower, and asking for emergency crew to be waiting for them in the runway.
Evidently 500 times.
The deadhead understood. The captain was a dead loss.
Captain: Is it smoke or fumes?
F/O: it’s smoke fumes
😂😂😂
Absolutely crazy. I would've fired them both.
@@donnabaardsen5372 Not how you fix problems. This was just horrendous communication. In aviation, fumes (ranging from not a problem to interesting) and smoke (high change of fire) are very different. And during approach and landing, doing the wrong thing with poor information and communication can be fatal. So I would train them on proper communication and emergency procedures.
"Find out if they're smoking cigarettes or just vaping down there"
@@trilight3597 Smoke in the cabin is not unusual information. When discovered the crew usually lands the plane asap out of an abundance of caution.
"Smoke or fumes?"
"Yes."
It was shocking how casual the pilots treated the situation.
The Captain took the "remain calm" mantra way down to the "Just don't care" end.
As a pilot all you can do is focus on flying the airplane. The captain and first officer had no options, they can't pull over to the side of the road. If you're not a pilot you can't understand the situation.
@@PJHEATERMAN They could have called for the trucks, and stopped before the taxiway to evacuate. In fires, it even a few seconds can be the difference between this and an entire planeload of passengers burning up.
@@teresabenson3385 you make a very good point.
@@PJHEATERMAN I'm a pilot. I do understand the situation and is just not like that. You are responsable for the life of everyone in board, and a late decision to evacuate and not having the emergency team meet you in the runway can lead to death or severe injuries in the passengers and crew. Search for Saudia flight 163. I'm pretty sure Allec has already reviewed it.
The floor is getting soft, being told by a fellow pilot. These 2 were absolutely maddening.
I tell people I watch these videos and it makes me feel even better about flying in 2023. Back then was the wild wild west of aviation...
No it wasn't! I worked for AA, and was a flight attendant for years! I never experienced a flight like this!
It wasn't a "Wild, wild west back then! Our safety was our #1 priority, as well as customer service, and the #1 "on-time" airline!
@@ILoveLucy21. So DC-10s didn't have doors blow out? Wind shear and downdrafts were predictable? And everything was triple redundant? In the past 15 years, we've had 1 fatality on a domestic airline. Back then, you'd have hundreds die on individual crashes, sometimes multiple times per year. It certainly was the wild wild west in comparison...
This is why a) you always properly mark ALL hazardous materials, and b) you don't load hazardous materials into the cargo hold of a passenger plane.
I worked for South African Airways when we lost a 747 near Mauritius, though according to the official report, it wasn’t carrying anything dangerous on the cargo manifest, the rumours were rife amongst the staff, but we’ll never be able to prove it. I have very little faith in OFFICIAL reports. I remember too, the Air New Zealand DC10 crash, the airline and government tried to cover that up too. I trust none of them.
As a lead instructor in hazardous materials transportation, I highly agree with a many of the comments that this flight was very lucky they were so close to landing when the fire was detected. Even a few more minutes could have been catastrophic. The shipper is responsible for identification, packaging, marking, labeling and documentation of hazmat shipments for transport. They would have been fined at lest $75,000 for this violation, although I did not look it up. Training for such shippers is mandatory at least every two years per IATA (ICAO) and DOT regulations in 49 CFR, Subpart H. As a former airman, I can also state that fire is the single worst possible emergency aboard aircraft, and it truly surprises me at the reluctance of this captain to immediately declare a mayday and call for fire and rescue equipment and an immediate evacuation upon reaching a stop on the runway. These people are truly lucky to be alive!
I work for an environmental waste management company. The list of chemicals and the fact that some weren't labeled made me want to bang my head on my desk.
@@vickiweber4718 And contrary to what many people think, it was the law back in 1988 in the USA that hazardous materials be clearly labeled and instructions for shipping followed exactly to the letter.
@@vickiweber4718 Giving yourself a headache will not help matters unless you sell Excedrin.
This was 1988,not the Dark Ages. Hard to believe there was very little control of cargo coming on board.
I can partly accept some single aisle aircraft like the MD - 80's don't have full emergency systems, probably no fuel dump option, and I accept this was a "local" flight but the whole episode feels like it's from the 1950"s or early 60's.
Weird.
I was on the edge for this one. A little complacency (a lot maybe), and I would have liked some communications transcripts, but I'm very relieved everyone got out.
Interesting to find anyone on board and if everyone in the cabin was aware.
Great channel.
It's the old false security attitude of "We never had a problem yet."
Is there a fire checklist that needs to be performed?
That captain could have caused a similar incident to the Saudia 163 disaster with how little he cared about something like the plane being on fire and the floor sagging. That was lucky nobody died.
It is a minor miracle the floor did not give way mid flight. God was on their side on this day. And that off duty FO may have saved the day. Get that damn plane on the ground is always the best course of action if there is any unknown problem.
No need to land in a hurry if god is on your side though is there?
They were so lucky! The fumes vs smoke conversation was almost comical (who's on first), but it was such a serious situation. I wanted to slap the captain. The dead head pilot is the hero in this story.
Unbelievable that the MD80(3) wasn't equipped with sensors and extinguishers, especially in light of what happened to the ValueJet DC-9 which crashed into the Everglades years before because of exactly the same situation.
This was 1988 -- Valuejet was 1996. But still...
ValueJet was due to oxygen canisters, but your point is well taken. Even a fire safety system wouldn’t have been able to extinguish that inferno unfortunately.
Specifically (IIRC), spare passenger oxygen cannisters to which the required end caps had not been installed. ValueJet is gone now, but there's always Allegiant for anyone who likes to experience unnecessary risks while flying.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Or Spirit that uses duct tape on their wings.
@@deepthinker999 "Or Spirit that uses duct tape on their wings." Spirit had found duct tape to not work well for even temporary repair of engine turbine blades -- it softened too quickly in the heat -- and they weren't about to just throw away nearly a whole roll of duct tape...
(Actually, that "incident" shows aluminum tape being applied to an engine nacelle, and was/is an FAA-approved procedure using an FAA-approved tape.)
We learned about this incident while in initial training at my first airline several years ago. The lesson included a video recreation of the crew audio communications, made by the AA training department. One of the contributing factors not made entirely clear in the above clip or the NTSB report is the cross talk or unfortunate timing of much of the communications. During much of the initial cabin call about the smoke, ATC issued instructions via radio at the same time that the flight attendant and deadhead pilot were trying to explain the situation via the interphone. Thus, even if the captain had wanted, or tried to listen to the interphone, he was dealing with the radio at that moment. As a result, all the information he received was being relayed second-hand from his FO during a busy critical phase of flight. Some of the later interphone conversations were complicated by multiple people being on the line at the same time--kind of like being on a conference call where people keep talking over each other. On the airplane, there are several interphone handsets throughout the cabin, and at one point, the FO, the deadheading pilot, forward FA, and aft FA were all trying to communicate via the interphone at about the same time. I suspect some of the "smoke or fumes" problem comes from that, for example there's an instance where the FO is asking whether it's smoke or fumes to one FA just as another FA is picking up the interphone in a different part of the cabin. The noise may have covered up the "smoke" part of the question because the response is "bad fumes," which leads the FO to tell the CA it's "just fumes."
I also recall our instructor saying that it was basically the deadheading pilot that initiated the evacuation--he waited for nearly two minutes after landing, and when he realized nothing was happening, called the cockpit and said, "We better get out of here!" which finally got the captain's attention.
Damn, did they get lucky on this 1! The FO didnt seem to really listen to the Flight Attendant or the deadheading FO, even when the deadheader provided urgent information and recommendations. He clearly understood the seriousness and communicated it, but the FO just didnt register and hence didnt convey any urgency to the captain. And the captain seemed to not have much interest in further information himself or taking the smoke seriously, just kept asking "just fumes, right?", when the information about the aisle floor softening clearly tells u, theres a LOT more wrong than fumes or smoke.
It mustve been really frustrating to be the deadheading FO, who clearly diagnosed the problem and urged for immidiate landing and calling for the equipment to meet them, yet he could do nothing about the very serious situation, do nothing to save himself and his fellow passengers beyond that, and he was speaking to deaf ears.
Great video as usual. Hydrogen Peroxide is very flammable and explosive in its raw form. They are lucky that everyone survived.
Heck, I asked my dentist about using hydrogen peroxide as a mouthwash to whiten my teeth. Her short answer was "no".
I wonder and suppose the peroxide was 30%.....
Pretty stout. All for some hillbilly clothes dye. Just imagine if there was a little nitric acid 69% strength mixed in with that little bundle of joy...
Captain “is it just a little smoke or a lot of smoke”?
Legend has it, to this day the captain is asking if its fumes or smoke?
😂😂😂😂
It’s a beautiful bird; I’m glad they could repair it and return it to service.
If I remember correctly, one of NTSB recommendation was smoke detector in cargo hold, but wasn't implemented by FAA.
No smoke/fire detection or fire suppression systems in the cargo bays.
Sounds almost primative, doesn't it?
For an MD-8x plane, eh. Cargo shouldn't have been dangerous or allowed as far as I'm aware. Tell that to airports without ground radar, if anymore exists.
The Captain was always a laid back dude. Until the wing spar melted and the wings fell off.
Wow, I just flew out of that airport last week. It’s wild to see it on the simulation. I remember the reservoir next to it.
This could easily have been another ValuJet 592 or Air Canada 797....lucky they weren't far from their destination when it took hold. Surprised that in 1988 this new plane didn't have cargo smoke detectors or fire extinguishers, I assumed they had been around for a very long time
The floor is hot and deformed, but just a little fume... nah, we're totally fine, brah.
Pro tip: Words like “fire,” “burning” and “hot” would help the cockpit crew confront a troublesome reality.
"...just fumes..." Uhgh, seriously? In this case, fumes were a serious problem. I work for an environmental waste management company. When the chemicals were listed, and it was mentioned that some weren't labeled, I thought, "Well, that explains a lot!"
How much more obvious could the first officers both have been to the captain. He is told the floor is softening. So regardless of seeing smoke or "just fumes" in the cabin there is clearly a problem compromising the structural integrity. If the floor was softened by fire or somehow by corrosive fumes what's the difference if the damage is the same potentially? True the plane was already nearing landing though what if it wasn't would the pilot have declared emergency intent. It sounds like he may not have treated it as urgent as it was.
I think it is very helpful to remember that the Spanish word for the verb “to smoke” is fumar. Fumar sharing an origin with the English “fumes”. This is classic confirmation bias, the captain was searching for the description that fit his preconceived notion of the source of the odor. That the APU was not functioning is beside the point. The captain had his answer, facts be damned. The truth is fumes shouldn’t exist on a plane, smoke shouldn’t exist on a plane. Anything that smells like burning plastic, electrical “fumes”, or some “chemical reaction” should be treated as the worst case scenario, always. Your plane is filled with electrical wires and plastic, anything “burning” is serious
Which is the way it is treated today by USA main line carriers. Overseas it is a throw of the dice.
The reason I asked to differentiate between smoke and fumes was that the plane had been written up the day before as having had fumes in the cabin from some oil leaking into the a/c system. I was flying the plane, talking to ATC, doing the check list and trying to listen to the copilot. He did not express urgency that you might assume from reading the transcript, and certainly didn't relay everything he was being told. I was NOT going to evac 120 people and get people hurt for no reason if we had the same situation as the previous day, fumes. That is why I was trying to differentiate and I wasn't getting definite answers. My focus was getting on the ground and I could not have done so any faster. We were #1 for the airport, headed straight in, VFR with the airport in sight. The first I heard of a sagging floor was when we pulled off the runway and was told so by the d/h first officer. So, for all you high time second guessers, have at it. I didn't have the NTSB report form the guy in seat 26a or the comm from all the folks in the back with which to make my decisions. Got all that info about 6 months later. Gee, it would have been so much easier to have that info at the time. BTW, the Super 80 cargo compartments were supposed to be air tight. If you had a fire it was supposed to smother itself. Who knew we were packing chemicals that were check in as "laundry equipment?" Have a nice day!
Thank you for the factual update. You got everyone on the ground with no loss of life, and you should be commended for that.
You stated that you were flying the plane and talking to ATC. However, to the best of my knowledge, the pilot monitoring communicates with ATC. Were the procedures in this regard different in 1988 than they are now?
@@Eternal_Tech Procedures are the same as today, but you can't talk on the inter phone and to ATC at the same time. I was concentrating on flying and he was trying to coordinate with the back.
Thank You for your excellent reply. Normally we don't see that kind of information.
@@deepthinker999 Guess you had to be there! Cheers. 🙂
Are you retired from commercial aircraft ? I hope so …. Note to self : Captain Symonds - no go
Luck all used up ! Rent a flocking car
For a minute there I thought this flight crew were as stupid as Saudia Flight 163’s crew. At least everyone survived this event.
So holding an evacuation for 30 minutes when on the ground is not a good idea?
Anyone else yelling at the screen to the pilot to hurry it up, notify tower, declare an emergency and land lickety split!!!??
Get the f*****g lead out, Captain!
It does seem like the captain wrote off the FA/dhd pilot reports a bit, blaming them on the APU that wasn't even running. Thank God they were close to landing when this occured.
Another excellent video, thank you! I hadn't heard of this incident before. But I have to say it is very, very loud.
As soon as you realise there is smoke in the cabin you need to land without delay, the Captain was too hesitant,he was lucky, it could have been much worse. That captain should have been fired(No pun intended).
I agree that the captain didn't seem to accept the gravity of the situation. However, in this and other incidents, the pilots are somewhat insulated from events in the passenger cabin, relying on reports from the flight attendants. More cameras both inside and outside the plane might alert the crew to what is happening.
@Bobrodgers99
Except the deadhead FO was clear that there was a SERIOUS and grave problem, he said it in coded terms so it wouldn't frighten the passengers but the cockpit and capt didn't accept his qualified observations quickly enough.
Cameras are another source of frustration in these situations. Currently the FO has to go into the cabin to check on a damaged engine. The new F35 fighter jet has 360 degree visibility. Most American cars are equipped with a rear facing camera. When will the FAA catch up?
Restated how many passengers will need to perish before the NTSB & FAA wake up?
I wonder how many aircraft fires were caused by discarded cigarettes back then
Often in the lavatories.
Did the captain ever hear of Valujet? Swissair 111?
The ValuJet crash was roughly 8 years after this, and Swissair 111 was roughly 10 years after, so no
There were other incident likes this tho, b4 this happened, like that Air Canada disaster.
Flight Attendant: "I'm on fire now, we are all burning up back here, the wings have just fallen off and the rear of the plane has disintegrated''
Pilots: "No worries, just let us know if anything else happens or gets worse"
Nice to know that F/O in the cabin was a grateful dead fan!
Hey Alec! I am a retired American Airlines flight attendant, & the MD-80/83 was my very FAVORITE plane to work on!!!❤ Just wanted to throw in that your seat configuration is incorrect. It is a narrow body aircraft, and is a two seat on one side, and 3 seat on the other side.😊
Rumour has it the captain is still asking is it fumes or smoke?
I'm surprised not to see a scathing critique of the flight crew's reactions to the situation. To be sure, the only thing they could have done in addition to landing was to have equipment meet them on the ground, but when a deadheading pilot informs you that the floor is softening, this is much more than just a worried passenger's assessment. At that point you must know there is a fire, you must declare MAYDAY, and you must have equipment meet you.
Any checklist for fumes/smoke in the plane they failed to do?
The captain "wanted" a preconceived explanation and discarded any other. His questions were systematically addressed to exclude smoke.
It's human, but very dangerous. Had the event evolve more bcritically with a strong fire at the taxi and the outcome would be much worse, eventually with the loss of lives (see the Aeroflot Sukhoi accident in Sheremetyevo).
Accepting the imminence of fire, he would call for firefighters assistance.
Very good video.
It's amazing how this aircraft remained in service for almost 30 years after this incident occurred, with no further disasters; especially structurally-related.
The Captain and the First Officer need serious training that just because there's no smoke doesn't mean its not an emergency. Maybe the Deadhead Officer and the Flight Attendant can educate them...
Yay BNA, love the hometown airport ones.
BNA has had relatively few fatal incidents. The worst was when a USAF F-14 crashed in 1996, killing the pilot and two occupants of a house it hit.
IMHO hazardous materials should never be transported on commercial flights due to the risks involved. Who’s to say that hazardous materials won’t shift in their boxes or containers while being transported to the airport? It just seems like an accident waiting to happen.
You are 100% correct.
That drum was essentially all the ingredients needed for rocket propellant. The got lucky.
Was a MAYDAY or at east a PAN declared?
HOLY MOLY! That's a real miracle, had that container breached further....
Any mention saying the pilots put their O2 masks on as they confirmed unknown fumes in the cockpit knowing the issues in the cabin? If someone passes wind I would grab a mask if available.
O2 enhances and feeds a fire. Their use is not recommended when a fire is involved.
Air Canada 797 was maybe 5 years before this? This crew could have easily ended up in the same situation. The nonchalant attitude of the captain in particular is concerning. What's more appalling is how hazmat can end up on an airplane without the crew's knowledge, and be hidden away in the baggage hold with no fire detection or suppression. The party responsible for sending those dangerous goods onto that flight with no labels and no mention of it to AA should be held criminally responsible for almost bringing down a commercial aircraft. Nowadays there is no way you can just casually send an unmarked drum of volatile chemicals somewhere by air. I don't know what the regulations were surrounding this in the US, but I am guessing there were no significant changes to them until ValuJet (1996- 8 years after this incident), because these things are usually written in blood.
Amazing how the Captain was intent on minimizing the situation (It' just fumes, correct?)
Thank you Joshua
You have the most informative videos ever
The cockpit crew is lucky not being known, for the deaths of 124 people in the rest of the plane.
Why you don't use the MSFS for make new videos of accident? I think that Fsx/Fs2004 is very limited now.
CRM has come a long way
This was 1988, CRM was 10 years in at that point. But yeah, its a continual work in progress updated after every time like this to protect against another bit of human stupidity, that was not already observed or predicted.
I’m sure that flight crew was immediately promoted into management…. Based on my 40 years of dealing with airline management and their thinking.
Id be screaming" Fumes? The Bloody floor is melting , you got a fire in the hold you blithering fool!
I can already tell this captain was more worried about a spotless resume. These people should be no where near cockpits
What I’d like to know is, was this Captain retained by AA?
I found myself yelling at the captain on my monitor!
Gotta love American Airlines!👍
Their old slogan? "Something Special In The Air!"
@@billolsen4360 "Doing what we do best".
Captain, for the third time: But Is it smoke or just fumes?
JUST DECLARE THE F#$&"# EMERGENCY ALREADY!!!
It seems as if AA was charging him with the emergency service if he declared the emergency. Luckily this happened close to landing. Had happened midflight, the outcome would have been far worst.
*Deadheading FO should have headed to the cockpit to make sure the dire nature of the situation was communicated to the the FO and Captain, and get the jet on the ground ASAP!* I kept yelling at my monitor for him to get up to the cockpit and tell them the facts!*
When you smell it but not see it that is fumes when it is visible that is smoke
In an after note, all the clothing in the hold was found to be stain free
I hope the company that didn't even bother to label that as hazardous, got their ass sued.
If that happened today, it would be a very expensive mistake.
@@vickiweber4718 If that happened today, it would be illegal.
@@billolsen4360 It was essentially illegal back then but penalties weren't enforced.
The MD-83 remained in service after the incident! Those old MD-80 series birds were tough as nails.
You sure its fumes?
Do you know why one is a captain and another is a copilot very often? A better seniority number from being hired before the other. Unlike most professions where merit is used to promote.
"There are bold pilots and old pilots bur there are no old bold pilots".
These were chemicals being transported by 2 sales/chemical reps for a company that did acid/ stone washing back in the 80’s. I remember it well. The chemical company had to pay millions to repair the aircraft!
Thank YAH for this "everyone survives" by aviator Kuya Allec Ibey.
That Capt was a little too dense. As soon as he got the plane down, stop ASAP, and evacuate on the runway. Why bother to taxi. It was fortunate nobody was killed.
Chem trails are real ! ! ! I knew it all along !
The aircraft was repaired and flew for a further 28 years.
Lets just pray that the Captain and First Officer were never in a cockpit ever again.
It is not like unknown fumes can sicken or kill people. Right captain? If he didn't get fired he should have been downgraded.
This was a real nail biter to say the least. What would have happened if they had not been within a few minutes of landing the aircraft? The fire must have been a raging inferno underneath the cabin floor to actually soften the floor, unless the floor was very very thin.
Just think. Luck. Location. They were close to landing at that time. This was an incident that so easily could have ended up being a total catastrophe. So close ! Wow ! Unbelievable. Very lucky !
82ND AIRBORNE
IS IT : Smoke...
Fumes...
Electrical...
Flamed...
Color...
Temperature...
Holy cow...
Anyone else just getting pissed at the insane exchange of stupid questions in the cockpit
I’m surprised that the aircraft was able to be still used after that fire. Seems it would have compromised the interior strength of the aircraft
I flew every other weekend from Wichita Falls in Houston Hobby when I was ADAF. On American. The leg from D/FW to HOU was on MD-83s (1991-1995). I wonder if that plane was the plane assigned to the route. It’s 280 miles from DFW to HOU
Just cannot understand why no fire detection in the cargo area. Many incidents with this part of the plane having a fire while in flight, and no one thought of installing a system to detect and activate a suppression device? Wow.,