AA3023 Incident. DEN - MIA, July 26 2025

Report is out. Nothing sticks out except all the idiot pax. I am very much in favor of a permanent ban of 121 flying for idiots like this.

NTSB Docket - Docket Management System

data.ntsb.gov data.ntsb.gov

"She (FA1) repeatedly commanded passengers to leave their belongings behind; however, multiple passengers took their carry-on baggage, which slowed the flow of egress."

"FA2 stated passengers did not comply with crew instructions, continued retrieving carry-on bags, and crowded the exits. After the captain commanded the evacuation, FA2 stated aft slides were deployed and passengers exited, with most retaining their personal belongings."
 
One other thing. I am not judging here, but 30-45 seconds seems like a long time before initiating evacuation. But, with the absolute balls in the face situation, I could see how that time would elapse very quickly. From the CA's statement:

"The FO and I evaluated the situation. We also started to notice smoke entering into the cockpit. I directed the FO to call for the ARFF to respond. The FO called the tower and confirmed that the fire trucks were on the way. We then concluded, after about 30-45 seconds from the remain seated call, to initiate an evacuation. The decision was based on the smoke present in the cockpit and the tower reports of “you are on fire” under your wing."
 
HeyEng said:
One other thing. I am not judging here, but 30-45 seconds seems like a long time before initiating evacuation. But, with the absolute balls in the face situation, I could see how that time would elapse very quickly.
Click to expand...
Things can go south quickly if you initiate an evacuation when it isn’t warranted. Given the fatigue and startle factor, 30-45 seconds seems to be appropriate to me to evaluate the situation and make a decision.
 
HeyEng said:
One other thing. I am not judging here, but 30-45 seconds seems like a long time before initiating evacuation. But, with the absolute balls in the face situation, I could see how that time would elapse very quickly. From the CA's statement:

"The FO and I evaluated the situation. We also started to notice smoke entering into the cockpit. I directed the FO to call for the ARFF to respond. The FO called the tower and confirmed that the fire trucks were on the way. We then concluded, after about 30-45 seconds from the remain seated call, to initiate an evacuation. The decision was based on the smoke present in the cockpit and the tower reports of “you are on fire” under your wing."
Click to expand...

To be honest, this is the current meta at several carriers.

Everyone reading may be aware of this, but there's currently a big push against "unnecessary evacuations," because there's an understanding that you will always have people hurt during evacs. It creates a drive to evaluate, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, I personally think that the risk of smoke inhalation injuries are underevaluated compared to rolled ankles (and, to be fair, much more serious injuries like spinal injuries or TBI) that are part and parcel of an evac.

Ultimately, I think pilot judgment for an evac based on "conditions in the cabin have a high probability of becoming hostile to life based on the information I have available" should be supported and never questioned, even if later it is determined to be the less-ideal outcome in hindsight.
 
I guess having a more "evacuate-forward" policy or mentality could at least provide more time for the morons to grab their carry on bags.

It would be great in a situation like this to just grab people's bags and throw them back down onto a seat. But then that person would of course sue later on, claiming "your actions resulted in the destruction of my 5 pet lithium power banks and now I can't play video games or be terminally online at all moments of my life"......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top