Update on Asiana firetruck casualty(video)

exneophyte said:
Only have respect for @MikeD and can't say I recall a time I've disagreed with his knowledge. Ultimately, my concern is with what happens inside the aircraft and how it can be made better. It's easy to sit back and talk about what you would do given hypothetical situations given the chaos of any emergency situation. I sometimes play devils advocate regardless of my true beliefs to gain contrast into other perspectives.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. Why people do certain things in a given stressful situation will widely vary from individual to individual, culture to culture, etc. These are just the challenges that have to be dealt with, and no two incidents will ever be the same as it comes to many factors, pax reactions being one of them. Just have to be flexible as possible as a fire crew, and play the cards we're dealt as best we can.
 
There would be more fatalities if I'm trying to egress with my family and some mouth breathing moron is trying to grab his carry on.

Not even any hesitation.

That or I get off the plane and start beating people to death with their CocoChanel bags and SLR cameras of wannabe "photographers"
 
ctab5060X said:
Until I started flying for a smaller carrier where our interactions with the passengers is 10x that of my previous gig, I never realized just how many people that boarded our airplanes were either first time flyers or extremely timid about getting into a pressurized aluminum tube and going fast.

The last thing we want to do is to scare these people any more than they already are of flying.
Click to expand...

There was some sarcasm in there, see my previous post. All the more reason to be more specific on instructions for evacuations, especially for the people in the cabin that are paying attention or don't know what is going on or what to expect.
 
sweeps said:
There was some sarcasm in there, see my previous post. All the more reason to be more specific on instructions for evacuations, especially for the people in the cabin that are paying attention or don't know what is going on or what to expect.
Click to expand...

Remember, as a rule, a single person is smart and could probably understand more specific instructions.

However, a group of people is generally dumb and the "mob mentality" tends to take over. You've got to keep it simple and talk to the lowest common denominator.
 
I've always performed well in emergencies, so I assume that I will in an airplane crash. I always review the safety briefing card before every flight, verifying how to open the exits and whether the overwing hatches remain inside or get thrown outside. I then count the number of rows to the exits and tell my wife if she's with me.

Post crash, so long as I'm not killed or incapacitated, I move towards the exit while pocketing my phone (keeps the hands clear). Anybody not moving at my speed gets simple commands yelled at them by me ("move to the exit") and "physical encouragement." Any luggage or personal belongings in their hands will get ripped away and thrown deeper into the aircraft along the walls. Once outside, assist passengers away from slides and then move incapacitated victims away from the aircraft.

Anyway, that's that plan.
 
USMCmech said:
Just because there were only 2 other fatalities doesn't mean that he initial scene wasn't complete chaos, even for a large CFR crew.

The general rule for a mass casualty event is that if someone is laying on the ground and not showing obvious signs of life, to move on to someone you can help.
Click to expand...

Yup. As an former ARFF Marine that was what we were taught during triage.
 
Skåning said:
The real blame is on the Asiana crew for getting slow and hitting the sea wall. If that hadn't happened none of this other stuff would be up for discussion.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken, however someone above them determined the crew was capable, competent, and trained well enough to perform that flight. The error sequence did not start or end with the crew.
 
Skåning said:
The real blame is on the Asiana crew for getting slow and hitting the sea wall. If that hadn't happened none of this other stuff would be up for discussion.
Click to expand...

Have you heard that some folks are now suing Boeing? I never did very well on the Miller Analogy test, but isn't that like suing the fish 'cause ya drowned while fishing?
 
Crop Duster said:
Turns out there was no foam covering her.
Click to expand...
Yeah, which is what makes this interesting.
SAN FRANCISCO — A San Francisco Fire Department ban on video cameras now explicitly includes helmet-mounted devices that film emergency scenes, according to Chief Joanne Hayes-White.

The edict comes after images taken in the aftermath of the July 6 Asiana Airlines crash at the San Francisco airport led to questions about first responders' actions, which resulted in a survivor being run over by a fire truck.
Click to expand...
I almost find that hilarious, it's like they're pissed they couldn't twist the facts in their favor. Oh wait, it's only about "privacy", right?

Most of the time I talk with controllers in the halls at work, this topic seems to come up. We all agree that it is asinine to take action against the first responders, but as these stories come out, I see bits and pieces of conformation about things I hoped were rumors. I won't elaborate, but some people who have been close to this accident have some interesting opinions.
 
ChasenSFO said:
Yeah, which is what makes this interesting.

I almost find that hilarious, it's like they're pissed they couldn't twist the facts in their favor. Oh wait, it's only about "privacy", right?

Most of the time I talk with controllers in the halls at work, this topic seems to come up. We all agree that it is asinine to take action against the first responders, but as these stories come out, I see bits and pieces of conformation about things I hoped were rumors. I won't elaborate, but some people who have been close to this accident have some interesting opinions.
Click to expand...

I do know from coming from an CFR background that driving/maneuvering a crash truck, there are a ton of blind spots, exacerbated when in active foam application operations. Now, where and how this figures in, in terms of the dynamics at the time (was the vehicle moving straight ahead, was it in a turn, how active were the top/bumper turrets, were they on stream, fog, or sweep; etc) are all things that will need to be determined, as each will figure into the driver workload and SA at the time.

The article is interesting indeed.
 
ChasenSFO said:
Yeah, which is what makes this interesting.

I almost find that hilarious, it's like they're pissed they couldn't twist the facts in their favor. Oh wait, it's only about "privacy", right?

Most of the time I talk with controllers in the halls at work, this topic seems to come up. We all agree that it is asinine to take action against the first responders, but as these stories come out, I see bits and pieces of conformation about things I hoped were rumors. I won't elaborate, but some people who have been close to this accident have some interesting opinions.
Click to expand...

So, it's quite interesting actually. People love to rant about "Frivolous Lawsuits" and there is a great hew and cry about the "Need for Tort Reform". But there are very, very few frivolous lawsuits that make it anywhere. The most famous in the public mind is the McDonald's Coffee case. Yet, almost no one knows what really happened in that case. It was not frivolous at all. Typically, judges are not morons. An increasing number of them are bought, but not many are morons. So most ridiculous cases get thrown out by judges before those ridiculous cases ever get to be heard by a jury. The ones that people hear about as being "outrageous" or "frivolous" are usually anything but. The McDonald's Coffee lawsuit is probably the most famous for the simple reason that it threatened to actually hold the guilty to account, and set a precedent for others to be accountable. In most of these cases, the louder the chamber of commerce and the vested interests scream, the more validity the case likely has. It's a bit like corporate slogans... Google: "We're Not Evil", Microsoft: "We're Innovative", or Preachers: "You can always tell the sins of the preacher by the subject of the sermon." (Re: McDonald's, see "Hot Coffee" on Netflix or someplace.)
Hemingway, that's a long-winded intro to the point which is there is almost always more to these stories than is initially obvious. And in this particular case, I think you are correct (if I'm hearing you right) that there will be some interesting facts emerging in the fullness of time. Information wants to be free, and by and large, it should be. While there are occasionally valid reasons for withholding information, it is usually the case that when information is suppressed it is because someone doesn't want the dots connected. Information is power. Information is also the enemy of power. Power seeks more power. So power seeks to control information. It has always been and always will be. Think and act accordingly.
As far as the "tort reform" (actually "tort elimination" cleverly labelled to sell to the unwitting masses) goes... in a world where power has largely eliminated any real administrative regulatory authority, the only rampart remaining to protect us average folks is the legal redress process afforded by the judiciary. Be very wary about allowing that to be weakened.
 
MikeD said:
I do know from coming from an CFR background that driving/maneuvering a crash truck, there are a ton of blind spots, exacerbated when in active foam application operations. Now, where and how this figures in, in terms of the dynamics at the time (was the vehicle moving straight ahead, was it in a turn, how active were the top/bumper turrets, were they on stream, fog, or sweep; etc) are all things that will need to be determined, as each will figure into the driver workload and SA at the time.

The article is interesting indeed.
Click to expand...

You've seen this ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/us/asiana-crash-new-video/ ), right?
 
MikeD said:
I did, but I don't know which vehicle that was and when that occurred.
Click to expand...
Why would they not have either flagged the body, or simply evacuated it to another location more out of harm's way?
 
Crop Duster said:
Why would they not have either flagged the body, or simply evacuated it to another location more out of harm's way?
Click to expand...

Unless nothing to mark it with at the time; but dealing with a dead body (assumed at the time) isn't a priority. However if someone was outside the vehicle and next to the "body" already, why a cursory quick check couldn't have been made....not a detailed check, mind you, but a quick one......would be interesting to know. Or maybe one was made, and based on the initial look, the assumption it was a deceased was made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top