Easyjet passengers vote on whether to fly
Discussion
PPrune said:
Sounds like they had a hung, or maybe even a wet, start, and were then left pushed back with one engine running and needed to shut down, wait and then attempt a re-start, with the inevitable delay that would create from missing their slot, etc, etc.
My guess is the question asked was probably would the passengers want to sit onboard for a while whilst they tried to sort things out, or would they prefer to disembark and get a later flight
My guess is the question asked was probably would the passengers want to sit onboard for a while whilst they tried to sort things out, or would they prefer to disembark and get a later flight
PPrune said:
Asking down the back, if that is what happened, seems foolhardy in the extreme; we'd just chat up front about it and make a decision.
That does sound rather more likely. The concept of asking passengers to vote on whether to 'risk' flying with a 'dodgy engine' is absurd.
Mind you, if the real decision was whether to wait for the problem to be resolved or head back to the terminal, seems an odd thing for people to vomit over.
Mind you, if the real decision was whether to wait for the problem to be resolved or head back to the terminal, seems an odd thing for people to vomit over.
Ari said:
That does sound rather more likely. The concept of asking passengers to vote on whether to 'risk' flying with a 'dodgy engine' is absurd.
Well, 18-year-olds with no experience of anything can vote on who runs the country, so they must be equally qualified to know all about aeroplanes too!djc206 said:
Ari said:
Good point. And if the flight deck wanted to ensure a positive result they could offer the flight time reduced to 15 minutes and free champagne and truffles! 
Except for the front 2 rows who would be expected to pick up the tab.Simpo Two said:
Ari said:
That does sound rather more likely. The concept of asking passengers to vote on whether to 'risk' flying with a 'dodgy engine' is absurd.
Well, 18-year-olds with no experience of anything can vote on who runs the country, so they must be equally qualified to know all about aeroplanes too!
Eh, baws to it, I would probably stick about on the plane, pilot has a hell of a lot more experience than I do, if he is willing to lower his planes margin of safety slightly I'd most likely be willing to participate. But then again I do find myself to err on the side of being less risk averse.
Edited by caelite on Friday 16th June 03:13
caelite said:
Eh, baws to it, I would probably stick about on the plane, pilot has a hell of a lot more experience than I do, if he is willing to lower his planes margin of safety slightly I'd most likely be willing to participate. But then again I do find myself to err on the side of being more risk adverse.
'Risk averse' - not being a smartarse, I used to say 'risk adverse' till someone pointed it out to me.Ari said:
'Risk averse' - not being a smartarse, I used to say 'risk adverse' till someone pointed it out to me.
Yeah you're entirely correct, entirely didn't realise, as you say it's not exactly obvious, spell checker clears it. 
Thanks, edited
Edited by caelite on Friday 16th June 20:21
Article said:
A spokesman for EasyJet said: "The pilot attempted to use one engine to start the other engine as is normal procedure.
"Because he was aware that the passengers had already been considerably delayed due to a technical problem the pilot asked the passengers if they would like to get off or remain on board whilst the engine start up sequence continued.
"It was then decided to fly the passengers back on a replacement aircraft.
"At no point did the pilot ask passengers, or would ever attempt, to fly the aircraft without both engines working correctly."
That's the only pertinent bit of the article. Sounds like they attempted a cross-bleed start:"Because he was aware that the passengers had already been considerably delayed due to a technical problem the pilot asked the passengers if they would like to get off or remain on board whilst the engine start up sequence continued.
"It was then decided to fly the passengers back on a replacement aircraft.
"At no point did the pilot ask passengers, or would ever attempt, to fly the aircraft without both engines working correctly."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+cross+bleed+engine+...
and the running engine couldn't provide sufficient pressure to start the other one within the allowed power range. It seems like it was only a start problem due to the APU being unserviceable. Once the engine is running it's like a normal day, albeit without a serviceable APU to fall back on.
pushthebutton said:
Article said:
A spokesman for EasyJet said: "The pilot attempted to use one engine to start the other engine as is normal procedure.
"Because he was aware that the passengers had already been considerably delayed due to a technical problem the pilot asked the passengers if they would like to get off or remain on board whilst the engine start up sequence continued.
"It was then decided to fly the passengers back on a replacement aircraft.
"At no point did the pilot ask passengers, or would ever attempt, to fly the aircraft without both engines working correctly."
That's the only pertinent bit of the article. Sounds like they attempted a cross-bleed start:"Because he was aware that the passengers had already been considerably delayed due to a technical problem the pilot asked the passengers if they would like to get off or remain on board whilst the engine start up sequence continued.
"It was then decided to fly the passengers back on a replacement aircraft.
"At no point did the pilot ask passengers, or would ever attempt, to fly the aircraft without both engines working correctly."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+cross+bleed+engine+...
and the running engine couldn't provide sufficient pressure to start the other one within the allowed power range. It seems like it was only a start problem due to the APU being unserviceable. Once the engine is running it's like a normal day, albeit without a serviceable APU to fall back on.
The equivalent of a starter motor failed on one of the Tridents engines. He asked the ground engineer if a starter could be removed from a running engine to which the answer was yes.
They pushed back to an outer stand where they started the first engine. Took the starter off that and put it on the dead engine.
When everything was up and running each member of the ground crew went away with a bottle of whisky, bottle of gin & a bottle of champagne.
Steve
caelite said:
Ari said:
'Risk averse' - not being a smartarse, I used to say 'risk adverse' till someone pointed it out to me.
Yeah your entirely correct, entirely didn't realise, as you say it's not exactly obvious, spell checker clears it. Thanks, edited
Sorry, I'll stop now!
k off... Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff