Question regarding smoke in cabin

[NEDude]

Well, you gonna go apologize now?

Gup

Huh??

 

[Club ORD FO]

And how are you going to "pop" the psu open? Have you ever seen the latches on the psu doors?

you mean you have never dropped the rubber jungle on landing? the RJ-200 latches are not that strong, I can assure you of that

 

[erj-145mech]

you mean you have never dropped the rubber jungle on landing? the RJ-200 latches are not that strong, I can assure you of that

The Embraers must be stouter than the Canucks. The PSU's latches resemble a glove compartment door latch.

Either that or you need to practice your landing technique?

 

[ultrarunner]

.....A guy in the crashpad got chewed out at his last checkride because check airman insisted that you should put out masks in the event of cabin smoke to "at least give the passengers a chance"....

Did your crash-pad buddy follow the checklist or not?

Simple as that!

 

[NEDude]

Did your crash-pad buddy follow the checklist or not?

Simple as that!

Supposedly it was during the oral, not in the sim. Apparently the check airman was asking some judgement questions. Long story short, the check airman was trying to make a point that checklists are not always all-inclusive noting that apparently in this company (not going to say which one), on this aircraft (ERJ-145), the memory action items for a rejected takeoff do not include using brakes.

So his point was even though the checklist didn't call for passenger O2 masks in that situation, a good thinking captain should know to deploy them anyway. And as I stated, apparently he even got a bit personal in his verbal attack on this guy.

 

[ultrarunner]

OK, NE, I can buy some of that...judgement calls, etc...

But for something as critical as smoke, fire, etc..

If the manufacture doesn't want me doing something, I'm probably not going to second-guess that decision in the heat of passion while running the emer checklist immediate-action items.

As others have mentioned, most manufactures ONLY have you deploy pax O2 in the event of a depressurization NOT related to fire/smoke in the cabin. And for good reason, as discussed.

It's that way in the aircraft I fly.

 

[jetracer5]

This is why you don’t add more O2 to a fire inside a O2 deprived tube! Air Canada Flt 797. No visible fire just a lot of smoke for over 15min. After the plane landed and they opened the doors all the NEW O2 fueled the fire and the cabin erupted in flames. Sadly only half the pax made it out alive.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3161558782373246855


I cant even believe we are debating about this? I'm just a regional FO and I know better than to do something stupid like add more O2 to a fire! As a pax I would rather be over come by smoke and pass out then burned in a fire!

 

[NEDude]

OK, NE, I can buy some of that...judgement calls, etc...

But for something as critical as smoke, fire, etc..

If the manufacture doesn't want me doing something, I'm probably not going to second-guess that decision in the heat of passion while running the emer checklist immediate-action items.

As others have mentioned, most manufactures ONLY have you deploy pax O2 in the event of a depressurization NOT related to fire/smoke in the cabin. And for good reason, as discussed.

It's that way in the aircraft I fly.

I was not advocating deploying masks, nor am I defending this check airmans actions.

This whole thing started when a bunch of us, on reserve, watched the Seconds From Disaster show about the Valujet flight. It was noted that the pilots did not deploy the O2 masks for the passengers (nor did they put their on either) which led to the guy in my crashpad telling us about his recent PC and the 'discussion' with the check airman about this exact scenario.

We all said the same thing, do not deploy the masks, but were just curious as to what the general consensus was from a larger group.

You have answered our questions. Thank you all.

 

[igneousy2]

If I couldn't get one of the the o2 bottle I would go for the PBEs for sure.