Back to Squawk list
  • 52

American Airlines Incident: Hero or Hindrance? Passenger Actions on Flight 2045 Spark Debate

Submitted
Oliver Jankai, a passenger on American Airlines Flight 2045 evacuating to Miami on Friday, likely had a weekend he won’t soon forget. Whether he acted heroically, posed a hindrance, or a mix of both remains uncertain. (www.airguide.info) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


hangar14
Rick D 33
People can be over-trained. I had to take a safety quiz to be allowed to continue volunteering at the aviation museum at our airport. Question #8 read “Can a volunteer use safety equipment that they have not been trained on or authorized to use?” I answered ‘yes’, which the supervisor said was wrong. No, Rick, I was told, you are never allowed to use equipment you have not been specifically trained to use. I said that even though I had not received the required special training, I would use a fire extinguisher if I saw a guest on fire. The supervisor said that the correct action would be to find a trained staff member. Go figure.
polmarik
Rick Polley 48
I would like to see that supervisor on fire, and telling you not to use the fire extinguisher but to go and get someone "Authorized" to use it!
This world is full of Uncaring Brainless Idiots!!!
fireftr
Dale Ballok 4
They were told, no extinguisher was available.
EileenKerrigan
Eileen Kerrigan 12
How could any flight prepare to take off without a fire extinguisher on board?
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 32
You weren't over-trained, you were under-trained and over-managed

[This poster has been suspended.]

yoni17
Welcome to America

[This poster has been suspended.]

JayPowell59
Jay Powell 5
DEI = Didn't Earn It
msetera
msetera 2
Agreed 100%
DracoVolantis
DracoVolantis 22
These days it seems that every action is guided by one overriding concern: "could we be SUED because of this?". If the answer is "yes", people are told "not to do it". Common sense, safety, etc., are no longer factors in decision making...
Jewells67
Julie Parnell 6
Common sense can be difficult to find nowadays. My daughter continued to fail a job test for a very similar response. The answer they always wanted to see was to “find a supervisor to handle the situation”. We are creating followers and not encouraging people to be leaders.
Byrna55
Byrna55 7
And this demonstrates that exact same problem as Boeing has, and many other corporations have today: A bunch of "MBAs" with no experience in real-life engineering, or real-life "logic" or real-life anything, and who are only concerned with return on investment and satisfying the board of directors/investors, are in charge of everything at the company!
ghstark
Greg S 24
Crews rely on training, passengers rely on common sense. Sometimes these two approaches are in conflict, as they apparently were here. Sometimes they can work together, as they also did here. Remember that, whatever interruption Jankai caused to slow evacuation, he also got the hazard off the plane.
raphillips5
Richard Phillips 19
Looks like it was one of those situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I support his decision.
mutrock
Mark Kortum 14
I had to make a decision like that one time when 40 premature babies were in jeopardy of overheating in a NICU when central air failed and could not be quickly repairedd. The maintenance staff had some window units but the windows would not open. I removed the glass for them, with my foot. I caught holy hell! Was time for a new job.
Itsis80
jim sisti 16
Think of it like this- instead of a fire in a bag, what if a skunk had gotten into the back galley from the catering truck unnoticed. As the passengers were taking their seats it sprayed . Seated nearby was a guy who had trapped and hunted as a kid and young man. Realizing the problem, and waiting for help to show up in an unknown time, he jumped up, grabbed the skunk and bolted for the back door, where he tossed the "Little Stinker"( sorry, just had to add that) out the closest door he could before it sprayed again. If the FA back there didn't have the situational awareness to accelerate the removal process, then get the hell out of the way.
An out of control lithium battery fire is a huge safety risk whether in an airplane or in a e bike repair shop or on a hoverboard being charged up in someone's house. This guy identified the source of the fire,the location within the plane, and the number of people at risk of smoke inhalation or suffering burns. Minutes, seconds, matter in every and any emergency. By opening the door and throwing the bag out the primary fire threat was removed. Whether opening the door popped the slide or not, a slide deployment might be a $10,000 maintenance expense. A new 737-800 to replace the one a battery in a laptop burned beyond repairable $58+ Million.
Rather than stonewall the guy ,the crew should have gone into facilitate mode and aided his efforts to save the plane and the passengers.
fireftr
Dale Ballok 25
As a retired firefighter, he did exactly what needed to be done, especially inside the cabin of an occupied plane,by removing the hazard and placing it outside the plane. The plane still needed to be evacuated, due to the fact that this was an emergency, and there was smoke in the cabin. Actually, using an extinguisher on the burning item may have caused more of a problem, than just removing the burning item out of the plane as was done. I’d call it a job well done!
w1cavico
William Cavico 7
Is it possible that doing the simple thing like throwing water on the fire would have been bad ? Couldn't the water and exposed lithium interact making a much worse fire ? "Simple" is not always the best thing to do and most passengers are simple so the regulations have to written to handle the average simple passenger.

In this case the gentleman while keeping the hazard from getting worse didn't realize there are reasons for protocols to be followed. For example, perhaps a passenger may have had a asthmatic attack triggered by the smoke remaining in the cabin.

A classic example : A man collapses in public and a crowd gathers and a newly first aid train woman pushes everyone out the way to administer first aid/CPR. Some one in the crowd says, gently "When you're ready for the doctor I'm already here said the man she pushed out of the way.

Moral : help but yield to the subject matter expert with the protocols.
chris13
Chris Bryant 5
Sorry if this seems like a dumb question, but why were there no extinguishers available???
pulseins
Scott Haas 10
There are extinguishers on the plane but lithium is unstable, burns very hot and very fast and a common extinguisher is of little use. A lithium fire must be smothered or a class D extinguisher is best. Most extinguishers are class ABC (paper, flammable liquids / gas and electrical.) The battery can be dunked in water if it is lithium ion but dunking straight lithium in water will create a bigger fire. The fires escalate so fast it is not possible to take the time to determine the composition. There is a size limit on lithium ion batteries that can be brought aboard, There are fire and explosion deterrent bags and they should be required for all larger LI batteries brought aboard in my opinion.
jmilleratp
jmilleratp 6
You would hope that one Class D Fire Extinguisher would be required per aircraft.
wnoll
William Noll 10
That’s why they have the Lithium bags on board. And their use / location should be part of the pre-flight briefing
MLSellers
tell that to corporate....they do not want the cost to do this.
chris13
Chris Bryant 2
Yeah, I get that, but the quote from the article is this:
"Despite requesting a fire extinguisher from a flight attendant, none was available."

That says to me there were NO fire extinguishers, or they were engaged in fighting other fires. Since the latter isn't true, the former must be.
MLSellers
there ARE extinguishers BUT not the kind that would have helped in this case.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
True, but a class A,B or C fire extinguisher which was likely on board could have prevented any fire from spreading to the aircraft interior….even though its made of fire retardant material. Water might cool an electrical fire below its ignition point temporarily, even foam will starve the device of O2 but these are temporary and it will reignite.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
there must be a procedure in place for this type of fire (courtesy of Samsung), yes? Please? Even if we ignore the chemistry problem, it seems to me that water would be rather impractical on an airplane. There are better ways (like a bag of salt).
MLSellers
there are several extinguishers on board, they are near each jumpiest. That said they are to be used by crew. the extinguishers are water or halon, they are not for lithium fires. This PAX seems to be a bit too pushy about his supposed knowledge of how we as crew operate. I would have probably shoved him out of the A/C myself!
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 8
I doubt the F/A’s would have had time to remove whatever item was causing the smoke/fire from the bag and get it into a Fire Proof pouch. Whether opening the exit door (depending on location) was a great idea or not…..sometimes quick thinking that saves the day should be rewarded with a thank you? As far as hindering evacuation, if I remember right, the evac time is with one emergency door/overwing exit inop.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
Unless the F/A dabbles in bare handed doughnut making for fun, the not enough time problem is probably secondary.
dodger4
dodger4 4
I don't even know why there is a question on this matter. He did exactly what we are taught to do in the event of a lithium battery fire. If you cannot extinguish, chuck it out of the plane - the fumes are toxic. Water to cool it, but the aircraft should have had a special bag in their emergency equipment to smother it.
2sheds
2sheds 4
A ban on Li batteries would ban every smart phone (LiPo). I don't think that's gonna happen.
A bag to contain a fire might create other problems especially if it were sealed tight enough to contain any pressure as it would then create an explosive environment by containing the gases.
Most fully formed (>1 yo) Li cells whether LiPo or LiIon will likely only catch fire because of a charging issue. The FAA needs to step in and address the issue by defining what Li chemistry can and cannot be carried on, etc.
PDLanum
Philip Lanum 3
Yeah, banning L-Ion batteries would make traveling a pain in my behind.
Phone
Laptop
Camera - with three spares
Kindel
Fitbit
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 4
Most passengers I assume haven't been trained to open an emergency door but are asked to do just that if they are seated in an emergency door aisle. Should you wait for a "trained" flight attendant open the door?
wnoll
William Noll 4
The next time you’re sitting aft of the wing, waiting to deplane, watch your fellow passengers struggle with their carry-ons. Those are the people you’ll have the pleasure of evacuating with in an emergency. Ignoring flight crew (including the Captain in this videoed incident) instructions about leaving their bags. This incident clearly illustrated a loss of control of the evac by the Flight Crew. Some passengers even refused to go out the over-wing exits. When flying, pick your seat carefully. Your life may depend on it.
coinflyer
coinflyer 7
There's a lot unclear here. The doors are all manned by FAs at pushback. How could the son "open the door" against the FA's "advice"? That rings hokey. Especially when they were struggling with the smoking bag under their seat. It seems more probable they fortuitously happened to be sitting in an exit row seat and decided to open the window, which makes more sense with him then "disposing the burning bag out the plane". This then makes sense out of the passenger telling the FA that evacuation is no longer necessary. Nevertheless, once the evac order is given (the FAs probably still unsure about what was happening except for hella nasty smoke) the passenger should've complied immediately and without pushback. But I'm purely speculating as to the circumstances.
wnoll
William Noll 5
Sorry, flown plenty of time, and I’ve never seen the crew manning the over-wing exits.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
The article, at least from what I understood doesn’t say whether the aircraft was pushing back or still in the boarding process. if pushing back I get the evac order but the passenger did as previously instructed…..however, if still at the gate I commend the quick thinking, especially on a narrow body.
godutch
godutch 1
I saw after-the-incident pictures...the plane was at the gate and all slides had deployed.
bcarlson56649
Bob Carlson 3
I would have done exactly the same thing. It's just totally against my nature to not help in any way I can in an emergency situation.
LHTtracker
Larry Thompson 2
There is a protocol used in battery fires. There are special bags that the item is placed in and taken to a particular area of the plane. Flight attendants communicate with the Captain and they decide if evacuation is warranted. In the case of a smoke filled d cabin, you would want to get people out. Just opening doors randomly with out instructions can be hazardous in its' own right. If the door has been armed for flight/take-off, the slide will deploy and that plane is not going anywhere until maintenance works on it.
jmilleratp
jmilleratp 2
In any Evacuation: Expect pandemonium.
MLSellers
because everyone want to take their s*it with them.
they do not listen and there will be people hurt because of the selfishness.
Frosty1025
Frosty1025 3
Once an evacuation order is given passengers should not question it. The order is given by the captain and the crew is trained to follow it to completion. That way every one will be on the same page. The guy is not a hero because his actions could have hindered the use of that exit. In this case it did not but blocking and exit once the order was given would delay the exit of other passengers that were too far from the exit they would use. The ground rescue / emergency responders would have been aware of the evacuation order and expect the passengers and crew are following the order. The passenger should at that time follow the flight attendant instructions and evacuate, regardless of whether there was still any need or not.
wnoll
William Noll 4
In the video, much of the evacuation delay was because of passengers retrieving their carry-ons (which if you’ve noticed while deplaning takes -forever-).

If the passenger took decisive actions that saved the plane -and- passengers, regardless of the instructions of a 5’2” FA who clearly lost control of the situation, then they are heroes.

The evacuation practices that supposedly “prove” 90 second evacs are typically done with trained personnel; not a plane load of random people that value their luggage over your life.
DRotten
D Rotten 3
Clearly, the airline/crew/SOME people have a problem with an adult male BEING an ACTUAL MAN and DOING what was NEEDED to be done. Instead of the few who seem to have a problem with Jankai, and his MANLY ACTIONS, this airline needs to be seriously criticized for NOT HAVING A FIRE EXTINGUISHER ABOARD!! Then, after the THREAT was REMOVED from the plane, there was NO REASON/NEED to exit the plane in 90 seconds.
And please do not bring up 'rules'! CRITICAL, LOGICAL THINKING trumps 'RULES'! There is nothing worse than Zombie (aka NON Functioning Brain) Order Followers! (vs a THINKING HUMAN!) As THIS clearly demonstrates >> "Eventually, Jankai’s son decided to open the door due to heavy smoke, against the attendant’s advice". NOPE!!!.....the RULES say that we CANNOT open the door to let the smoke out; you'll all just have to DIE from SMOKE INHALATION!
GOOD GOD!! WHAT has this world come to?!

My 'vote' goes to 'Hero'!!
AirplaneC
C J 0
For someone who likely considers themselves a "THINKING HUMAN", you don't seem to comprehend what is happening here. First of all, stop with the all caps typing...you're not Trump and nobody thinks you're cool because of it. Second, the wording in this article is poor in that there is no way that a fire extinguisher wasn't onboard. In fact, I'd guess that a lithium ion fire bag was onboard but wasn't quickly available. Finally, and this is the big one, the controversy isn't about his "manly actions" (BTW that's an insanely embarrassing phrase to use and says a lot about you) of getting the phone/device out of the aircraft, it's that he held up the evacuation process. As someone who drops very intelligent comments on an aviation forum, I'm sure you understand the importance of adhering to processes and procedures in an aviation environment, right?
watkinssusan
whatever the circumstances,the f/a's are trained to evacuate a fully loaded aircraft from small to large within a 90 second time frame..passengers are ASKED about ability to assist in opening an exit door before they can be seated there..they are NOT however,asked to put out a fire nor block the aisles to keep others from exiting,nor to assist unless the crew is incapacitated..
Bayouflier
Bayouflier 2
Flight attendants also live in a system where blowing a slide is akin to capital murder unless you have a really good reason.(such as a command to evacuate). I don't blame the F/A for refusing to open the door. I also don't blame the passenger for getting rid of the smoking backpack. There's no telling the damage it could have wrought. Sure, it cost AA a blown slide, but no one got hurt.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 0
The airplane was at the gate and all the emergency escape slides on the doors would have been dis-armed as per ops. If it was an overwing exit, I can't comment on whether they incorporate a slide or not on this ac type.
godutch
godutch 4
Although it was at the gate, the slides WERE armed and were deployed. Pictures of the aircraft after the evacuation show all slides deployed.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
What’s not clear is whether the evac command came after he opened the emeg. exit or before. If no evac command was initiated prior, then all the doors would have to be dis-armed. Emeg. exits are never armed at the gate.
godutch
godutch 2
I believe they certainly can be armed depending on where the F/As are in their pre-departure process and safety briefing.
MLSellers
once ANY door is opened in the EVAC mode it is the rule ALL doors are opened.
We get to practice emergencies EVERY year. this guy was not crew, just a guy that had his carryon catch fire. He was a hindrance and needed to shut up and do what the professional tell him to do!
godutch
godutch 2
I don't understand the overall gist of your comment? According to you, Who was wrong? Who was right? ...and why?
watkinssusan
read the article and make your own conclusions..i am merely the EPT flight attendants practice yearly..
ko25701
ko25701 1
The FA is "always right" even when they are wrong! If they were evacuating the aircraft, why weren't all of the doors open? All of facts aren't clear in the story.
ForbesMercy
Forbes Mercy 1
Clearly a hero, he disposed of the cause while others clung to generalized rules, likely with no real idea how to handle a fire. He should be praised, and the FAA schooled on how to react in emergencies. Most regulators have no experience at what rules/laws they pass so when it comes down to it, they end up mandating the opposite of common sense.
CaptJohn1
CaptJohn1 1
Regardless of what happened, you listen to, and obey, the instructions from the flight crew.
HORNETDRIVR
Mike Taylor 1
I could probably train myself in less than a minute by reading the simple and easy instructions printed on the fire extinguisher. But that's just me.
RidgewoodNJ
Barry Morse -1
Every passenger has a duty to obey the crew. If this passenger chose not to, they must have reasoned they would be okay accepting the consequences that could come from that decision. My own opinion is that the father and son should be barred from flying with any commercial carrier for at least a year.
rothenmr
I received training at work and at a fire academy (for non-firefighters) actually putting out different types of fires. I would not have sat idly by with a fire extinguisher mounted to the wall or visible in an overhead compartment watching the crew NOT attempt to use it. However, there is a sink in the bathroom as well as a the crew food prep area that I would have chosen first which would have worked better than a fire extinguisher—as it was handled by fire personnel on the ground.
jamesehugh
James Hugh 0
Lol, what do you expect from San Francisco? A non-San Francisco resident took control, did what needed to be done and the plane should’ve taken off.
AirplaneC
C J 1
You're dumb.
pulseins
Scott Haas -5
The last time I flew I carried on two lithium batteries in fireproof carry cases. Keeping any item with a lithium battery in this type of case, in my opinion, should be mandatory on all flights worldwide. No fireproof bag, no carry. The bags are relatively inexpensive, isolate flames to one-thousand degrees, confine any explosion and starve a spontaneous fire of oxygen.

I can't side with the passenger on this one. Even if the source of the fire is now gone (against sensible protocol on the passenger's part) the fire may have spread invisibly and cruising altitude is not when you want to discover the hidden ember. The number one goal is to evacuate as rapidly as possible and arguing with the flight attendant is counterproductive and dangerous. I also saw from the report on this incident passengers were trying to grab their carry-on from the overhead bin. Not smart. And I don't believe a common fire extinguisher will work on lithium fires very well.

It worked out well this time but the man is not a hero. It could have also gone very badly since these batteries can literally explode into a fireball and it would be best kept in a confined area and let fire crews manage the fire.
CHRISMORGAN
CHRIS MORGAN 9
Imagine the panic that would have ensued if the batteries had exploded into a fireball!! Maybe the passenger was also aware of this possibility and decided that any explosion/fireball was less dangerous outside of the aircraft and acted accordingly.
The fundamental issue is, of course, that evacuating an aircraft in 90 seconds is, in most cases, just pie in the sky. I have had a window seat and the 2 passengers sitting with me were, shall we say somewhat overweight, they could not have got out of their seats in 90 seconds, let alone out of the aircraft.
It is no secret that people are getting bigger as airline seats are getting smaller as they push for greater profit and safety is the loser.

[This poster has been suspended.]

CHRISMORGAN
CHRIS MORGAN 3
Sorry but I disagree - for example 777's used to be 3-3-3 in economy but now many airlines operate 3-4-3 with an extra person in each row. More seats equals more money, it's always about the money and the current difficulties being experienced at Boeing are a clear result of driving down the bottom line at the expense of everything else.
godutch
godutch 2
The seating AND the interior design and colors are selected by the customer and INSTALLED by the manufacturer.
dwight666
D Chambers 2
The seating configuration is selected and paid by the AIRLINES, not the manufacturers.
CHRISMORGAN
CHRIS MORGAN 2
I know that it is the airlines that tell the manufacturers what they want, and I thought my comment made it clear that it was the airlines that were maximizing their seating density.
The point is that Airlines ARE cramming in more seats and it IS about their bottom line. And squeezing ten people into a space that was originally designed for nine will obviously compromise safety.
MLSellers
Mildred Sellers -4
this guy threw it out and could have harmed the ground crew.
HE WAD WRONG
I too believe lithium batteries need to be either banned or in the fireproof bags.
Itsis80
jim sisti 5
Having worked the ramp for 35 years Mildred, I appreciate your concern for us. That said, from what I recall seeing the bag had been thrown out on the ramp on the left side of the fuselage,and this is not a work area for loading or unloading an airplane Even potable water service is not in the area he would have been able to hit . And even if the bag had been thrown out on the right side, rampers are pretty aware of their surroundings, especially if a door pops open and a flaming, smoking bag is being flung out.
iflyrjs
terry gersdorf -3
Definitely his fault
dodger4
dodger4 3
It certainly was NOT his faul6. Read my post. He did exactly the right thing as we are trained to.
CHRISMORGAN
CHRIS MORGAN 2
"Definitely his fault" - why??
1] The problem has been identified and is filling the cabin with smoke, and there is the risk of an explosion/fireball (as has been identified by other contributors)
2) I don't know how many passengers were on the aircraft but we do know it took three minutes to get them off.
3) The simple choice is either to remove the threat from the passengers or alternatively remove the passengers from the threat.
4) Clearly, in this case, the former was by far the quickest and the safest - He did the right thing.
skyeagle
We don’t the facts of what really happened on that flight.
We cannot jump to conclusions or speculate about unknown facts.
I would say is , flight attendants should notify the captain immediately and communicate clearly what happened about that incident.
It’s the trained crew that should have taken immediate control of the situation and come with a solution.
The passenger should not interfere with a safety issue unless appropriately instructed or approved to by the crew..
As for the battery, it’s a breach of safety that went through security.
wnoll
William Noll 3
There’s a video. Passengers and crew failed miserably. This guy was a hero. How was the battery (required to be -with- the owner, a breach of safety that made it through security? Doubt the battery was a run-away in the X-ray machine.
Virgint
T K 0
remind me why your're not allowed to smoke on the tarmac again ?
rothenmr
Because it’s a nasty habit and some of us have COPD, asthma or other breathing ailments.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss