By the looks of this article, the media again seems to have the whole story: Fire "breaks out", "blaze", "inferno", and other choice words are used.
Was there ever any real fire? Or even any smoke? By the looks of the article and hearing the passenger interviews in the video, it appears there was no fire or even any smoke.
Why does the media get a free pass to embellish the story to make it sell?
Instead of "plane catches fire, lands in Albany", how about "pilots receive cargo fire warning, make emergency landing in Albany"?
Unless there was a blaze and I was missing something, why do we allow the media to react like this?
And in a related story, why do so many PIC's give the EVAC command to dump 150 people on the Tarmac with out any forethought? Two recent examples is this one and Southwest in LGA (nose gear collapse). If there is a REAL threat to passenger safety, by all means EVAC. But EVACs notoriously lead to injuries that otherwise would not be sustained by a "expeditious deplaning".
Did anyone see the video comparing the two virtually identical actual engine fire scenarios caught on film (I believe one was DAL), where one evacuated into fire suppression efforts (injuring several), and the other allowed CFR to work the problem and put out the fire and allow the aircraft to deplane with stairs?
This was a wonderful training video, showing calm planning, response, and risk assessment. Nowadays it seems, no matter what - blown tire, brake fire, nose collapse, or even a cargo smoke indication - it's blow the slides and bail over the side. Why not give CFR a chance to roll up to you and assess? They are on scene in literally seconds.