This weeks safety report shows 2 cargo compartment fire indications handled completely differently in the latest reporting period. One crew fires a bottle to the compartment and lands at nearest suitable airfield. Another crew fires the bottle and apparently deemed the fire extinguished and continued to destination. Opinions?

Hello TOGA

I think it is hard to judge if the smoke source is extinguished because it is likely that the smoke light (Airbus) remains on due to the source or ext. residuals. In any case a very bold move to continue the flight..

Cheers

I don't think you can ever justify continuing flight to anywhere other than the Nearest Suitable after any Cargo Fire Warning.

I am also quite amazed that Pilots with this level of experience would decide to continue on to Destination.

Standby for clarification via way of EK FCI.

I remember about 2 years back an A340 crew being praised in the quarterly propaganda rag on continuing across the Tasman after take off from Christchurch and getting an Avionics smoke warning.

:ugh:

This is what the Boeing 777 QRH says,among other things, about smoke and fire.

It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively
confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing,
and evacuation must be done.

Now I wasn't there on the night but that statement is pretty convincing to me about not continuing to destination. The fire may well be suppressed by the completion of the Fire Cargo procedure but may not be completely extinguished so in my mind it would not be awfully wise to continue flying for another 8 or 9 hours especially across large expanses of water.

Correct me if I'm wrong but cargo smoke " land ASAP " red ? ( sorry can't remember ), either way, a very brave/stupid crew to continue to destination.

Any pressure on ek pilots to go on flying whatever is going on ...? something more than a warning letter ?

I would never feel under pressure to carry on flying if I thought my aircraft was on fire!:ugh:

However this rule of fear has encouraged some of our otherwise decent pilots to make some questionable decisions, many of which I could recite, but in the interests of protecting all of us, I wont!

Be sensible, safe and conservative chaps........ Just like you used to be in your old airlines!

The airline may have changed, but I'm sure you haven't.
:ok:

Well its always nice to read all the experts opinions and wannabe Cracks....

If you read the report it was not a fire warning, but only a cargo smoke warning for 10 to 15 seconds. It disapeared after that for the whole flight.

:ok:Good airmanship to continue the flight, because they had tons of fresh roses in the cargo compartment and it is pretty normal to get smoke warning with any humid freight. Same goes for fruits such as mango Kiwi etc etc.
Why are pilots their biggest enemys???? :confused:

And I saw the 777 land in Chennai 6 years ago (EK enroute DXB-SIN) that had had a brief smoke warning... When they opened the cargo door and pulled a burning suitcase out (I've still got the photos....) I thought "oh why didn't they carry on across the Bay of Bengal 'cos it's only a brief smoke warning - not a fire warning"

Sandhound - who gives a monkey's about the roses????????????:ugh::ugh:

Sandhound quote.....
Good airmanship to continue the flight, because they had tons of fresh roses in the cargo compartment .....

Good airmanship to continue because it was "Only a cargo smoke warning"? Is this what they teach as airmanship and/or judgement to the new, greenhorn cadets at the puppy-mill flying academies these days? :eek:

Simply insane to gamble the lives of crew and pax, betting that one knows the source of a cargo smoke warning, or other warnings, and guessing that it's benign.

Those kinds of losing bets are liberally scattered throughout accident reports.

:ugh:

"who gives a monkey's about the roses????????????"

Precisely! Let's say for the sake of argument there is only a 1 in 10 chance of there being an actual fire. Are you willing to roll those dice? That is exactly what you are doing should you choose to ignore the warning...rolling the dice with your life as well as all the others on board.

Sandhound, I think you should seriously consider a change of career if you honestly believe what you wrote, that this was an example of good airmanship!
On the contrary, this was merely an example of a huge gamble, that on this occassion didn't cost anyone their life!
Use to be that airlines and their pilots believed and lived the concept of operation: Safety, Passenger comfort, Commercial. The good old days when airmanship was taught and expected!

It’s always funny to me how easily everyone makes judgments from our armchairs…
We are talking about a very reputable airline here, I don’t fly for them but I would imagine the guys that do get pretty decent training. So how can we, without knowing half of the information, just decide that they made the wrong call (ok well that’s what most people in this thread have said, just in not so many words). We don’t know why they carried on; perhaps the destination was the most suitable alternate or the destination was more suitable than the nearest piece of tarmac. :confused:
Either way my point is, even though this is a rumor network, perhaps we should give our colleagues the benefit of the doubt… after all we are trained and trained and retrained to make decisions it’s not by luck crews generally get it right.

for those of you " overly commercially (un)aware - I have to think about my managers bonuses first! ... lack of common sense and airmanship....," no backbone, I like to call myself a pilot.......

SwissAir 111 crashed in the cold dark Atlantic (with Total oss of life)because they thought they could put the fire out (and finish checklists) instead of landing immediately.......!!!!!!!! I guess your family was not on that flight was it??! Yeah, I guess not :ouch:... landing checklist complete!!

thazright,

Your comment on 111 contradicts the investigators findings, which said that they would have not made it to the airport anyway even if they'd skipped the jettison as the electrical fire spread so rapidly in the flight deck. :(

Just a few examples of inflight fires that I can remember: Swissaire, ValuJet over the Everglades, AirCanada over KCVG (circa 1980), ValuJet on t/o in KATL, UPS DC8 KPHL. Anyone want to guess the outcome of each one of those-aircraft destroyed.

During your interview assesment simulator at EK, did they not give you a cargo fire? Anyone remember how you "passed" the ride and did not return immediately to the airport? I think not. IMHO, smoke or fire anything in flight-aircraft to airport, NOW. Roses? Is that the only thing in the cargo hold? No luggage, no wiring......?:confused:

This issue raises more questions about the smoke detection system than it does about decision making. Why is it that a crew, any crew not just this one, would doubt the warning and think it false? If AB have detectors that are regularly subject to false indications then why have them at all if they are now subject to doubt? If AB can't fix them, then some very specific guidance should be issued on how to deal with them.... Or the next suspected false warning may not end so well .

Praise Jebus quote...

This issue raises more questions about the smoke detection system than it does about decision making. Why is it that a crew, any crew not just this one, would doubt the warning and think it false? If AB have detectors that are regularly subject to false indications then why have them at all if they are now subject to doubt? If AB can't fix them, then some very specific guidance should be issued on how to deal with them.... Or the next suspected false warning may not end so well .

In aviation we've been down this road many times before.

The same type of erroneous or false warnings existed with the first GPWSs. Crews began to ignore them and inevitably there were CVRs dug from smoking holes that revealed GPWS warnings in the background with nary a comment from the crew right up until the time of impact. Lesson learned; don't assume just because a system isn't perfected that the warning is false.

Same thing for TCAS with some of the software when it first came out. Glitches, and crews began questioning them. After enough near misses due to lack of response by questioning/untrusting crews even in IMC, the directive that you follow them before questioning, and even in contradiction to ATC instructions , was enacted and made clear. Unfortunately, it took the DHL incident over Europe to get everyone on the same page regarding following TCAS warnings, then ask questions later.

So cargo smoke detectors are nothing new when it comes to imperfect systems and the insidious road that can be taken by a gambling crew straight to an accident site. The lesson in every case of these systems designed to prevent catastrophe is to act conservatively and let the engineers figure out the problem when you're safely on the ground. As flying professionals with trusting souls in the back, that's what we are paid for.

This particular system, or procedures for loading/transporting certain cargo that ensures it does not set off false warnings won't be changed or improved until it becomes inconvenient for the company, or a disaster occurs because the crew was lulled into a false sense of security/inaction. Crews ignoring such warnings...gambling with lives and getting away with it.... are enabling the problem's continuation until the holes line up and the inevitable disaster occurs.

A few months back there was a suspected cargo fire after departure from DB. They turned back, landed and shut down just off the runway to get everyone off because they couldn't be sure a fire was not still burning.

Unfortunately off 30L they stopped near 'W' near F25 so of course all the knob-knockers were standing in the COC with their faces against the windows, all ringing the capt to tell him what to do.

"Why isn't he answering his company mobile?!?!?!?"

"Tell him to move it off the taxiway!!!"

"What's he DOING?!?!??"

Knobs. Why can't they keep out of it?

The same type of erroneous or false warnings existed with the first GPWSs. Crews began to ignore them and inevitably there were CVRs dug from smoking holes that revealed GPWS warnings in the background with nary a comment from the crew right up until the time of impact.There was the (in)famous instance where a South American airliner crashed, killing all on board, and the last words on the CVR, heard quite clearly over the GPWS aural warning, was "Shutup Gringo."

I too was somewhat gobsmacked to read the post from the muppet who asked us all to consider the flowers and their commercial value. Is the guy really an EK line pilot?

More likely to be EK management.

Concur. .

From the EK FOM:
Choice of Airfields
◊ In the following cases, a landing must be
effected at the nearest Suitable Airport:
n Any fire on board an aircraft, including
engines, if fire fighting is not possible
or not effective. [...]
n Persistent smoke of unknown origin.

as long as you can effectively fight the fire and/or the smoke does not persist you have the option to continue (to a better suitable diversion airport or destination) available to you rather than land at the nearest 'suitable' airfield that could offer rather basic facilities sometimes (polar area, down under, china, africa...).
:)

Cargo smoke..... How can you tell if it's persistent or not? Again to refer to the VOMM incident the smoke warning came - WENT - and came AGAIN after they thought it wasn't persistent....

A burning suitcase came out of that hold.......

So - take that part of the FOM and throw it. Work to FOM 1.01 instead!!!!

Is that the FOM with the important paragraph about not having any caviar on the flight deck? And don`t get me started on duty and flight time chapter.
Clear and concise is not what comes to mind.

Fjordviking

Hi fjord.. yes the same book saying that a new can of caviar shouldn't be opened just because a flight crew wants it but also says it's ok to enjoy caviar if a can has already been opened for passenger service.
In my view the FOM is just another tool with some good and bad policies in it. It's stupid to apply it word by word but would be unwise to disregard it completely because after all it's there to tell you how the airline (any airline) wants you to run their business.
Whatever it is as long you keep it safe, legal and can support your decisions with solid reasons it doesn't matter if you put it down in Cocos or continue if that's the best course of action for you on that day.
:)