How serious is a cargo fire?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think the Saudi TriStar fire is a fair comparison, that aircraft was clear of the runway and could have evacuated if the crew had depressurised and allowed the cabin staff to open the doors. The captain wasn't aiming to get to the terminal either, he was completely out of the loop, there was no doubt about the fire in that case, none at all, there was smoke in the cabin and considerable heat felt by the CC in the floor area in the cabin, it was a fire fed by hydraulic liquid
Nunc est bibendum
This from the 767 QRH.
(My bolding).
Cargo fire warning and smell of smoke? I'm not going to the terminal.
Master Caution's circumstances were different and he probably did the right thing too.
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.
Cargo fire warning and smell of smoke? I'm not going to the terminal.
Master Caution's circumstances were different and he probably did the right thing too.
It's all too easy to be wise after the event. Do we know whether smoke/fire warning was still annunciated in the cockpit after landing? If so, it would be a no brainer for most of us. Stop, shut down and evacuate right there on the runway.
But, if the warnings had ceased? Test the warning system - yes we should do this after any fire warning has extinguished (but it is surprising how many QRHs don't specify this). So, the system tests normal, no cockpit indication of fire or smoke now. Maybe some residual smell (could be expected after such an event). Now what?
RFF say it's under control, now what?
Company 'culture' and prior training may also be at play. If they are super critical of pilots who chuck pax down slides to the delight of the gathered media, maybe that would explain why they were so keen to make it all appear 'normal'.
Not defending and not applauding; merely playing devil's advocate.
But, if the warnings had ceased? Test the warning system - yes we should do this after any fire warning has extinguished (but it is surprising how many QRHs don't specify this). So, the system tests normal, no cockpit indication of fire or smoke now. Maybe some residual smell (could be expected after such an event). Now what?
RFF say it's under control, now what?
Company 'culture' and prior training may also be at play. If they are super critical of pilots who chuck pax down slides to the delight of the gathered media, maybe that would explain why they were so keen to make it all appear 'normal'.
Not defending and not applauding; merely playing devil's advocate.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took interest in a 1998 study of Cargo Fire Detection / Suppression reliability. It was after my experience some years earlier.
The 1998 study determined that 1 in 500 cargo fire alerts may be false.
This study provided me with 3 learnings;
A. If you have a cargo fire warning probability, says its an actual event.
B. That fire warnings can be triggered by smoke concentrations as low as 4%
C. I was unlucky to experience the event, but lucky enough to be at the terminal with engineers and ground handling in attendance.
MC
The 1998 study determined that 1 in 500 cargo fire alerts may be false.
This study provided me with 3 learnings;
A. If you have a cargo fire warning probability, says its an actual event.
B. That fire warnings can be triggered by smoke concentrations as low as 4%
C. I was unlucky to experience the event, but lucky enough to be at the terminal with engineers and ground handling in attendance.
MC
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it is scenario sensitive.
Framer - 21 evacuations in total 2444 off loaded; 91 fatal and 78 serious damaged.
The reason I mention it, is here we have a situation (sketchy on details) where the options are to park at the gate with a "burning aircraft" or evacuate at a distance. Both present a risk, but assuming the aircraft was actually on fire (no data). If it had to happen, Mstr Caution had the best possible scenario.
If you don't know, for certain sure how bad (or good) the situation is, below decks, where the RFF crews are and if the 'stairs' can be arranged, you're stuck with Hobson's choice. Tough call, but without 'knowing' what, if anything, was alight; I think in this scenario, I'd opt for an attempt at an 'orderly', precautionary, evacuation; far from the terminal as being the lesser of the two weevils. On balance and without being there, given the circumstances and information.
Never had a 'good' fire experience; not even when someone's child set fire to the dunny paper, just for a laugh; they were amazed that I thought it not terribly funny...
Last edited by Kharon; 5th Jul 2014 at 02:50. Reason: Ta 330 – that puts a different slant on it.
From the report it said the Fire warning continued after bottle discharge and based on the smoke coming out of the hold when the door was opened I would suggest the Fire warning WAS present after landing.......
That being the case then it was a brave decision to stay on board and not Evac if you ask me.
That being the case then it was a brave decision to stay on board and not Evac if you ask me.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus FCOM:
"Note: Expect the SMOKE warning to remain after agent discharge, even if the smoke source is extinguished. Gases from the smoke source are not evacuated, and smoke detectors are also sensitive to the extinguishing agent."
Airbus FCTM:
"The crew should be aware that, even after successful operation of the cargo fire bottle, the CARGO SMOKE warning might persist due to the smoke detectors being sensitive to the extinguishing agent."
"Note: Expect the SMOKE warning to remain after agent discharge, even if the smoke source is extinguished. Gases from the smoke source are not evacuated, and smoke detectors are also sensitive to the extinguishing agent."
Airbus FCTM:
"The crew should be aware that, even after successful operation of the cargo fire bottle, the CARGO SMOKE warning might persist due to the smoke detectors being sensitive to the extinguishing agent."
My take on cargo fire-
If you get the warning in the air- Do the Ecam actions- Land ASAP, advise the purser to inform you if there is any sign of heat on the floor (even if that means removing his/her shoes), or sign of smoke in the cabin. If the answer is "Yes"- Evacuate after landing.
After landing stop, and request from fire services if they can see any signs of smoke or fire.
If "Yes" - Evacuate.
If "No" continue to gate and air bridge while still keep Cabin crew on alert. You can always evacuate prior to parking.
Prior to parking inform the fire service NOT to open the holds until all passengers have disembarked.
Disembark all passengers, and your crew then allow the fire services to open the holds.
In the Singapore case-
the report said "
If it had been me that would have been indication enough to initiate an evacuation after landing.
If you get the warning in the air- Do the Ecam actions- Land ASAP, advise the purser to inform you if there is any sign of heat on the floor (even if that means removing his/her shoes), or sign of smoke in the cabin. If the answer is "Yes"- Evacuate after landing.
After landing stop, and request from fire services if they can see any signs of smoke or fire.
If "Yes" - Evacuate.
If "No" continue to gate and air bridge while still keep Cabin crew on alert. You can always evacuate prior to parking.
Prior to parking inform the fire service NOT to open the holds until all passengers have disembarked.
Disembark all passengers, and your crew then allow the fire services to open the holds.
In the Singapore case-
the report said "
During the descent towards Bangkok a burning smell developed on board of the aircraft.
Curious now, I wonder, is it possible to get data on the fatal and serious? In terms of 'how' the accidents occurred. It would be interesting to see what were the cause of the damage. I mean how many missed the slide, or fell off the wing and how many were caused by 'panic-push'; from those behind them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain RH, did you intentionally contradict yourself?
Quote:
During the descent towards Bangkok a burning smell developed on board of the aircraft. "If it had been me that would have been indication enough to initiate an evacuation after landing."
But, prior to that, you qualify it by posing the various differing scenarios - heat through the feet, signs of smoke or fire from the ARFF etc.
So, which is it?
Quote:
During the descent towards Bangkok a burning smell developed on board of the aircraft. "If it had been me that would have been indication enough to initiate an evacuation after landing."
But, prior to that, you qualify it by posing the various differing scenarios - heat through the feet, signs of smoke or fire from the ARFF etc.
So, which is it?
"Don't think the Saudi TriStar fire is a fair comparison, that aircraft was clear of the runway and could have evacuated if the crew had depressurised and allowed the cabin staff to open the doors"
Fair point, but the Saudi accident is a great example that highlights how rapidly a fire went from a warning to the destruction of the aircraft so quickly.
The China Airlines 737 explosion in Japan changed my view about fire and evac. Things can change so f&%*$# quickly.
Fair point, but the Saudi accident is a great example that highlights how rapidly a fire went from a warning to the destruction of the aircraft so quickly.
The China Airlines 737 explosion in Japan changed my view about fire and evac. Things can change so f&%*$# quickly.
Hi Ivan,
Ill try to clarify it.
The following is Generically how I would approach a cargo fire event. -
The next bit is what I would have done had it had been me, in this scenario.
Cargo smoke warning - Do Ecam actions, commence high speed divert to nearest field- declare mayday.
Do a briefing to the purser (we use a NITS format) and ask the purser to keep me updated as to any signs of smoke/fire/hot floor etc in the cabin.
Now as it becomes apparent that there is a burning smell in cabin, then I can assume that the cargo smoke warning is genuine and serious. I would then plan for an evacuation onto the runway after bring the aircraft to a halt and after conducting the Evacuation checklist.
I hope than clears up any contradiction you perceived.
Cheers
Ill try to clarify it.
The following is Generically how I would approach a cargo fire event. -
If you get the warning in the air- Do the Ecam actions- Land ASAP, advise the purser to inform you if there is any sign of heat on the floor (even if that means removing his/her shoes), or sign of smoke in the cabin. If the answer is "Yes"- Evacuate after landing.
After landing stop, and request from fire services if they can see any signs of smoke or fire.
If "Yes" - Evacuate.
If "No" continue to gate and air bridge while still keep Cabin crew on alert. You can always evacuate prior to parking.
Prior to parking inform the fire service NOT to open the holds until all passengers have disembarked.
Disembark all passengers, and your crew then allow the fire services to open the holds.
After landing stop, and request from fire services if they can see any signs of smoke or fire.
If "Yes" - Evacuate.
If "No" continue to gate and air bridge while still keep Cabin crew on alert. You can always evacuate prior to parking.
Prior to parking inform the fire service NOT to open the holds until all passengers have disembarked.
Disembark all passengers, and your crew then allow the fire services to open the holds.
The next bit is what I would have done had it had been me, in this scenario.
Cargo smoke warning - Do Ecam actions, commence high speed divert to nearest field- declare mayday.
Do a briefing to the purser (we use a NITS format) and ask the purser to keep me updated as to any signs of smoke/fire/hot floor etc in the cabin.
Now as it becomes apparent that there is a burning smell in cabin, then I can assume that the cargo smoke warning is genuine and serious. I would then plan for an evacuation onto the runway after bring the aircraft to a halt and after conducting the Evacuation checklist.
I hope than clears up any contradiction you perceived.
Cheers
"then I can assume that the cargo smoke warning is genuine and serious"
Rex, all good points and I agree with your course of action.
However, we should all be aware that a fire can exist in the hold with NO indication other than Eicas or ECAM. It can be fraught with danger to assume a fire warning is "not genuine and serious" simply because there are no secondry indications.
Of course, this is my opinion sitting here in my leather couch watching Simpsons reruns. What I would do at the coal face in a real situation would probably differ.
Rex, all good points and I agree with your course of action.
However, we should all be aware that a fire can exist in the hold with NO indication other than Eicas or ECAM. It can be fraught with danger to assume a fire warning is "not genuine and serious" simply because there are no secondry indications.
Of course, this is my opinion sitting here in my leather couch watching Simpsons reruns. What I would do at the coal face in a real situation would probably differ.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oicur12
at the dawn of fire warning and suppression systems, we were warned.
IF you are carrying live chicks (as in baby chickens) in the cargo hold, their FARTS can trigger a fire/smoke warning.
IT helps to evaluate any fire warning with known (really known) cargo!
at the dawn of fire warning and suppression systems, we were warned.
IF you are carrying live chicks (as in baby chickens) in the cargo hold, their FARTS can trigger a fire/smoke warning.
IT helps to evaluate any fire warning with known (really known) cargo!
"IT helps to evaluate any fire warning with known (really known) cargo!"
I guess so, but does knowing that there are live chicks in the hold really alter your course of action when the fire bell goes? In what way?
A friend of mine had a situation in a wide body where they landed for a fire warning en route knowing that it was probably just the flowers in the hold triggering the alarm.
The local authorities would not let them park at the terminal (as previously mentioned by someone on this thread). So they calmly exited the aircraft via stairs only to find the cargo hold smoldering and damaged upon opening the cargo doors.
I know of two evacuations with injuries that turned out to have been simply live animals in the hold and in neither case was the crew criticized.
If the airline industry has concerns about unnecessary evacuations resulting from bird farts then they can come up with a viable solution to transport these items without triggering fire alarms. Until then, the only false fire alarm is the one viewed with hindsight.
I guess so, but does knowing that there are live chicks in the hold really alter your course of action when the fire bell goes? In what way?
A friend of mine had a situation in a wide body where they landed for a fire warning en route knowing that it was probably just the flowers in the hold triggering the alarm.
The local authorities would not let them park at the terminal (as previously mentioned by someone on this thread). So they calmly exited the aircraft via stairs only to find the cargo hold smoldering and damaged upon opening the cargo doors.
I know of two evacuations with injuries that turned out to have been simply live animals in the hold and in neither case was the crew criticized.
If the airline industry has concerns about unnecessary evacuations resulting from bird farts then they can come up with a viable solution to transport these items without triggering fire alarms. Until then, the only false fire alarm is the one viewed with hindsight.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The boy stood on the burning deck.
Tender # 47 (1) -" if you actually know, how people in high stress situations with high consequences make decisions???
Framer # 49 –"That is just one incident and only my own thoughts so if someone could point us towards a study of how the evacuation injuries actually happen it would really add to this discussion.
Take someone who has never been on a horse, give them a two minute briefing; mount - start – steer – stop – dismount, then step back and say go for it. Lets assume our victim "Vic" manages to step on and gets the beast going in roughly the right direction then something startles the animal and off it goes. There can only be one outcome; tears, if you're lucky; visit to the emergency ward if not. Once Vic realises he has no control and even less idea of how to regain control, panic sets in, which is transmitted to the horse, which, being already paranoid increases it's frantic efforts to flee the danger. Things which were already relatively 'high risk' have moved swiftly to bloody dangerous.
The point of this Sunday ramble is that no matter what steps and decisions the crew make in an emergency situation the unknown element is response from the passengers. Here's Capt Rex, calmly, quietly dealing with his 'smoking hold', plans his evacuation, lands neatly, pulls up and does the checks; the crew in the back are on the ball – all good. It there was a muffled bang and flame shooting out from below decks, a 'routine' situation suddenly has the potential to end in tears. This is where the 'crew' earn their keep; I've seen sophisticated business men hurl little old ladies out of the way, and little old ladies set about a 6' 4" rigger with a handbag, simply because one additional 'element', trigger if you like, was added to the mix. Evacuation, we need to get them off, tout de suite; and until control is lost it's all good. All I am trying to say is it's a situation which needs some quiet contemplation, peer discussion and a little more thought given to the "what if" factor. The choices are unlimited.
For example, operating a much loved, modest, mid weight turbo prop one day, the number 1 donkey had a hissy fit, melted and much to my annoyance caught fire. The FO and I discussed (as you do) what best to do when we landed; good plan, duly executed. The RFF were approaching at speed and as the last man off I set course for less 'busy' area. I could see the crew had the passengers heading well away from the area; I glanced back (as you do) and hit the brakes – there were 6 people, lined up behind the wing staring at the still smoking donkey housing – no, not kidding. Fast 180 and back I go; "Excuse me folks" says I, "would you please follow me and we'll catch up with the rest of the passenger" (Well, words to that effect) "Not without our cheese" replies one worthy, stroppy like. Turns out, they were a group travelling together, who had spent large sums on some exotic cheeses and - they had slipped away from the crowd and wanted to get back on board - to effect a rescue. Happily, the RFF pitched up about then, I have never forgotten the look the WTF look the RFF crew chief gave me, I just shook my head. Needless to say, the passenger were duly 'rescued', sans cheese and not very much ceremony.
'We' train for operational emergencies, the unexpected; but people in a high risk, high stress situation can, will and do the most unbelievable things at the just the wrong time in exactly the wrong place. It's no more their fault than it is Vic's and the unfortunate plug he was riding.
End Sunday 'two bob' worth ramble. FWIW...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the aircraft I fly, the Cargo Fire Boeing QRH checklist does not stipulate an Evacuation. It only stipulates, do not open the Cargo door until passengers are off the aircraft.
However, the Evacuation checklist condition statement indicates if an Evacuation is required, follow this checklist.
In my opinion, Boeing puts the decision & responsibility of Evacuating the aircraft with the Captain.
Hence, my statements earlier. The Captain shall make the decision to Evacuate based on all available information.
MC
However, the Evacuation checklist condition statement indicates if an Evacuation is required, follow this checklist.
In my opinion, Boeing puts the decision & responsibility of Evacuating the aircraft with the Captain.
Hence, my statements earlier. The Captain shall make the decision to Evacuate based on all available information.
MC
And then there is the other side of the argument where sometimes you gotta ask . . . . why evacuate? Unless there was more to the story?
Incident: Air Asia A320 at Bandar Seri Begawan on Jul 7th 2014, runway excursion on landing
Incident: Air Asia A320 at Bandar Seri Begawan on Jul 7th 2014, runway excursion on landing
