Hi, There are two ways to deal with an uncontrolled engine fire.
1 - Gear down, Flaps and land asap : 3 to 4 mins
2 - Perform a standard pattern : 8 to 10 mins
I was wondering, how long can you expect to stay alive with an uncontrolled engine fire ? I can not find written somewhere which way is the best.
Thanks for you answer.
You shot the bottles and it still is burning? I would LAND ASAP!! The (engine) fire is uncontrolled...and there are some youtube videos of entire planes (737 in China, 340 in Canada) burning down entirely in less than 10 minutes.
On the E195 the engines are certified to burn for 15 minutes. I don't know if that means uncontained fire or just a "bog standard" fire or if there's a difference.
Nevertheless I'd be landing ASAP, even consider a turn back to the reciprocal runway rather than the full circuit.
.. but keep in mind that management of such an emergency is a balance between competing risks. There is not much point implementing a low level quick return (which is good from the fire consideration) if, in so doing, you end up with a CFIT .. you are just as dead as if the wing burnt off.
It follows that the optimum risk solution will vary according to circumstances .. which will include experience and skill levels, location, etc.
This Report may be the one you are thinking of (?) .. but is of an accident which might not have been quite so successful had the crew attempted a leisurely trip around the circuit instead of putting the aircraft back onto the runway ....
Location: Kerikeri, New Zealand or Noosa Queensland. Depending on the time of year!
Age: 69
Posts: 99
What if that uncontrollable fire occurs half way across the Pacific is it better to do a controlled ditching whilst the aircraft is still flyable, or hope that the fire will blow itself out before the wing is burned through ????
The engines on a B-747 are designed to separate at the pylon mounts and rotate over the wing under certain circumstances - but uncontrollable fire was never mentioned as one of them.
I know what actions I would have taken under the those circumstances - fortunately I never had to make that decision.
"... uncontrollable fire ... is it better to do a controlled ditching ...?"
There is a news service photo of an airliner on ground after a forced landing, the caption cities several famous movie stars aboard, in the crowd around the airliner:
PAA / 18Jun46 Lockheed Constellation NC????? [Can't read ##'s in Acme photo shown on pg 1 of _Air Line Pilot_ , June '48]. Near tragic in flight fire that imperiled 51 passengers and crew .... Force landed near Willimantic, Conn, to avert disaster -- one of its four engines caught fire and fell from the plane due to its supporting structure weakened and eaten away by heat . . . . Flaming outboard engine had fallen from starboard side, leaving a gaping hole in the wing.
Location: Kerikeri, New Zealand or Noosa Queensland. Depending on the time of year!
Age: 69
Posts: 99
In April of 1968 a BOAC B707 suffered an engine fire just after T/Off. Due to a combination of errors by the operating crew this led to an uncontrollable fire. During the turn back to Heathrow the number two engine pylon weakened by the fire failed and the engine fell from the aircraft. Despite the loss of the engine the fire continued to burn fiercely and shortly after touchdown there was a massive explosion which seperated the port wing. Subsequent fire destroyed the aircraft.
We are all familiar with the three elements equired for fire to exist Fuel/Oxygen/Ignition. In an uncontrollable fire we have to assume that the correct procedures have already been carried out, fire handles pulled and both fire extinguishers discharged - but the fire still exists
In an uncontrolled fire Oxygen & Ignition are self evident with the most likely source of fuel being a ruptured fuel line or S.O.V. which has failed to close. (As was the case on the B-707 above). It is the torching effect of this burning fuel which can lead to further damage to the wing and a possible loss of the aircraft.
It is a risk assessment situation as most are, I agree. Once youre on fire (in y opinion) its back to basics though...fly towards a runway, gear, flaps, touchdown, brakes and evacuation.
In full IMC you have to go with (short) vectors anyway and the non flying can do the QRH procedures as far as possible.
Though it is not an engine fire if you have time read the Swissair report...
Would be interested to hear what the procedures are for ultra long haul ops.
XW666 ditched in the Moray Firth on 16th May, when both starboard engines caught fire during a test flight. Captained by Flt Lt Art Stacey, the aircraft was being test-flown from RAF Kinloss following a major inspection. The engine fire began about 30 minutes after takeoff. When the onboard fire suppression system failed to extinguish the fire, Flt Lt Stacey was forced to ditch the aircraft before the wing structure burnt through (the strength of the starboard wing's rear spar had deteriorated by 25% after 4 minutes of the fire). Fortunately conditions for ditching were ideal, and all seven crew members were able to get into dinghies before being picked up by a Sea King HC.3 from Lossiemouth. The wreckage was recovered from 70ft of water.
I was wondering, how long can you expect to stay alive with an uncontrolled engine fire ? I can not find written somewhere which way is the best.
You're not going to find anything written about how long you've got...because any number of possible circumstances might have occurred which caused the fire. How long depends on the cause and the reason you can't contain it. How long the fire burns is really quite irrelevant, because you're going to take what action you can. If you don't make it, you don't make it, and if you do make it, then the time is irrelevant.
A friend of mine died a year ago in an uncontained fire when it broke out 300' in the air on takeoff. He burned all the way to the ground, a short distance away, in a P2V.
Several years ago as I approached an uncontrolled field at pattern altitude, I began to smell smoke. I executed an overhead break pattern as I passed over the runway and made immediately for the numbers. By the time I passed over the numbers landing, it was hard to see in the cockpit, and by the time I reached the first runway exit, it was difficult to see because of the smoke obscuring visibility and burning my eyes. My lungs felt like they were on fire, and I had little doubt I was on fire. It happened fairly quickly, and while fortunately I was literally approaching and over an airport, any earlier or any delay in addressing the problem, could have been costly.
Most of the time, and engine fire is not a big deal. Other times it's a very big deal. An emergency may very well be such that it's not survivable or recoverable. Your fate is sealed from the start. The loss of the Valuejet DC-9 in the swamp is a good example. They didn't sand a chance.
As for the second part of your question, you're asking which procedure is best...getting on the ground as soon as possible, or taking your time to fly a full pattern while burning to death. Is this really such a difficult choice?
In the "ole days" an accepted procedure was to accelerate - downwards if necessary - and try to blow the fire out....................it sometimes worked on piston engined aircraft of world war 2.
I can't imagine many fires staying alight at .95 mach - which most modern airliners could achieve without breaking up.
In my previous company it was always a source of debate - even up to 747 Classics - whether you accelerated to try and blow the fire out or crash-landed (or ditched) with a burning engine. You can't do both.........................dunno the answer, luckily !
I can't imagine many fires staying alight at .95 mach - which most modern airliners could achieve without breaking up.
Certainly useful in theory, but what if structural damage was a potential factor? I certainly wouldn't want to stress the airframe if the fire had been eating away at the wing box
Linear Mode
