Originally Posted by
megan
John was the check and trainer on the CAF's big pistons, C-131, B-24, Connie, C-46, B-29 to name a few, and flew a few WWII single engine fighters, including the Zero. Had extensive C-46 experience in Asia early in his career with Air America. At time of retirement was the worlds highest time 747 driver.
But I'd sure listen Chris, and of course context, aircraft type etc may be influencers. Light twins have had the wing fail as a result of engine fire impacting spar integrity, no fire bottles to help.
FWIW I've read John Deakin's expanded emergency checklist for the C-131 (CV-340) and, admittedly from my perspective of zero experience on type, it looks to be an excellent contribution.
Some posters seem to have inferred that, following any in-flight fire, Mr Deakin's policy is to force-land on land or water regardless of the outcome of the fire drill. This, however, is what he has written - as previously quoted by
climber314:
"For ANY fire in-flight, the first thought must be to GET DOWN. Major fires in these old airplanes can cause structural failures in less than 60 seconds (there is film to prove it), and it will take not less than three minutes to get this airplane down to sea level from 9,000 feet or so. If the fire is brought under control, it's easy enough to stop the descent, and then evaluate the options.
With a serious fire on board, DO NOT attempt to "stretch" the flight to some airport that is even a short distance away. Put the airplane down in the water, or anywhere, under control.
Even without fire, water is by far the best bet for an emergency landing. With a fire, you're carrying a major fire to the scene, where fuel tanks are very likely to burst. A water landing can only help."
Note that he is addressing the event of a "major" or "serious" fire. Well, I think we would agree that ANY fire is a serious matter. His advice to descend immediately is to cover the case in which, subsequently, the fire cannot be extinguished. At the same time, he emphasises the need not to rush the engine fire drill:
"Both crewmembers should agree that the failure warrants a shutdown, and should confirm with each other which engine it is. It is far better to take it slowly, than to get it wrong."
His advice not to "stretch" the flight to the nearest airport evidently refers to the case where the fire has not been promptly extinguished and/or there is reason to suspect the airframe is structurally compromised. Otherwise:
"If the fire is brought under control, it's easy enough to stop the descent, and then evaluate the options."
Returning to the case in question, IMHO we do not yet have sufficient information to explain either why the crew of ZS-BRV apparently decided to leave the #1 engine running on fire, or why they decided to stay airborne as long as they did. Mr Deakin's preferred option of a landing on water was not available.
Hi
gcal,
Yes, the shocking fate of many of the 18 who survived the Viscount forced-landing to which I referred is well documented, and I felt it was not relevant to this thread.