Ek Cargo Fire [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

30th Sep 2003, 04:34

Looks like they made it down to earth safely:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=208460

Emergency landing for Emirates Airlines
SWATI DAS

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 10:42:19 PM ]

CHENNAI: Emirates Airline flight from Dubai to Singapore (EK-404) made an emergency landing at Meenambakkam airport here on Monday morning after smoke was detected in the luggage section while flying over the Indian peninsula.

All passengers (309) and 18 crew members aboard the flight had a miraculous escape after the smoke detection alert went off in the cargo section and the Boeing 777-300 was diverted to Chennai.

All the passengers and crew disembarked safely and were accommodated in hotels, according to a statement from the airline.

Apparently the plane crew had activated extinguishers immediately after the smoke alert in the cargo section. "The cause of the smoke is being investigated," the statement said.

Another Boeing 777-300 is expected to be flown from Dubai to arrive in Chennai at 8.10 pm IST with personnel and equipment "to fix the original aircraft". This replacement aircraft would pick up the passengers and continue to Singapore, departing from Chennai at 9.45 pm.

"Emirates regrets the inconvenience that the diversion has caused to the passengers and will do everything necessary to minimise it. The safety of our passengers and crew is paramount to Emirates and will never be compromised," the airline statement added.

Noctivaga

30th Sep 2003, 04:38

Dani, I think that you are totally wrong in this case. I have to agree with ManaAdaSystem. A cargo fire, or any fire for that matter is one of the worst things that can happen in an aircraft. If it is serious enough to declare Mayday, it is serious enough to get your ass on the ground as soon as possible, or even faster. After reading the transcript of the SR 111 accident, one of the very powerful lessons was how the crew was dealing with what seemed a very minor technical problem that very suddenly turned into a major crisis. You simply can't wait for some one in Operations to 'advise'. Dumping the aircraft into Chennai costs time, fuel, and perhaps embarrassment on the part of the crew if it turns out to be unnecessary. Compare those costs if you will with the cost to the SR 111 crew. Without diminishing for any moment the very real costs to the company involved in an emergency diversion, they simply pale into insignificance.
I have had the very unpleasant experience of cockpit smoke, resulting in a Mayday, and diving into Haneda in the middle of the night. 45 tonnes of fuel got dumped in the process, and we took a delay of 18 hours before getting to destination. As it happened, the diversion was 'unnecessary', as the smoke came from a fried rheostat which posed no fire threat. Upon return to the head office, the discussion with the 'powers that be' revolved around what I could have done differently that would have resulted in getting my craft on the ground sooner than the 18 minutes that it took me from FL330.
My personal opinion, and that of my employer is that fire indication is to be taken very seriously, and never delay the decision to get onto the ground due to any operational 'cost' factor. Without knowing the B777 checklist, I know that on my aircraft a fire indication means Land As Soon As Possible. There is no reference to 'ask Operations for guidance'. They called a Mayday, therefore I presume that they believed the threat was real. If hindsight reveals that there was no threat, then you are only out money and a red face. No big deal. Anyone who has flown professionally has had ample experience being embarrassed, and the money is the company's, not mine,and not yours.

drive a bus

30th Sep 2003, 05:46

I do agree with NOCTIVAGA. Why to wait for OPS decission when I fired a bottle? Why to waste time when the ship is on fire. I still have the SR pictures in my mind. There is no time to ask questions when you have that kind of warning. Maybe it´s a false one, but than they should ask the engineers how this can happen. Of course they will ask a lot of questions when you divert. But at the end of the day, it´s my ass sitting at FL 330 with that warning.

Forget about that "airmanship-thing", forget about money. In my checklists is a red ASAP - and I will follow. For me, the crew and the pax.

hobie

30th Sep 2003, 06:38

I'm with NOC on this one .....

"LASAP" sounds a very good strategy to me .....

cheers ... hobie ....

ps. "Land as soon as possible"

Airbubba

30th Sep 2003, 06:59

>>...A cargo fire, or any fire for that matter is one of the worst things that can happen in an aircraft. If it is serious enough to declare Mayday, it is serious enough to get your ass on the ground as soon as possible, or even faster...<<

Amen brother, amen.

Cargo fire detectors have been known to be unreliable in humid climates, at least one incident was blamed on durians in the hold.

Still, even a third world airline like EK should have land ASAP as the first course of action. Let the geniuses on the ground figure out what happened.

AC, SR and others have learned the hard way about inflight fire warnings.

Bally Heck

30th Sep 2003, 07:17

Third world airline Airbubba?

Educate yourself and take a trip to Dubai with EK. You will be very pleasantly surprised by both.

Plastique

30th Sep 2003, 07:20

It appears that both OEM's are moving over to Optical Smoke Detectors.
I have seen cases of Durians, fog (generated by the aircon) and insecticide setting the detectors off. There have been two cases of cargo fire bottles being discharged on landing/taxi-in in Hong Kong in the recent months - one SAA, one CPA, both A340-600's.
The fine fog that gets generated when the highly humid air gets into the cargo hold has been blamed in both cases.

Airbus are investigating, suggestions from them to ignore the warning for 10 seconds are not being warmly received, but looking at the pilot feedback, it looks like a 10 second confirm time is sufficient to weed out the spurious warnings and not have a significant effect on the outcome if it is a real fire.

fire wall

30th Sep 2003, 07:45

From memory the investigators summize that the flight deck of SR 111 was uninhabitable after less than 11 minutes due to hot molten metal from the o/head panel falling down on the F/O's seat......if you take anything away from this tragedy take this..."when IT happens it will happen quick.....it will not be the drawn out process that we all go through every 6 months in the simulator"
This EK crew spend 8 minutes asking someone far removed from the problem for advice. Got to raise some questions in the least.
Furthermore, the SIN - DXB routing which passes overhead Madras involves some seriously large o/water distances........fortunately the smoke indication happened in the proximity of madras.......what if it had happened just west of Port Blair...or on the southern route which passes o/head Colombo to keep you out of the H/winds... where you are right on the edge of the 180 minute etops range.....a long way from the nearest peice of tarmac. Hear in lies the problem with pushing for greater etops distances........the engines may be sh1t hot but it isnt always an engine problem that forces the diversion.....the distance of which and thus by virtue the time to execute the diversion getting progressively longer as our regulatory authorities cave in to the demands of the number crunchers.

Mr A Tis

30th Sep 2003, 07:46

Just cannot believe they went into the hold. Scary indeed.
They diverted in the end anyway, so why not do it ASAP ?
I regard EK as a high calibre safe airline, mind you, I thought the same about SWR.

Airbubba

30th Sep 2003, 08:07

>>Educate yourself and take a trip to Dubai with EK. You will be very pleasantly surprised by both.<<

Been there, done that... EK and DXB are definitely third world!

Great airline, low wages, fine service. But definitely a tribal expat operation. No union, no job security, no bidding for schedules or fleets. A day off is when the phone doesn't ring. Not that there is anything wrong with that <g>.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they should go into holding to talk with ops with a cargo fire warning.

411A

30th Sep 2003, 08:53

Airlines that fly long international routes absolutely need to give their flight deck crews the benefit of the doubt with regards to such items as engine/cargo/cabin fires, flight control difficulties, etc. and not to call the company for every occurance.

As they are paid to do the job, they should be left alone to do exactly that...do the job, in accordance with approved procedures.

Hmm, maybe a good idea EK is advertising for direct entry Captains....they might actually learn some better ideas.:ooh:

stable approach

30th Sep 2003, 10:19

fire wall,
I agree with your comments except the last. I can't see what ETOPS has to do with fire problems - you'll be in just as much trouble with 3 or 4 engines

Airbubba

30th Sep 2003, 10:26

>>...Upon return to the head office, the discussion with the 'powers that be' revolved around what I could have done differently that would have resulted in getting my craft on the ground sooner than the 18 minutes that it took me from FL330.<<

That is certainly the emphasis of training scenarios in America in the wake of SR111 and the earlier FedEx 1406 fire at Newburgh, NY (see: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1998/AAR9803.pdf ).

>>Firewall, it doesn't matter whether you're flying an ETOPS a/c or not, if you have a serious no s&*t fire in the middle of the Bay of Bengal, or the Atlantic, or the Pacific, you're landing on the water (one way or another) whether you like it or not.<<

Yep, it is a different situation if you're at 30W. Then maybe those James Michener thirty minute fire of unknown origin checklists that we've done in the sim for so many years would be appropriate.

Here's an Indian news report indicating possible evidence that the fire was real:

__________________________________

Sparks on Emirates plane leads to panic

Monday, 29 September , 2003, 11:44

Chennai: An Emirates Airways airbus with 398 passengers and 16 member crew from Dubai to Singapore made an emergency landing here this morning, when pilots noticed sparks in the cargo area.

The flight made a safe landing at the Meenambakkam airport and fire personnel with the help from CISF and other airport officials, doused the sparks. However, there was no damage to the aircraft.

Only three leather bags in the cargo section were reduced to ashes as a result of the incident, airport sources said.

The flight has now been grounded and all the passengers have been accommodated in various nearby hotels and at the airport.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13269077

donpizmeov

30th Sep 2003, 15:45

A lot of very good advice and corrections given by a lot of very knowledgable fellas.
Interesting how this crew is to be taken to task on the hear say of a third observer at the limit of VHF coverage. There a lot of factors that non of us will know without waiting for an investigaton, and perhaps even letting those in the hot seat give a discription of what really happened.
Without knowing how far they were from the nearest airfield (best TAS for a 777-300 happens to be at F330!!!...hence quicker to airport, than say at F180 so quicker to land perhaps?) what the wx was like etc etc...I think its pretty petty to say they did wrong.
For information this third world airline has some very modern stuff. These airplanes download some very nice info to maintance on the ground at operations, and by contacting them (if you have time) you can find out a lot more information to help you make a decision.
But please do not let a lack of information of what really happened, stop you from jumping in with the what you would have done better stories.
I guess it would be unprofessional to wait to hear the facts first.

mjenkinsblackdog

30th Sep 2003, 16:35

If the crew got it on the ground safely with noone injured.
WELL DONE!
Other factors can be fine tuned next time.
I find slagging crews off when all the facts are not known to be unprofessional.

Eff Oh

30th Sep 2003, 18:35

I was on that flight 2 days prior.
They had a cargo fire warning, fired the bottle and extinguished it? Then held to speak to ops? Then got another warning and diverted? How long were they in the hold?
I really don't see the problem. As far as they were concerned it was out. So they go once round the hold to see where ops want them to go (bearing in mind the are at FL330 over an airfield.) They get a second warning and divert immediately.
Once the fire is out it's no longer a Mayday yeah? So commercial decisions need to be made, pax handling, facilites etc etc. Ops have a better knowledge of this than us, so why not ask if it doesn't take too long? Then they get a second warning, OK boys now we need to get our butts on the groung ASAP. ****** ops and commercial decisions, get it down. And thats what they did. They explored all avenues trying to think of pax and the airline. Once that was no longer an option they diverted.
How can anyone criticise a fellow crew for getting an aircraft on the ground safely following an inflight fire? No one was hurt, the aircraft was intact, I think they did a great job. As for Emirates being a"third world airline", get a bloody grip!

etops777

30th Sep 2003, 19:16

air bubba,
EK does have a preferential bidding system, guaranteed days off,
plus many other benefits that you may not be aware of.

yes, the salary may seems low but, the entire salary is completely tax free plus company provided accomdation anything from a 3 bedroom apartment to a 3 or 4 bedroom villa with electricity and water paid for.

777 has 5 cargo fire extinguishing system. The first 2 are rapid dump system while other 3 dumps at a reduced rates. If the fire was out, i think there should be enough time to have a chat with ops so that a better outcome can be achieved.

just my .02 cent

Huck

30th Sep 2003, 23:48

Back in my younger days, a fellow EMB-120 crew had a oil low pressure indication on the left engine. Instead of following the memory items (which would have called for engine shutdown) they called up maintenance control (they were on approach to ATL) and described the problem. Maintenance said, "I'd advise you to follow your checklist!" About that time the engine seized.

Dispatchers/mechanics/management pilots aren't any better at thinking on the fly than flight crews. Follow the checklists immediately - most certainly this one in Chennai started with text about nearest airport, landing is first priority, etc.... Cool heads spend months writing checklists - deviate and you become a test pilot.

411A for once I agree with you - you DID take your pills today, didn't you?

Airbubba

1st Oct 2003, 00:11

>>They had a cargo fire warning, fired the bottle and extinguished it? Then held to speak to ops? Then got another warning and diverted? How long were they in the hold?
I really don't see the problem. As far as they were concerned it was out.<<

Well, I guess AC thought their DC-9 lav fire was out, with fatal results.

See: http://aviation-safety.net/database/1983/830602-1.htm

And perhaps going into holding with a cargo fire warning is still normal procedure with some carriers.

In the U.S. we would go into holding to complete lengthy electrical fire checklists in the sim years ago. Part of this was artificial to get the FE training done before the landings. Even in modern aircraft, some of these legacy checklists continue e.g. the SR111 MD-11 captain wanted to press on with a long electrical checklist while the FO wanted to get the plane on the ground. Sadly, they were overtaken by events.

After some of the accidents mentioned above, recent emphasis in "North" American training has been to land ASAP. You can see from the comments above, attitudes toward the holding request tend to be more skeptical on this side of the pond.

Like everyone else, I am thrilled that the outcome was good.

Dubai is a garden spot, just keep me out of the Cyclone next time it is raided <g>.

Ghostflyer

1st Oct 2003, 01:19

Out of interest, has anyone ever lost an aircraft by rushing into a decision with their head up their a**e?

I hear Boeing are changing the software to remove the need for pilot judgement. If any red caution appears the aircraft immediately diverts to the nearest airfield, lands, pops the slides and then dumps the pax on the tarmac before self destructing.

Air Bubba, its called irony, you may not be familiar with it down at the scissor sharpening meetings!

Unless you know the facts its a brave call to slag a pilot off for handling a nasty situation and getting the aircraft on the ground safely.

After some of the accidents mentioned above, recent emphasis in "North" American training has been to land ASAP. You can see from the comments above, attitudes toward the holding request tend to be more skeptical on this side of the pond.

Yep good old US of A, 'invented' some interesting A300 unusual attitude recovery techniques too.

Its amazingly easy to slag people off, don't you think!!:yuk:

Ghost:\

Airbubba

1st Oct 2003, 02:21

>>Air Bubba, its called irony, you may not be familiar with it down at the scissor sharpening meetings!<<

>>Its amazingly easy to slag people off, don't you think!!<<

You seem to be demonstrating that point with your post...

No need for an inferiority complex just because some of us are Americans.

Many of the worldwide trends in procedures, training and operations, good and bad, do come from the U.S. as you point out. In recent years we've seen such originally American concepts as locked cockpit doors, drug and alcohol testing, no smoking on the aircraft and keeping granny off the jumpseat vigorously debated here on PPRuNe.

The EK crew was likely following company procedure by going into holding, they probably needed approval from ops to divert for a fire warning and agent discharge.

You are certainly right that a rushed decision could have been the wrong one, that is why it is healthy to discuss the issues here. No criticism of the crew is intended by anyone from what I can see.

Bus429

1st Oct 2003, 02:32

I'm afraid the spectre of commercial pressure has raised its head here. I would have thought that an experienced crew would act in the interests of those immediately involved - those in the aircraft. Any commercial consideration is secondary and could be bashed around by the "Monday Morning Quarter-backers".

stormcloud

1st Oct 2003, 23:54

Bus 429, 411A, Airbubba et al,
Let me get this right.
You have an engine fire, use the bottle, the light goes out and you do what.........?
By your arguments, stick the nose down and throw it on the nearest piece of tarmac!
I think not.
So if the warning went out in this case, it would appear reasonable for the crew to take a few moments to consider the situation/options. YOU don't know (neither do I) how long they held, IF AT ALL, neither do you have the met, notams etc.
When did you become judge and jury?

halas

2nd Oct 2003, 01:27

Boeing 777 QRH states at the third or fourth line of the cargo fire checklist (depending on whether it is a forward or aft cargo fire), and l quote...

Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport

No where doeas it say land ASAP.

Why? I don't know, but l suspect those folk at Boeing have a reason.

EK procedures do not say one way or the other that you enter a hold and talk to Ops when you have a problem.

The crew had an indication that the crisis was over. And one thing that is passed on to EK from Boeing is that if the system tells you something is on or off, then you know it's on or off, as the redundancies make sure there is no false alarms, supposedly!

And with the data link, it's not a bad idea to get on the phone to Ops and say "Did you see what just hppened here", and of course they would have, plus they may have further information that is just not available up front, that may help you out.

Then just as they were catching their breath, the indication returns. Could have still been on the phone.

What hppened next? They diverted and everyone is safe.

Well done Blokes.

A diversion straight away may well have been a lot of peoples choice here, however with not being there and not knowing the circumstances, like weather, MEL's, aircraft history, traffic, ATC both high level and terminal, notams etc, it's hard to say with any assurance that that would be the best decision or not.

It could happen to any one at any time, and l hope if it happens again that the same result unfolds - everyone is safe and well.

halas

blueside^

2nd Oct 2003, 02:40

If my memory serves me well, on the night of this flight in question, VOMM was closed for runway maintenance and required 30 minutes notice to be opened for an emergency. Also a number of airports on this route were closed on the same night, to add to the pressure.

Like the professional aviators on this thread have said, drop the analysis and let the boys in flight safety :cool: do there job.

Dropp the Pilot

2nd Oct 2003, 05:51

Halas:

Hope you are not coming up for the command interview, 'cuz you got two majors completely wrong in that effervescent little post.

"No where does it say 'Land Asap' ?" Have a look at the Boeing FCTM Non-Normal Operations section 6 page 2 and you will find that "land at the nearest suitable airport" means precisely that.

The crew had some "indication the problem was over"? Nothing in the cargo fire procedure allows the crew to make that judgement. Once the warning has activated the airplane is to be put on the ground.

Time to start studying:O :O

FIRESYSOK

2nd Oct 2003, 10:33

There would be consequences for not contacting company in event of anything where I work. They will tell you when and where to divert, and if you don't like it, well, your sad story will be taught in the recurrent ground school during the "I once knew this crew...." phase.

Huck

2nd Oct 2003, 11:42

The following is taken verbatim from my company's MD-11 QRH under "CRG FIRE LWR ___":

CRG FIRE LWR____

Consequence:

LAND AT NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT

- But - if the Chennai runway was closed it was indeed NOT suitable, was it.....

Bus429

2nd Oct 2003, 13:22

Stormcloud,

I would suggest you get down ASAP regardless (I hope you would if I were flying with you). Stay in the air only as long as it takes to get to a suitable airport. Even if any fire were successfully extingished, it may have caused damage.

Ignition Override

2nd Oct 2003, 13:51

Let's just imagine that there had been time to get the Swissair MD-11 to Halifax Airport, even though this was unlikely, based on what I read about the simulator tests, even if the crew had declared an emergency and quickly flown a vector straight to the nearest open runway. [Weren't the beancounters clever and wise to have mandated only two-pilot cockpits in complex widebody aircraft?]

If everyone had made it down evacuation chutes, then would the survivors and their family members prefer that the Swissair crew had delayed their approach in order to finish a long and intricate checklist?

Another hypothetical example: what if the Valuejet DC-9 had suffered a different sort of fire, which had stopped for a few minutes (at that time no cargo smoke detectors/extinguishers were installed), allowing the crew a short break to call Dispatch, but then the fire had re-ignited? If our planes have an engine or APU fire/bleed air leak, and the DC Transfer Bus fails, the fire signals simply go away.

Do many foreign airline Flight Operations and corporate cultures (in various nations) not allow a Captain to do whatever he/she feels necessary, in order to ensure safety of flight? Either the Captain has the authority, or does not-there is NO middle ground. Of course not every airport or runway is suitable, but I'm beginning to wonder if some airlines give Dispatch the ultimate authority, because of the Beancounters' often unreasonably invasive influences within most airlines....:*

Huck

2nd Oct 2003, 14:24

OK now I've got the one I was looking for - B-727 Flight Manual red tabs:

LOWER CARGO SMOKE WARNING

WARNING: Inflight fires are extremely dangerous. The captain should start an immediate diversion and descent (when applicable) to the nearest suitable airport. There should be no hesitation at this point. Start action to get the aircraft on the ground.

Bit of a difference from the 777....

halas

2nd Oct 2003, 15:05

Yes l agree with what you are saying.

However, from the FCTM section 6 page 2, as you so appropriately pointed out and l quote:

“Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport” is a phrase used in Boeing Operations
Manuals. This section explains the basis for that statement and how it is applied.
In a non-normal situation, the pilot-in-command, having the authority and
responsibility for operation and safety of the flight, must make the decision to
continue the flight as planned or divert.

And on page three:

For persistent smoke or a fire which cannot positively be confirmed to be
completely extinguished, the safest course of action typically requires the earliest
possible descent, landing and consideration of passenger evacuation. This may
dictate landing at the nearest airport appropriate for the airplane type, rather than
the nearest suitable airport normally used for the route segment where the incident
occurs.

Land ASAP? NO. it is time to make a decision. It's not a directive.

And the second point is that over many years l have been taught that just because the indication has gone, doesn't mean the problem has.

During training on the 777 it was emphasized to me that the indication system has fault back up.

In this case a DET FIRE CARGO XXX would illuminate if the system wasn't working.

Assuming that it was working then the indication was that the fire threat was removed, perhaps.

Do l agree with assuming that everything is fine if the indication is gone? No.

So thank you for your pointed opinion for me to start studying. l will try and remember to contact you for greater wisdom in the future.

l still think they did well.

halas

wagtail23

2nd Oct 2003, 15:45

Please bear in mind that this is a RUMOUR........

The three bags in question were UNSCREENED diplomatic bags.....:confused:

...and that once on the ground and the cargo door was opened, the addition of oxygen caused the fire to restart......:* :*

So the basic premise to my way of thinking, particularly with a fire, is that while there is a chance of it being a faulty indication, as the aircraft commander you have to make a decision (although some companies obviously think that you should discuss it with them first).

I think it should be highlighted that the Operations Controller you speak to (the Senior Management Network Control or SMNC in this case) may not be, and certainly in EK's case, is not a pilot. (Would a pilot really authorise a single engine ferry from 2 hours out of DXB to return when ECAM states in Amber, LAND ASAP)

The over reliance of an Operations Controller to make your decision for you is inexcusable; should you really get that extra pay if all you do is delegate your responsibility to someone on the end of a SatPhone??:yuk:

Take the information you are presented with, decide what you want to do, set it up and get going in the right direction and then if time permits, talk to operations and inform them of your decision and glean any pertinent information you can to help with your case....

...but please don't ask them what you should be doing:confused: :confused:

Better safe than sorry, wouldn't you agree?

PS just my opinion!!

Bally Heck

2nd Oct 2003, 16:35

As long as they don't chat to ops for more than 180 minutes which is the ETOPS hold fire suppression certification requirement!

frangatang

2nd Oct 2003, 17:48

With an airline like EK are you not meant to turn east and let god provide the answer???

stormcloud

2nd Oct 2003, 19:12

Bus 429,
I very much agree that you want to get down quickly but....
My point was that we don't have all the details here, and, with the warning out, there was a very brief period to assess the bigger picture.
I'm not advocating a governmental discussion :zzz: about it, just that they may have had a short period to make a bad situation better.
Happy landings :ok:

Life as a journey

2nd Oct 2003, 20:57

Why all the interest in a cargo fire?

EK bashing?

Culture of blaming pilots, ASAP?

I'd posit the reason as people wanting to learn more; make better decisions; prepare.....

But that's just the way I see it.

One more thing I see is this:

If you have a fire, any fire, anywhere, on any aircraft, unless you can positively determine that it has been extinguished, you are obliged to get the plane on the ground.

Empirical evidence tells us you have precious few minutes.

If you felt the fire had gone out, well that's another thing; with respect to time at least.

But as Bus 429 - an engineer of considerable experience, has pointed out, there's the issue of damage control.

No-one, no manager, no pilot, no engineer, no dispatcher, even manufacturer, is going to criticise you for erring on the side of safety.

Plenty of pilots in the office will offer, with a sigh, "Oh he need not have diverted, really."

LAND.

If you need further help on this crucial issue, that's understandable.

This is PPRuNe after all.

But let's be clear about what the response to a fire warning would and should be.

moggie

2nd Oct 2003, 21:00

From Stormcloud:

"Bus 429, 411A, Airbubba et al,
Let me get this right.
You have an engine fire, use the bottle, the light goes out and you do what.........?
By your arguments, stick the nose down and throw it on the nearest piece of tarmac!
I think not."

For example, Stormcloud, the BA SOP requires their crews to do just that. There is no option to say "OK then, it's gone out, let's press on for a while and see what happens".

You get the aeroplane down and the passengers out (via steps if possible) and then talk about it afterwards.

G fiend

2nd Oct 2003, 22:24

here's the ops controllers view on this-

It is not for an ops controller to tell a captain what to do in any non-normal situation. we will offer help, be the liaison between specialist and crew and even ensure that whatever course of action the captain decides is communicated to the appropriate entity.

Ops blokes are there to ensure that programme disruption is minmised, not to tell a pilot what to do.

Passenger welfare and commercial considerations came after safety

Ghostflyer

2nd Oct 2003, 22:29

Moggie,

Just a question, interested how you would view these actions.

1. You have an engine fire just after V1 on a nice VMC day at LHR. Get airborne and run the ECAM / EICAS drill and the fire is extinguished. You are overweight so you take the time to take radar vectors around for an ILS whilst running the overweight landing checklist, chatting to the crew and pax. Once you are happy the box is programmed you turn in and land.

2. Same problem but fire 2 bottles and the fire light remains on. You turn visually downwind left hand, call 'Attention Crew at Stations', stick the wheels and flaps out and land.

Nothing wrong from my point of view of using a bit of time, if it is available, to make a decision.

As far as throwing it on the ground immediately!

Lets say you had an in-flight engine fire which extinguished at the first bottle and you had a choice of a poor weather approach into an airfield with horrendous approach climb gradient problems, no radar, a short runway and shocking ATC. (But still technically a 'suitable airport'.

Or, you could get the aircraft on the ground 5-10 minutes later at an airport with the same weather, no big rocks to fly into, a radar, 4000m and a mate that isn't lying to you on the radio.

Surely, irrespective of what is written in the checklist, the pilot has to make a judgement based upon his own unique circumstances.

A couple of minutes spent ensuring that the action he or she is about to take pays dividends in a lot of circumstances. For every Swiss Air incident, there are numerous others where crews jump in, rush decisions and make a bad situation worse.

As LIAJ says this is the PPrumourNE after all. Are we sure that they just couldn't find out whether or not Chennai would be open to them. So whilst sorting the problem they got Ops to square away the folks on the ground rather than getting further away from an airfield that was the best available (if open) and they hoped they would be able to get clearance to land at.

I don't know about you but I can't even make some of the controllers in that part of the world realise what my callsign is. Trying to communicate anything beyond your estimate for the next reporting point can result in total silence and zero help from the ground. Its not quite like London or Maastrict.

Glad everyone was ok

Ghost :zzz:

stormcloud

3rd Oct 2003, 07:06

Moggie,
Either you have missunderstood me (or me you) or you must be pulling our collective legs here ;) .
I don't believe BA would have a 744 on 3 engines with the engine fire light out put down on a gravel strip in Canada when it could continue to something a little more user friendly!
Having the light on is, of course, a different situation :uhoh:
Glad everyone was ok.

On a different note, if this was diplomatic baggage that caught fire, what are the security and safety implications of this stuff not being checked like 'normal' baggage in the current climate?
Just what checks are done?

Happy landings :ok:

Hay Ewe

3rd Oct 2003, 07:56

I always thought that it was better to be down here wishing you were up there than up there and wishing you were down here!!

Lets use the available info to learn from and plan for the future.

I am a tech support guy, and if it was me on the end of the Phone I would be saying land pronto!

SLF3

3rd Oct 2003, 14:32

The contrast in styles between the 727 manual and the 777 manual are interesting. From a simple unequivocal instruction in the 727 manual to careful wordsmithing in the 777 manual which tries to say the same thing without actually spelling it out.

That's progress!

donpizmeov

3rd Oct 2003, 15:15

The difference between the 727 wording and the 777 wording , is because these two aircraft have different cargo hold types. Hence different capabilities with regards fire containment, detection, and fire fighting. The fire retardent system on the 777 provides protection for 3 or 4 hrs (can not remember the exact number now!). Now this does not mean that they want you to fly for this long, but it is there to give you some options when on that long over water ETOPS sector etc, or when all the airports around you are too short , fogged in or closed.
Because this 777 was dispatched on ETOPS plan, an ETOPS check had to be preformed prior to departure. Part of this check is to ensure that there is no damage to the holds which would lessen there ability to detect, fight or contain a fire. If damage is found, they must be left empty (can carry empty ULDS only) as Boeing now reckon that the system will no longer certified to contain the fire.

moggie

3rd Oct 2003, 20:06

Ghostflyer and Stormcloud - sorry if I didn't make myself very clear (I was trying to keep it simple for Airbubba!).

The company policy at BA is "any engine failure/fire = land at nearest suitable airport". The company line on that is "look at the nearest airport and go there if it is suitable". However, the crew and aeroplane should (if possible) be fully prepared so as to avoid a rushed approach.

So, in the scenarios Ghostflyer proposes, scenario number one is the ideal but you go for number two if the fire doesn't go out. In Ghostflyers more detailed scenarios, I tend to agree that the second case sounds better - but you have to balance the desire to land an aeroplane that has had a fire ASAP with the need to do it safely somewhere. This is for the crew and the crew alone to decide, in my opinion, bearing in mind the company policy of landing ASAP (which I think is VERY sound advice!).

For Stormcloud - a gravel strip would not normally be regarded as "suitable" - but we were, in fact, discussing "putting it down on the nearest piece of tarmac", not a gravel strip if tarmac is available/reachable/useable. I would further clarify that as the nearest "suitable" piece of tarmac.

The grey area comes with "suitable" and of course that is a question that can only really be answered by the crew in the aeroplane on the day. Weather, runway direction/length, approach aids, crew familiarity, political considerations (do you want to use Baghdad International?), ground services and facilities will all enter the equation and no two scenarios will ever be the same.

I myself have landed an aeroplane that had a double engine failure (we started with 4!) and a big fuel leak at an airport other than the nearest. However, the airport we chose was (in our opinion as the flightdeck crew) the most suitable because: we had just started the descent for that airport, we already knew the weather and had briefed the approach, it was home so we knew the airport inside out, the emergency crews knew our aeroplane inside out (as did the engineers on the ground) and a diversion to the nearest airport would actually have taken longer because of the need to re-plan and we could not spare the fuel.

If we had just reached top of climb and had not already prepared for the approach, then the choice could well have been different.

As yet we do not know what decision making process the crew went through (and probably never will) but I very much doubt that they had any priority higher in their minds than flight safety.

stormcloud

3rd Oct 2003, 21:48

Moggie,
No probs, I think we are all batting for the same team ;) , just a few questions over team orders.
I mentioned the 'gravel' just to make the point that nearest is not always all we would wish, don't wish to sound like I'm teaching everyone to suck eggs! :O
I've been on a 4 that went BANG :ooh: on the climb and with 3 we went back to the departure point, same sort of decision process - suitable! :ok:
Safe flying :D

Max Angle

4th Oct 2003, 19:29

I really don't see the problem. As far as they were concerned it was out Well the advice we are given in my company is that unless a fire can be positively and absolutely determind to be out then you should land ASAP. So a waste bin fire that has had a BCF and a few bottles of water poured into it and the contents examined could be meet that criteria. A cargo hold fire that went out after a bottle was fired at it certainly does not, as they subsequently found out.

rsoman

12th Oct 2003, 13:08

Found this in the online edition of The Hindu, a national newspaper based in Chennai and also known for its responsible reporting.

http://www.hindu.com/2003/10/03/stories/2003100304720500.htm

********
Mid-air drama preceded Emirates emergency landing

By T. S. Shankar

CHENNAI OCT. 2. After a preliminary probe by the Regional Controller of Air Safety department at the Chennai airport, a grounded Emirates Airlines jet, which made an ``emergency landing'' here on Monday with a ``fire warning'' in the cargohold area, was cleared to take off for Dubai on Tuesday night.

Though all 398 passengers on board had a miraculous escape even as the pilot noticed the ``fire warning'' alarm mid-way through the flight, an hour-long, mid-air drama preceded the full ``emergency landing'' here, according to airport sources.

The jet was flying at 33,000 feet on a cleared Dubai-Singapore route. When the aircraft was flying at about 170 nautical miles east of the Chennai airport, the Air Traffic Control tower authorities here received a ``May Day'' call on the emergency RT channel, the sources said.

Within minutes of their hearing the SOS, the air traffic controllers, established contact with the pilot and told him that he could set course to Chennai. Consequently, all operational agencies were alerted and a full emergency was declared for the aircraft to make a landing.

But when the aircraft was flying at 80 nautical miles east of the airport, the pilot sought Chennai ATC permission to hover for some more time, saying the ``fire warning alarm light had gone off''. However, a few minutes later, he again radioed a ``May Day'' call, seeking clearance to set course for returning to Chennai and land on a priority basis.

At one stage, the sources said, the Emirates Airlines jet, with the ``fire warning'' emergency in the cargohold, made a steep descent at more than 6,000 feet a minute, putting on hold all other traffic at different points mid-air and keeping the air traffic controllers on tenterhooks for nearly an hour.

Later officials of the Regional Controller of Air Safety began a probe into the cause of the fire.

An independent enquiry by an engineering team of the Emirates Airlines from Mumbai and Dubai has collected material evidence.

*****

Cheers

CRS

12th Oct 2003, 14:41

Being a 777 driver, there is no doubting it is a wonderfully designed aeroplane, the redundancy etc. built into the aircraft is superb, if you HAVE to use it.

Even when you put a hose on a garden bonfire it still remains hot. Water has considerably greater cooling properties than the exstinguishing agents in the aircraft. So even with the cargo fire light out things are going to be mighty warm. If you don't have to I would have thought it was prudent not to test the aircraft structure for fire resistance.

brgds

CRS