SAA A340-200 cargo fire warning?

[ZERO3L]

SA 274 returned to JNB just after 2200 last night with a problem in the front cargo hold-either a false warning or possible fire.

They dumped fuel before landing on 03 left with full emergency vehicle back up.

Any more info??

[captain cumulonimbus]

All i can add is that they said there were no dangerous goods abouard.I shouldnt imagine it was much to worry about.

[vfenext]

If they decided to dump fuel then the crew must have thought it was a false warning. You ignore a fire warning at your peril as there is no way of knowing for sure. The 340 is certified for landing at gross weight so if they really delayed the landing to dump fuel it was a big risk. Much better to put it on the ground and then worry about it. Swiss air had a similar problem on an MD11 and they paid a very high price.

[Gunship]

Just a question ?

In this day and age ... why not just a few simple cameras in the hold - especially of it is a cargo aircraft ?

Just a (cheap) thought ...

[Exhaust Manifold]

The 340 is certified for landing at gross weight
Maybe they weren't at gross weight :}

the crew must have thought it was a false warning

If they really thought it was a false warning why did they land :confused: They must have been unsure, but then why did they waste time dumping fuel :confused:

Now i'm even more confused :p

[Speed Managed]

Who said they wasted time or delayed their landing to dump fuel??
Maybe whilst they were returning fuel was dumped?

[vfenext]

The MLW of 340 is 188K anything above this is regarded as an overweight landing which is possible in an emergency (like a cargo fire). You cant just dump fuel as you descend because it tends to be a hazard for people on the ground or other aircraft in the area. You go to a specified dumping area. It takes approx 1min/ton to reduce weight to landing weight, a fire doubles in size every minute. If you get a fire indication you should LAND ASAP and that's what the ECAM will tell you to do! I don't know the details of this incident so not judging the crew actions since we only have heresay. This is purely a hypothetical scenario so no need to jump up and down. I'm quite sure these guys did the right thing. EXHAUST MANIFOLD You obviously did not read or understand my original post.

[donpizmeov]

Vfenext,

If you need to you can dump fuel wherever you want. Lets see. Airfield thats over 5000'AMSL, heavy A340...not a startler performance wise...think I would reduce the weight if I had time. Got nothing else to do on the return to the airfield, so why not??? Better to wet a little ground with a bit of fuel, then scorch a whole bunch of it with an aeroplane and fuel thats off the end. Tell me, what flap setting would they be stuck with if above 210t? What kinda Vref, what kinda ground speed? Why do it if you do not have to?

Its kinda funny how you were quite protective of the crew that hit the trees at the end of BKK, but rather fast to question what happened here. We were not there, we do not know where they were, what height they were at, what the weather was like, how long they had been on duty and a whole bunch more. You have no idea that they thought it was a false warning or not...perhaps they had an hour or more transit to get back to the runway? We do not know. But we do know, that with all the info they had at hand, they took the action they thought was right, and by golly it seemed to work. So rather than than mouthing off like a wannabe, why not say.."Well done boys, I am glad it did not happen to me.'
Don

[vfenext]

Jeez another hero who cant read! Here it is again from my post just a few lazy cm's above this.

I don't know the details of this incident so not judging the crew actions since we only have heresay. This is purely a hypothetical scenario so no need to jump up and down
As for dumping fuel anywhere, tell that to the guys in LHR or any other busy airport in the world. You sound like someone who might even do it in the hold.

[donpizmeov]

As a matter of fact I have mate. Even flown through it when the refueling hose broke whilst tanking...guess what nothing happens. Any other wives tales you need fixing? Only too keen to help.
As I said, if you really need to loose the weight (for the aircraft, not yaself), you can dump wherever you want to. Its another option when TOGA does not seem to be working.

Don

[jackbauer]

Vfe, Pay no attention to donpizmeov, he's a pprune troll who looks for confrontation. Your point is well made. I too am aware that it's NOT possible to dump fuel anywhere. Having made an overweight landing on 330 I can safely say it's a non-event and preferable to wasting time dumping fuel. The Swiss incident in Halifax I believe, should be a lesson to us all. Some however will never learn and continue to enjoy being a troll. Interesting that donpizmeov never mentioned the EK incident in JoBurg where two of his colleagues nearly came a cropper in a 340. Of course he did'nt, how convenient. Safe flying EVERYONE.

[donpizmeov]

Bad day was it Jack?

Don

[Gerard123]

At least it didn't end up like ZS-SAS :(

[Speed Managed]

Vfenext

I appreciate you enlightening me on the A340 and what ECAM "will tell you to do" in a RED LAND ASAP.
However, I must say I was responding on your first posting on this subject which does make alot of assumptions and insinuations.

According to Airbus,(FCOM 3.04.28) "you can jettison in any configuration and at any speed. When practicable, the height should be sufficient to avoid contamination on the ground (5000 feet AGL is considered adequate). When jettison is performed, avoid flying into jettisoned flow (which is decending at about 500 feet/min."

This is not LHR, this is miles of rural area, and you not flying at less than 5000 feet agl in busy airspace! Why complicate your RED LAND ASAP and do an overweight landing checklist when you don't have to. If they did jettison, and I don't know if they did, they probably were returning with time to better prepare the aircraft for landing.
This is a RED LAND ASAP you do what it takes to land the aircraft as safely and as quickly as you can.
As you said in your first posting, "Much better to put it on the ground and then worry about it!" Answer the questions later.

PS The MLW for an A340-200 is 181K (-300 = 192K; -600 = 259K)

PS On a lighter note, Urban legend on this subject :

Years ago, a Pan Am 747 taking off LHR 27R had an engine or two fail on take off. Captain advises ATC that they continuing on runway heading and dumping gas.
ATC advises Captain they may not dump gas there because the queen is in house, which is on runway heading at Windsor Castle.
Captain (Texan accent): "Well best you call the good lady and ask her, does she want just the parafine, or alu-minum with the parafine!"

[vfenext]

PS The MLW for an A340-200 is 181K (-300 = 192K; -600 = 259K) Actually the MLW seems to depend on the variant of the 200. I know of two types I have flown which are the 212 at 188Kg and the 213 at 190Kg. You are of course quite correct about the 5000ft limit for fuel jettison. The overweight landing checklist is not that complicated and a lot quicker than waiting to dump. If my memory serves me it just directs you to check the landing dist and switch off the packs to increase available thrust. After that you just try and put it on gently and use max reverse. Heard the story before and it's still a good one. :)

[Spanish Flyboy]

Did I missing something? Where were press reports or any reports by airline involved to make all people feel better about problem. Why speculating so much? Actually I think is so important a subject as to make explanation necessary but governments are like that. Viva SAA. I like cargo hold camera idea.
S Fb

[King Red]

I understand that a FAA certified aircraft must be able to withstand a 6ft/sec ROD on touchdown at max landing weight and 2ft/sec at MTOW.

Land carefully if MTOW exceeds MLW I was told.

What rules does airbus use?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Viva Boeing

[spacedaddy]

You guys want to impress me with your knowledge of regs and physics. The crazy Spaniard is right on. Was it a fire or not? Why mums the word. No airline likes bad publicity but the facts are important. Take some Engrish crasses Fryboy.

[ZERO3L]

Isn't it funny how when SAA have any kind of problem it goes unnoticed by News 24, Beeld(the pro's), SABC, all radio stations and E TV.

However, let any of the other airlines in SA have even the slightest problem, the whole world knows about it.

I smell a rat-someone orchestrates it ONLY if its one of the LCC's or NW are having a bad day.

Or maybe smoke in the cargo hold ( or whatever it was ) is not that serious........................................???????

[Spanish Flyboy]

This is being my point. Is already a covering up. Hey you SAA flyboys. What is the story. You guys are like the teflon. Nothing is sticking too long. We (as industry) might have something to be learning here. Uncle TM will still pay.
S Fb

[Global Nomad]

Jack

What on earth has the EK incident got to do with the SAA return? Don didn't raise it because apart from the same airfield, it has jack **** to do with this case.

As for confrontation, that's exactly what you have created here, Pot calling kettle me thinks. The only thing Don ever writes is balanced and qualified (very qualified), if there are ever any barbs in his reply it's because the recipient is a ********.

What do you want, prune with a bunch of wannabes writing or someone who actually knows what he's talking about? Probably whatever makes you feel more comfortable.

[jackbauer]

Any reference to the JoBurg Emirates incident seems to rattle a cage then! If you think you can drag me down to your level of arguement then sorry to disappoint. If the thread makes no sense to you then read it again or ask your good, well qualified mate Don or has he left for Asiana already?

[ALTCRUISE]

Hi Guys

Just a short note regarding the "Smoke Warning" in the fwd cargo hold of an SAA 340!

I`ve been operating this aircraft for a good few years now, and what I have noticed is that the "smoke detectors" are extremely sensitive(which is good news)....however they are easily triggered in two instances on a "regular" basis, and that is when "groung crew" FUMIGATE the cargo-hold whilst or after loading, depending on the "destination countriy`s" requirements,....or if we are carrying lots or FRESH FRUIT or suchlike.....and the pallets have NOT been completely SEALED with plastic....then the HUMIDITY from this type of cargo usually triggers the WARNING during the CLIMB.....gets the old ADRENALINE pumping.

Awareness of what you are carrying is obviously important, and in this regard, although "quick thinking" is required, don`t just assume the worst....unless you can back it up with other info like "heat" or "smoke".

Also, as mentioned, maybe an inexpensive camera-system would be a good idea in the cargo-holds!

Happy Flying

[African Tech Rep]

Just noticed King Red’s question – Airbus = EASA (JAA) “rules” – try www.jaa.nl or http://www.easa.eu.int/home/
“Prime Authority” = DGAC (France)

Small point about overweight landings – a special inspection is required before further flight – doubt if this was of paramount importance – but nice they saved some work.

Story – due to freight overload we need to lose some fuel in Switzerland (we “tankered” if we could) – no one wanted it out the tanks – so ATC suggested we off load some freight took off and dumped in circuit – great idea until someone remembered that a DC6 had done the same somewhere in the States – flew though it’s own vapour and blew up.
(we did get the freight there – and shut two down on landing – so we could taxi on the fumes – fun days :ok: )

If you want cameras in your cargo bays http://www.aerospace-technology.com/contractors/passenger%5Fsafety/ad/ - others do it as well – just got to get someone to pay for them :ooh:

[Gunship]

Also, as mentioned, maybe an inexpensive camera-system would be a good idea in the cargo-holds!

They are as cheap as chips - honestly can not understand why they do not fit them ?