UPS smoke/fire landing at PHL [Archive]

readywhenreaching

8th Feb 2006, 10:14

last night, a UPS dc-8-70 performed an emr landing at PHilly after indication of smoke. However after landing, heat and smoke intensified and may burned through the aft fuselage. Very likely to be a write off. Source of the smoke is yet unidentified.
S:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/ups.plane.fire/
Photo:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060208/480/pajk10202080928

Commercial website link removed by moderator...

FoxHunter

8th Feb 2006, 10:54

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/13819806.htm

Strepsils

8th Feb 2006, 11:47

Will be interesting to find out what exactly was in those "normal customer packages":hmm:

lomapaseo

8th Feb 2006, 11:55

Will be interesting to find out what exactly was in those "normal customer packages":hmm:

Let's hope they find something abnormal or illegal

ironbutt57

8th Feb 2006, 13:11

And let's hope somebody's hiney lands in jail as well....good thing it was a domestic sector...:mad:

Oilhead

8th Feb 2006, 13:43

good thing it was a domestic sector...:mad:

Quite so - HAZMAT and cargo/cabin events (I know I know - "IF" that is tjhe case) make a mockery of all the ETOPS rules we must follow.

Capt's Little Helper

8th Feb 2006, 14:24

Would be interested to know exactly how long it took to get the thing on the ground from when they first detected the smoke.

I can't imagine that the aircraft had too much flying left in her with all the fire damage!

Good job guys.

ironbutt57

8th Feb 2006, 14:35

Happened few years back on a FEDEX MD-10 as well...diverted into Stewart and burned to the ground in short order..along the lines of 20mins if I recall correctly??? :ooh:

Roadtrip

8th Feb 2006, 16:00

I dare say that contraband/dangerous goods are shipped all the time, especially by UPS and FEDEX, albeit unknowingly. They depend on the honestly of their customers to declare the contents of the package. Of course, anyone that would ship contraband or dangerous goods against the rules, isn't going to have a problem lying straight-faced to the package clerk.

FIRESYSOK

8th Feb 2006, 16:06

Would be interested to know exactly how long it took to get the thing on the ground from when they first detected the smoke.
I can't imagine that the aircraft had too much flying left in her with all the fire damage!
Good job guys.

Initial distress call was within like 5nm from the runway, so I hear.

None

8th Feb 2006, 16:54

http://www.avoar.com/Documentos/AviationArticles/pdf/EmergencyafterSmokedetection.pdf

jondc9

8th Feb 2006, 17:56

Some interesting comments and yes, good job UPS pilots.

First off, the ETOPS rules wouldn't help you if you were in a 4 engine jet like the DC8 or whatever. You would be out over the water and YIKES...ditching might be your only option and that isn't a good one.

the initial call only 5 miles away...sorta doubt it, but that might have been when approach control handed off DC8 to tower and the call was repeated.

The DC8 can reverse inboard engines in flight to help get down. Think of this,the plane was probably in the middle 30's (flight levels of course guys)when it happened..they could have been 5 miles OVER THE TOP OF PHL.

Lucky the control cables were not burned, though they are steel and should handle some heart, collapsing floors are something else.

HAZMAT is a huge problem and I don't know how we have been so lucky with passenger planes carrying cargo. Even before 9/11, responsible people called for better and safer ways of flying.

Does anyone have the names of the pilots at UPS? I have a couple of friends there.

jon

PaperTiger

8th Feb 2006, 18:10

Think of this,the plane was probably in the middle 30's (flight levels of course guys)when it happened..they could have been 5 miles OVER THE TOP OF PHL.Its scheduled destination was PHL. Descent had commenced some 24 minutes prior.

Oilhead

8th Feb 2006, 18:16

I guess my poorly stated point about ETOPS rules are that they are of little help to us when we catch fire. I am equally frightened in four engined planes sipping on a gin in the back too! If you cannot stop the fire prior to breaking up then you are buggered whatever plane you are in.

FIRESYSOK

8th Feb 2006, 18:25

the initial call only 5 miles away...sorta doubt it, but that might have been when approach control handed off DC8 to tower and the call was repeated.
The DC8 can reverse inboard engines in flight to help get down. Think of this,the plane was probably in the middle 30's (flight levels of course guys)when it happened..they could have been 5 miles OVER THE TOP OF PHL.
jon

The DC-8-70F is not capable of using reverse in the air. This was an ATL-PHL flight.

Safe-T

8th Feb 2006, 18:25

the initial call only 5 miles away...sorta doubt it, but that might have been when approach control handed off DC8 to tower and the call was repeated.

It's true, they were handed off normally and just got the smoke indicator when contacting Tower. While reading back the clearance, they report "Cleared to land and ah listen we just got a cargo smoke indicator come on can we have the equipment?" TWR says they will bring out the fire equipment, at some 4 mins prior to touchdown:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060208-0

JW411

8th Feb 2006, 18:33

I had it in my mind that the ability to reverse the inners only ever applied to DC-8s equipped with JT-3s and even that was taken away a very long time ago.

The idea that you could apply reverse to the inboard CFM-56s on a DC-8-70 is surely completely fanciful if not totally ridiculous?

Airbubba

8th Feb 2006, 18:40

>>The DC-8-70F is not capable of using reverse in the air.

Uh, I wouldn't be so sure <g>...

Just be below 300 knots when you stow them.

Here's one reference:

"...One thing you might not know, the DC-8 can use and we do use them, specially going to San Jose, CA and JFK, the thrust reversers in flight. 2 and 3 can be used inflight to full reverse thrust. 1 and 4 can only be used when the gear is down."

http://www.forjets.netfirms.com/page3.html

jondc9

8th Feb 2006, 19:23

very_interested

8th Feb 2006, 19:41

I think professionals will find listening to the tower ATC recording very interesting.

It is on liveatc.net

The archive you are looking for is Feb 7 2330-0000 and the initial contact is at 25:00 into the recording. I bet you have to replay the last 5 minutes a couple of times to see what I mean.:ooh:

Glad it ended safely.

None

8th Feb 2006, 20:30

vi
What is your specific question? Which aspect of the event needs clarification for you?

very_interested

8th Feb 2006, 20:48

None,

Did you listen to the recording?

Which aspect of the event needs clarification for you?

To my untrained ear the switch from "right" to "left" in a high stress situation was not all that clear. As in I would have expected the pilot to be told something like "Cancel clearance to land on 27R... You are now cleared to land on 27L"

Anyway it ended well and they didn't have to go around as 27R was clear.

jondc9

8th Feb 2006, 21:02

very interested

thanks. I listened. I love it how ATC always wants SOB's and fuel...and then doesn't know to ask for POUNDS of fuel up front.

by the way, they ask for fuel in pounds to know how big a mess the CFR people will have to deal with.

I see too that UPS was quite lucky to be so close to the airport when the problem happened. tell me, is there anything on TRACON frequency concerning the emergency?

regards

jon

jondc9

8th Feb 2006, 21:04

ps

I only listened once and believe ATC screwed up as UPS checked on freq for 27right...27left is longer and perhaps atc thought they would want that for the problem.

you have to catch that sort of thing early though. all of this on the back side of the clock too.

jon

None

8th Feb 2006, 21:07

None,
Did you listen to the recording?
To my untrained ear the switch from "right" to "left" in a high stress situation was not all that clear. As in I would have expected the pilot to be told something like "Cancel clearance to land on 27R... You are now cleared to land on 27L"

Yep, I agree. I'll add that UPS's ramp is on the south side of 27L. While 27R is the primary landing runway in a west config, it is not uncommon for UPS to be offered 27L unsolicited.
There were a lot of other items on the recording that could have made the "untrained ear" curious, so I was not sure which got your attention.

Airbubba

8th Feb 2006, 21:11

Yep, the controller was probably trying to help by switching to the longer runway but the swap was pretty late in the game. Both he and the crew were definitely busy in the last minute or so. Good call to stick with 27R on short final I would say.

You can hear the PNF giving a couple of voice calls over the radio (e.g. "500 feet, on speed, sink 8"), they had O2 masks on for the smoke at that point. The interphone/radio switches and usually a separate mask/mic switch have to be manipulated correctly in most planes when you have the masks on, a definite distraction in an emergency.

On the next part of the audio archives at 0000 local you can hear the tower report the almost immediate crew evacuation to the rescue personnel.

FoxHunter

9th Feb 2006, 00:57

DC8-71-73 thrust reversers in air.
OK boys and girls we have one for and one against. Anyone who has actually flown the DC8 71-73 series want to weigh in here?
I recall a friend who flys at UPS saying that the TR's could be used while airborne (inboard) but that they only help a little.
I have flown the DC9 and 737 (and some other jets) but not the DC8.
Someone who really knows, please tell us all.
regards
jon
Yes, the DC8 -70s could use reverse in the air. Always tried to avoid it because it shook the heck out of the aircraft.
"UPS 748
Sn45948 line#321 date of manufacture OCT 10, 1967
N8955U Saturn Airways del 12.28,1067
Seaboard World Airlines leased 1,20,1975
EFS Bahamas Ltd sub-lease 9,1,1976
Seaboard World returned 4,1,1977
Trans International Airlines returned? 4,25,1977
Capitol International Airways leased 10,26,1977
Trans International returned 1,24,1978
N862FT Flying Tigers leased 2,1,1978
Emery Worldwide sub-leased 8,20,1982
Flying Tigers returned 4,26,1984
Transamerica Airlines returned? 12,30,1984
UPS bought 5,16,1985
Converted to DC-71CF 8,1985
Reregistered N748UP 9,1985
From Jet Airliner Production List JR Roach A B Eastwood"

Ignition Override

9th Feb 2006, 04:42

Wearing our smoke goggles makes it difficult to be understood on the interphone and to have a good instrument scan etc-distracting also.

Very good job UPS pilots!

Those FEDEX pilots who dived into Stewart years ago barely made it out of their DC-10 as the smoke thickened.

Someone made an excellent observation about overwater flights-ditching in the pitch-black night (low vis? landing lights not available if emergency power required...inflatable raft location?) onto large waves as hard as concrete? Water temperatures?:ugh:

This can easily happen on a passenger plane. They also carry cargo. Read up on the Valuejet disaster.

very_interested

9th Feb 2006, 06:00

I have listened to it a few more times and my now trained ears (trained by you guys) make me want to say to the UPS crew " I would fly as cargo with you anytime!"

Aw.. that call from Tower telling them they are cleared for left and it appears you are lined up for right. Wouldn't it make a professional pilot yell, "Freeze the sim!!!!"

(smoke sensor alarm, smoke on flight deck, masks and hoods on, can't see squat, and now you advise us we are lined up on the wrong runway!!!! ) all in less than 5 minutes!

Even more impressed than I was before.

Dagger Dirk

9th Feb 2006, 07:50

From the Tower tape. Nothing much changes over the years:
..........a. Fire and crash go incommunicado as soon as they hit the road
..........b. Fire and crash start wanting the gory detail (fuel in lbs) despite the crew being in extremis and on late finals (i.e. busy). Their priorities are a trifle skewed.
..........c. Going on oxy/smoke mask automatically means one man will end up on long-range intercom
But otherwise sensibly handled by all.
Started about 5 mins before landing, a visible flamer on finals. .... and over four hours to extinguish it. Goes to show how much chance you'd have if you were oceanic.
Starting to sound like a bulk Lithium battery cargo - or something similar.

Airbubba

9th Feb 2006, 15:15

The FedEx guys at Stewart were nickeled and dimed by the NTSB on such technicalities as not calling out the formal name of the emergency evacuation checklist. From the Flight Safety Foundation report in the link posted earlier:

"...Finally, the CVR transcript indicates that the captain did not call for an emergency evacuation. (After the captain said, ‘We need to get [the ***k] out of here,’ the flight engineer said, ‘Emergency ground egress.’)"

However, the FedEx captain's persistance in getting the aircraft on the ground quickly saved the crew, even if they missed some checklist items. In the old days, i.e. a decade ago, we would often go into holding in the sim to complete lengthy fire of unknown origin checklists. Now the drill is do as much as you can on the way down and land ASAP.

ETOPS does address fire detection and surpression, don't know if this includes cargo planes. As mentioned, the DC-8 is not ETOPS anyway and is perhaps grandfathered under some old certification rules from the 1960's. This PHL incident would have been a nightmare at 30 West or NIPPI.

AN2 Driver

9th Feb 2006, 15:53

The FedEx guys at Stewart were nickeled and dimed by the NTSB on such technicalities as not calling out the formal name of the emergency evacuation checklist. From the Flight Safety Foundation report in the link posted earlier:
"...Finally, the CVR transcript indicates that the captain did not call for an emergency evacuation. (After the captain said, ‘We need to get [the ***k] out of here,’ the flight engineer said, ‘Emergency ground egress.’)"
However, the FedEx captain's persistance in getting the aircraft on the ground quickly saved the crew, even if they missed some checklist items. In the old days, i.e. a decade ago, we would often go into holding in the sim to complete lengthy fire of unknown origin checklists. Now the drill is do as much as you can on the way down and land ASAP.

Hi Airbubba,

didn't that change a tad after the SR111 disaster? I think I heard that some of the blame put onto that captain by the NTSB was quietly shifted after that accident.

I guess that particular accident was a wake up call to many who were advocating prolonged checklist work at the suspicion of fire. I recall that in the aftermath people were quite a bit readier to get on the ground pronto at the slightest indication of something amiss. And not a minute too early too. Particularly the plight of the crew of SR111 should make it abundantly clear that a fire, even only a suspected fire without any warning and indications, is reason enough to get it into the next airport and find out what's cooking....

Check 6

9th Feb 2006, 23:10

Regis#: 748UP Make/Model: DC87 Description: DC-8-70
Date: 02/08/2006 Time: 0125
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial
LOCATION
City: PHILADELPHIA State: PA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
N748UP, A UNITED PARCEL SERVICE BOEING/DOUGLAS DC-8-71F ACFT, REPORTED
SMOKE IN THE COCKPIT ON LANDING, CREW EVACUATED, ACFT CAUGHT FIRE, NO
INJURIES REPORTED, PHILADELPHIA, PA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: NOT REPORTED
OTHER DATA
Departed: Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: PHILADELPHIA, PA (EA17) Entry date: 02/08/2006

JW411

10th Feb 2006, 15:37

FoxHunter

10th Feb 2006, 16:24

FoxHunter:
Many thanks for confirming that the DC-8-70 series can indeed use reverse in the air. I admit to being surprised for I was told that the practice had ceased many years ago.
Do many DC-8 operators out there still use reverse in the air as an SOP procedure?
Have not flown the DC8 since 89' but I'm sure most operators try to avoid using it. You could use it up to Mmo/Vmo but I never used it above 250K on the -73s that I flew. Sometimes it was required because the re-engined DC8s had a high flight idle and once you slowed to 250K clean your V/S was around 800-1000 fpm, no speed brakes available, highest flap speed was around 230k, gear speed also about the same. There were problems with the flaps caused by using them at the max speed. The only good option was to use idle reverse.

JW411

10th Feb 2006, 16:42

FoxHunter:

Many, many thanks for that. I hadn't realised that the DC-8 had no speed brakes.

We had speedbrakes on the DC-10 but we tried hard not to use them and definitely not if flap had already been selected (flaps behind speedbrakes).

At least we could throw the wheels out at 300 knots and that could be very useful on occasion!

peterbuckstolemymeds

12th Feb 2006, 04:15

It's not surprising that other posters have expressed concern about the likely results of an incident like this on a transoceanic flight.
For the record, UPS's Web site clearly states that UPS will not transport packages with contents determined by the US Department of Transportation to be "hazardous materials" beyond the 50 states and Puerto Rico.
It's worthwhile noting that if this incident does indeed lead to UPS's first hull loss, then it will be the first aircraft loss in the company's 98-year history.
Well done to the crew. I do hope they are able to put their feet up for a while and enjoy a refreshment or two before their next roster. :ok:

Golf Charlie Charlie

12th Feb 2006, 11:47

...UPS's first hull loss, then it will be the first aircraft loss in the company's 98-year history.

Apparently not :

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850131-0

They also had a serious MD-11 incident last year at Louisville, but the aircraft was repaired.

SeniorDispatcher

12th Feb 2006, 19:40

Ouch!
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d143/OPNLguy/UPSPHL1.jpg

peterbuckstolemymeds

13th Feb 2006, 00:55

Apparently not <url snipped>
They also had a serious MD-11 incident last year at Louisville, but the aircraft was repaired.
On the contrary, GCC old chap, apparently so.
While I don't have any personal knowledge of the Louisville incident, nor have I any reason to doubt the veracity of the report you linked to, if - as you state - "the aircraft was repaired" then that would mean it was not a hull loss.
I reiterate that UPS has not had a hull loss incident in 98 years. If the Philly event marks the first hull loss, then it will be the first hull loss for that company. Period. :ok:

Airbubba

13th Feb 2006, 01:24

Here's another UPS non-hull loss:

http://www.aviationpics.de/mish/2001/ups/ups.htm

UPS has never had a hull loss, FedEx is happy when and if they go a couple of years without one. Was the MD-10 at MEM in December 2003 their last one?

Golf Charlie Charlie

13th Feb 2006, 01:27

On the contrary, GCC old chap, apparently so.
While I don't have any personal knowledge of the Louisville incident, nor have I any reason to doubt the veracity of the report you linked to, if - as you state - "the aircraft was repaired" then that would mean it was not a hull loss.
I reiterate that UPS has not had a hull loss incident in 98 years. If the Philly event marks the first hull loss, then it will be the first hull loss for that company. Period. :ok:

No, I was saying the SA227 incident was described as a hull loss in the link I attached earlier, that's all, not the MD-11, which was the one repaired (assuming these reports are correct).

Airbubba

13th Feb 2006, 01:46

UPS has never operated SA227's (but what do I know, hey, I thought you could use inflight reverse on a DC-8-71 <g>). I think the incident you mentioned occured before UPS started their airline in 1988.

"...In 1988, UPS received authorisation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate its own aircraft, thereby officially becoming an airline."

From: http://www.ups.com/content/ch/en/about/history/1990.html

Both FedEx and UPS have had numerous fatal crashes in their feeder aircraft, operated by contractors, in recent years.

A snapshot of the UPS mainline fleet mix is here:

http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/cargo/ups-2005030140.htm

Huck

13th Feb 2006, 12:47

Was the MD-10 at MEM in December 2003 their last one?

Yep. And thanks for asking....

PaperTiger

13th Feb 2006, 15:20

I reiterate that UPS has not had a hull loss incident in 98 years.Hmm, bit of umm... license being taken here methinks. "In 1988, UPS received permission from the FAA to operate its own airline (as opposed to leasing), known as UPS Airline." I make that just a little bit short of 98 years ;)
And while we're at it...UPS has never operated SA227'sSo this is a different UPS I presume: http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0078869 ?

Airbubba

13th Feb 2006, 15:45

>>So this is a different UPS I presume

Yep, that's a plane in UPS livery operated by a contractor, Ameriflight, like these operated by Star Air, a Danish (not that there's anything wrong with that <g>) company:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0704105/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0076904/M/

Biggles Flies Undone

13th Feb 2006, 15:57

if - as you state - "the aircraft was repaired" then that would mean it was not a hull loss.
If insurers pay out, it is most certainly a hull loss. I think you mean 'hull total loss'.

Airbubba

13th Feb 2006, 16:46

The DHL A-300B4 hit by a missile in Baghdad has been ferried to Sharjah and is being refurbished. I would have thought that one would certainly be a hull loss.

http://coppermine.luchtzak.be/displayimage.php?album=36&pos=0

I have heard other stories of aircraft involved in accidents being repaired enough to make one final ferry flight to the boneyard to avoid a hull loss for insurance purposes.

It'll take a lot of speed tape to fix that DC-8...

peterbuckstolemymeds

14th Feb 2006, 03:07

If insurers pay out, it is most certainly a hull loss. I think you mean 'hull total loss'.

Thank you. That was, indeed, what I intended to convey. I stand corrected and offer my apologies to GCC.

Allow me to restate that UPS, a 98-year-old company, has not previously had a hull total loss in its airline, the world's ninth largest, since the inception of that airline. Not counting contracted feeders. At least until the other night, anyway, if that proves to be a hull total loss.

Once again, apologies.

PB