BA A320 smoke & evac at BRU

[garp]

A320 standing immobilised with all doors open and surrounded by multiple emergency and firebrigade trucks on RWY 25R.

[9gmax]

belgian television reporting that a B737(?) made an emergency landing due to fire on board..
all evacuated, no report on injuries.
aircraft still on runway.

[Daysleeper]

I watched and listened to this from the holding point. The BA crew were the coolest cucumbers on the block.

However there is a definite case for it to be mandatory for the fire service to have steps on a fire engine chassis like many of the German airports. In the 5 minutes or so when the aircraft was sat there waiting for inspection everyone could have been out without the risks that come from using the slides.
Indeed the crew were - rightly - very reluctant to evacuate and never got a clear answer from the fire service to the question "is there a fire" simply a reply "we recommend you evacuate."

To summarise - based purely on the RT I thought the BA chaps were fantastic.:D

[sabenaboy]

Indeed the crew were - rightly - very reluctant to evacuate and never got a clear answer from the fire service to the question "is there a fire" simply a reply "we recommend you evacuate."

IF that is what happened, I would say "Shame on the firebrigade"!
How difficult is it to say "We see flames/smoke or we do not see flames/smoke"

I would think that evacuating an A320 purely because there's a (possibly/probably false) cargo smoke warning, without evidence of fire/smoke AND with fire brigade present around the A/C is not a good idea.
Of course I do not know any captain, myself included, that would NOT evacuate after the fire brigade recommends to do so.

Question @daysleeper: did you see any evidence of fire or smoke? If there wasn't, I would be very interested to know why the fire brigade issued this recommendation?

Regards,
Erasmus

[Daysleeper]

From where we were it was impossible to see anything in detail - the fire service did report thin smoke in the hold.

[Taildragger67]

BA 744 had a small cargo fire just out of Sydney a couple of years ago; returned, o/w landing and evac'ed via stairs;

QF 330 diverted to Kansai not long ago with a fire warning; evac'ed on slides apparently after ATC reported smoke on touchdown. One punter broke something on the way down the slide and this triggered a criminal investigation against the skipper.

So... does a pilot risk his own prosecution and wait for the 'safe' evac method, or just try to get everyone off tout-de-suite and maybe risk copping a criminal charge?

Maybe the answer is to have stairs on fire trucks in those places which will go after the crew personally if someone breaks an ankle on the slide, even after some nong has punctured it with a high heel a la QF 744 at Sydney... (that was an undercarriage fire, but goes to the issue of evac using slides or ground eqpt - that a/c already had the aerobridge in position when the evac was ordered).

Relevant ATSB reports:

BA incident at Sydney:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/AAIR/aair200203671.aspx

QF A330 at Kansai:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/aair200504074.aspx

QF 747 at Sydney:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2003/AAIR/aair200302980.aspx


Well done to the Speedbird crew for getting everyone off. :ok:

[Dreamweaver]

In the resulting delay caused by the BA incident, the airport was busy with taxying a/c. 25R had been re-opened and at about 2010z an air maroc 737 reported being hit by a singcargo 747. The 73 was stationary waiting in line for B4 25R whilst the 74 had been cleared to use F5 then W4 for the full length. Emergency svc inspections were carried out again and we saw emergency services carrying 6ft by 3ft piece of material back to their vehicle. We didn't see any damage to the 73. It was dark though and we were 30m away.

The singcargo was simultaneously having their own inspection carried out. We were eventually cleared to use 25R via B3, so I have no idea as to the outcome or if indeed it WAS a collision and not jet blast fealt by the 73 as the 74 passed behind.

dw

[flygj]

I was there as well yesterday evening, watching it all from pier A.
What amazes me is the time it took to decide to evacuate the pax, I would say between 15 and 20 minutes, if not more.
Fire brigade was around the acft immediately after landing, lots of them, but the situation was just idle for sooo long.
Airbus says in the expanded checklist for cargo smoke, at least for the 330, not to have the cargo doors open till all pax evacuated, so it is very difficult for the fire brigade to confirm any fire or smoke.
I was too far, and on the wrong side to see it, but it looked like fire brigade did in fact open the aft cargo hold.
I had this emergency in the sim a year ago, and what we did was to have stairs brought to the acft to have pax disembarked rapidly, but without having to inflate the slides and call for an emergency evac, with all the risks it represents.
Yesterday they could have done the same, although I cannot judge because maybe that's what they wanted but it was refused by the aiport autorithy.
Another thing that struck me is that after the evac the pax were left quite close to the acft, and no bus was immediately available to take them away.

[KiloKilo]

Professional and calm. Appart from the initial call all was like nothing special was going on. :ok: :D
As soon as they started the descend the fire warning stopped maybe that can be an indication why the evacuation was not immediate.

[fmgc]

I am passing no judgement on occurances in this incident.

If you do ask the fire brigade if there are any signs of fire or smoke and they say that there isn't you are still none the wiser as to whether you have a fire or not.

So what are you going to do, evacuate or wait for steps with the chance of burning?

It is a bit like doing a tower fly by with gear trouble, and the tell you that the gear is down, but they can not confirm whether it is locked or not.

So what do you do, prepare the cabin for an emergency landing or just hope that it is locked down?

This is the grey areas that flight deck crew are paid to deal with. I know what I would do but these are the sort of scenarios that weigh heavily on my mind.

[sabenaboy]

According to Belgian newspapers today: it was a false warning and it turned out there was never any fire or smoke.
(I know you have to be careful with reports from the media)

But if this is true, why did the fire brigade recommend to evacuate?

In my opinion the fire brigade should not recommend such a thing, unless there's a good reason to do so of course.

The decision to evacuate or not should normally be made by the captain. That's indeed what he's paid for.
A "recommendation to evacuate" from the fire brigade is of course something difficult to neglect.

[fmgc]

But if this is true, why did the fire brigade recommend to evacuate?


Because they can not be sure that there is any fire or not, but should they be making any recommendations or not?

[garp]

I watched and listened to this from the holding point. The BA crew were the coolest cucumbers on the block.

Most crews react very well and professional to such events; cracked windshields, smoke warnings, hydraulic failures etc. The only time I've ever heard a bit of panic was many moons ago when a pilot reported smoke in the cockpit, declared emergency and diverted into CdG. It would have been difficult for anybody, even for the coolest cucumber on the block, to stay cool under such circumstances. If there has to be panic, let it be organised. :-)

[KiloKilo]

This wasn't my first time getting such a call, but it was the one were the crew stayed the calmest.
Something that really helps.

[sabenaboy]

Because they can not be sure that there is any fire or not, but should they be making any recommendations or not?
fmgc, if I landed with an ECAM cargo smoke warning, I would like to make the decision -to evacuate or not- myself.
Once on the ground I want to know if there is any smoke or flames.

If the answer is yes, i think immediate evacuation is recommended.
If not then I would delay evacution, and try to get everybody out via stairs.

An emergency evacuation itself is always dangerous with often broken limbs, head injuries and sometimes fatalities.
If the fire brigade recommended me to evacuate via the radio, I would suppose that they did so with a good reason, and launch the evacuation immediately. If it later turned out that this advice was given without a good reason, the fire brigade commander would have some explaining to do with me!

[Capt H Peacock]

I’m quite happy to agree with the fire chief. He’s an expert in aircraft fires and is paid to put them out. He doesn’t have a ladder 30,000 feet long, so I’ll bring the aircraft to him, and he can decide whether I’m on fire or not. Consequently, if he says 'evacuate' then I think I’m duty bound to follow his advice unless I’ve got clear and overriding evidence to the contrary.

It might take 20 minutes to evaluate the situation, but as someone has pointed out already, a smouldering fire could easily turn into an inferno as soon as it’s ventilated by the opened cargo door. A detailed inspection with infra-red cameras might lead the fire chief to decide that an evacuation is necessary, but if it takes 20 minutes to make that decision then that is what it takes!. I would also endorse an evacuation before the holds are opened for that very reason.

Too many people confuse thinking with indecision. A few precious minutes spent thinking is more valuable than five seconds of blind panic.
I suggest everyone off with no fatalities and a few undignified bumps and bruises is a commendable result. Armchair experts, Microsoft FlightSim 2000 aces, and journalists are hardly in a position to pass valuable judgments. I trust their remarks will be given due regard.:=

[sabenaboy]

I’m quite happy to agree with the fire chief. He’s an expert in aircraft fires and is paid to put them out. He doesn’t have a ladder 30,000 feet long, so I’ll bring the aircraft to him, and he can decide whether I’m on fire or not. Consequently, if he says 'evacuate' then I think I’m duty bound to follow his advice unless I’ve got clear and overriding evidence to the contrary.

I agree!! If he says "evacuate", that's what i'll do!

But afterwards I would definitely want to hear his reason for telling me to do so!

[fmgc]

Captain Peacock,

Thank you for showing reason.

[garp]

Too many people confuse thinking with indecision. A few precious minutes spent thinking is more valuable than five seconds of blind panic.

That's a quote I will have to remember.

[blazing_air]

Excellent response Capt, nice to hear the voice of reason, the decision to evacuate in my humble opinion is an agreement of understanding between you guys up there in the cockpit and the Fire Commander on the ground.
Each trusting each others judgement in their respective roles.
You relying on your instruments and what the aircraft is telling you and the Fire Commander relying on many years of experience in the job, with a full understanding of the consequnces of his decisions.
Just to qoute another response:
Airport Fire Crews, in this country at least, spend many hours on different types of aircraft, to famil on location and operation of doors and hatches, seat layout and cockpit configuration,
so when you guys can't operate them for any reason, we are there to do the job.

[MarkD]

BUSF is one of the -111s ex BCal. Must be getting cranky in its old age. According to Jethros it and its CFM56 brethern are slated to leave the fleet in 07-08.

[neil armstrong]

I was also sitting at the holdingpoint when they came in (in front of Daysleeper)
I was not impressed by the communication difficulty between the crew/tower and the fire brigade! it seemed that the fire fighters didnt speak english ,the captain tried to talk to them directly but couldnt so the tower had to lias.
the fire chief advised the tower to tell the crew there was a posibility there was a fire in the rear hold but they couldnt be sure and to advice the crew to evacuate the pax.
the captain advised that he prefered steps as a evacuation could harm pax. and he only wanted to do it if there was a fire (because of the language difficulty i dont think he ever got a clear answere to that question)
the fire chief then said ,we deside in this case and we order a evacuation ,this was translated by the tower as ,the fire chief recommends a evacuation,

Overal a good outcome but BRU should review there communications between the tower and fire crews and i think it would be handy if they spoke English to make it easier to communicate with the flightcrew directly


Neil

[Cameronian]

More than one poster, so far, has raised the point that it is vital to know whether there is a hold fire (or the makings of one) or not. The follow-on to that is that for the fire crews to establish this (with or without the use of their current IR equipment), the baggage hold needs to be opened for an extended inspection process but that this is a problem because the fire crews often don't have the means to open the baggage door and also due to the risk of a very dramatic escalation of the fire once the fresh air reached it - a phenomenon well known even in house fires.
I am surprised that the baggage hold, and the fuselage in general, would not readily show "hot spots" to suitable IR equipment when viewed from the outside, thus avoiding the risk and delay entailed in opening the hold to the fresh air while there are still passengers shut in "upstairs". I'm sure I've seen equipment used in this way. Experts, please step this way.......!

[Daysleeper]

I was also sitting at the holdingpoint when they came in (in front of Daysleeper)

Ah I wondered what the smell was :}

[MarkD]

i think it would be handy if they spoke English to make it easier to communicate with the flightcrew directly

As well as French and Flemish? :rolleyes: :ugh:

[ChristiaanJ]

As well as French and Flemish? :rolleyes: :ugh:Now there's a dumb remark, in a way. (No insult intended, Mark, let it pass....).
The only way you become bi-lingual or tri-lingual is by practising all your languages all the time.
Somehow, somewhere, I would say I'd hope the BRU fire chief does not have to use his English every few days (even if in his position maybe he should, just for the training).
The whole thing seems to have taken 20 minutes or more... that's not just language and communication problems, that's unnecessary chaos.
As to the language issue, I could comment on the dangerous habit of our French brethern to go on using French on the RT.... but this is NOT the thread for it.
And just in case anybody asks.... yes, I'm tri-lingual Dutch-English-French, with a couple more languages current. So I'm very well aware of the problems.

[Fbrigade]

Great discussion in fact
Communication between ckpt and fire officer
Internal Fire identifcation from outside
Coordination to decide to evacuate or not
[Kill the fire or he will kill you !

The most important problem is the evaluation of the suspected problem
Ask our next crew the following question: tell me where are the differences between fumes, smoke, fire and you will be very surprise !
the BA crew did an excellent job.
the question is why ?

1. It is practically impossible to identify a fire from outside except if there is smoke
2. thermal digital camera are very helpfull to rescue people in quiet atmosphere.
3. the cargo hold is a complex place to identifiy a fire for the fire crew
4. There is some details to evaluate this strange type of alarm.
a) As a pic you are partialy blind except your display with an alarm and a bell
b) did you ask your cabin crew if they feel when tey touch the foor a hot temp
c) The cabin floor is composed with carbon fiber. This type of floor can released some fumes very toxic with a short delay and without a lot of pre signal (i.e smoke comming from the carpet etc..)
d)Are the paint around the cargo doors froming some bubbles (temp elevation=developpement of toxic gases comming from paint)
d) a thermal digital camera will give you an image withn some strange reflection because the cargo hold is a specific place. there is between the fuselage skin and the cargo walls somes aircond tubes and the mixing chamber with hot air and this both things will give you a withe image that's it !

The most important thing's is to communicate on the both sides.

All the fire crew are able to understand the dangers of an evacuation
but they are aware of de the potential degradation of a fire spreading in a cargo hold with DGR for example !!

If they recomand to evacuate be sure too thing about the potential danger of the situation.

the airport management are not open to spend monney to give to the fire brigade some rapide mobile stairs :(

A Jet A1 Kerosen fuel fire reach the temperature of 800 degres celsius in less of 45 second. Just thing about that.:\

Mixed that with DGR inside a cargo and you will evacuate promptly.

I am not painting a black wall but It's the real time to take a coffe with the airport fire chief where you are located and discuss with him and sahring the information and the doubt if ....

The phone line between the both (pic'S/Fbrigade) side is working but she need to be devellopped.

Try to take time to discuss with the firefighters inside the cockpit to explain the situation and climb inside the fire truck to see how your aircraft is big for this small truck.
But if the team is working well in coordination with the fliying crew you will save a lot of lifes.

the future is a win win programm

Congratulation for the both sides at BRU they are doing the best as they can.

[ChristiaanJ]

The most important thing's is to communicate on both sides.I so much agree with so many of your other remarks, I won't even start to argue with them.
But "communicating" means talking the same language.
In theory, in aviation,,that's English.
In practice, we all know "aviation" English can still leave something to be desired.
Is anything being done at the moment to develop a "simple English" that everybody can speak and understand, and that everybody in aviation (be it pilot or fire chief) who has to cummunicate, HAS to know?
Work has been done on this in technical documentation. However, in day-to-day communication, it would seem far more important.

[garp]

I so much agree with so many of your other remarks, I won't even start to argue with them.
But "communicating" means talking the same language.
In theory, in aviation,,that's English.
In practice, we all know "aviation" English can still leave something to be desired.
Is anything being done at the moment to develop a "simple English" that everybody can speak and understand, and that everybody in aviation (be it pilot or fire chief) who has to cummunicate, HAS to know?
Work has been done on this in technical documentation. However, in day-to-day communication, it would seem far more important.

Well said. As much as I have respect for the firecrews there should be at least one firecrewmember who is able to communicate in proper English. The situation that Neil is describing is frankly unacceptable. It would imply that the crew and the firebrigade would be unable to communicate when facing eachother on the tarmac. WTF?

[Basil]

<<we deside in this case and we order a evacuation>>

Other than in a catastrophic situation, when the evacuation would be initiated by the cabin crew, I'd consider that to be a command decision.

[SIDSTAR]

First of all well done to the BA crew. Another example of a well-trained couple of professionals doing an excellent professional job. All fellow-professionals are proud of you.

Two points:

1. If a professional fireman tells me that he sees smoke/fire/signs of either anywhere near my aircraft I'll take his word, as he's the pro in that area not me. Imagine the consequences of not following such advice and then having a full-blown fire erupt?

2. The reported difficulty of the crew trying to communicate with the fire crew in English. Is this not an issue for ICAO to address in the context of the Aviation English proficiency requirements from 2008 onwards? Indeed I hear it was raised at a number of the ICAO seminars on this subject recently.

[Hand Solo]

The problem arises when the firemen are unable or unwilling to tell you whether they see smoke/fire/signs of either anywhere near your aircraft as apppears to have been the case here. Then what?

[RatherBeFlying]

All well and good to land ASAP if any indication of fire.

Not so smart to delay evacuation while evaluating the situation. Yes, it seems that over 90% of the time evacuation for a false indication or controllable fire is a greater hazard -- until the next time an uncontrollable fire bursts out and a large number of pax are lost because of delay in ordering an evacuation:(

Until ICAO prevails upon the fire services to provide stairs for the vast majority of precautionary evacuations, slides are the only way out in these cases.

[Fbrigade]

Well said. As much as I have respect for the firecrews there should be at least one firecrewmember who is able to communicate in proper English. The situation that Neil is describing is frankly unacceptable. It would imply that the crew and the firebrigade would be unable to communicate when facing eachother on the tarmac. WTF?

This is the right way but the problem is different for the fire brigade all over the world except the english speaking countries.
The people selected to do this job as firefighter are stil not selected with a specific or basic knowledge in english. The airport management is still sleeping because they are thinking cost-related. (english speaking for 1 time! :ugh: )
After years of discussion the american finally find some very realistic hand signal to communicate with the cockpit (same as marshalling).
Anybody are knowing this type of hand signal :ooh:

It's time for ICAO to start the revision of ICAO annexe 14 for fire and rescue at the airport.

The english voice is simply not a recommendation
There is no minimum for the number of fire crew available at the airport
(national rules are applicable)
There is only an amount of fire truck
There is no recommendation to developped the communication between cockpit and the emergency services
There is no requirement for red rapid mobile stairs

We absoultely need to coordinate that with all the associations working for a safer aviation.

The ICAO papers are the basic paper for the airport management cost related decision :{

How many people are to be evacuated by the slide with bad injuries and pic and fire crew blamed before anybody at ICAO will react for the next session
and push in the front an ACTION.

[puddle-jumper2]

This incident does indeed sound like a tricky one. In my honest opinion the crew had no choice to evacuate once the recommendation from the fire crew to do so was given.

Ratherbeflying...... I would have to agree with you, 20-25 mins is a long time but too little is know of this incident to try to understand why it took 20-25 mins (if indeed it took that long) to call the evacuation.

Was the fire warning light still on after landing ? If it wasn't then the crew may have wondered if there was no fire or if it was damaged by the possible fire.
Smoke was said to be seen on landing.... could it have been tyre smoke or smoke from the hold.

At the end of the day the Crew are like a computer.... the answer you get is as a result of the input it is given.

[RatherBeFlying]

pj2 -- this day the crew had 20+ plus minutes.

Another day with another crew, there might be less than a minute. When you find out it's a really bad one, it's too late:(

[TopBunk]

I agree with the thoughts that suggest that to decide not to evacuate having had AFS suggest it would take someone with bigger cojones than I have. Think of any subsequent Court of Inquiry and the prosecutions questions to the captain.

Whilst commending my colleagues in their handling of this event, just to widen the debate, and whilst recognising the likelihood of injuries when using the slides, I contend that in aircraft such as the A320 and B737 and similar families would be well served by all having serviceable airstairs for situations such as these.

BA removed the A320(CFM) airstairs some years ago and the later A319/320/321 (IAE) never had them to start with. I appreciate that there may be some confusion in the subsequent event of an evacuation having deployed the airstairs at Door 1L, but that could happen during boarding in any case.

Thoughts?

[Fbrigade]

[QUOTE=TopBunk;2847129]I agree with the thoughts that suggest that to decide not to evacuate having had AFS suggest it would take someone with bigger cojones than I have. Think of any subsequent Court of Inquiry and the prosecutions questions to the captain.

In fact this the consequences or the result after the evacuation.
Before we go in the court:{
We need to go to ICAO and complain about the lack of rules and standards about mobile red stairs.
I agree with a lot reply and remarks very constructive.
How could we push the problem in the front and to have information about this subject at ICAO ?

The minmum would be to have a red rapid stairs at each airport category XX according ICAO

The cost of the new red rapid stairs for the A380 is approximately
750'000 USD :sad:

Where could we find some study or statistic about evacuation ?

It could help for an argumentation for the airport FB

[Marty-Party]

Having witnessed a cargo door being opened (on the ground) after a fire warning, I can say for sure that the retardent looks like smoke!

However, if you just take a few seconds, the retardent is heavier than air and so flows out over the door sill. It also smells like burnt paper.

I would expect smoke to still have some heat retaine and would probably rise.

[KiloKilo]

Was the fire warning light still on after landing ?

The warning light came on two minutes after reaching their cruising level (FL330) and the light went off in the descent (+/- FL327) into EBBR. If then came back on I would not know.