Rejected Takeoff Test A340. 3 fires one hose. [Archive]

VSB via OL

22nd Nov 2006, 15:47

Now is it just me - or did the AFS look completely unprepared for this event, Now i am not conversant in French at all so I assume that this was a testing exercise and the fire(s) which going by the video (I assume) was reasonably expected to occur??...

Good thing he remembered not to approach laterally at least.....

I did see a second hose eventually attacking the Right MLG, but the Left seems to have been forgotten completely..

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Ptkay

22nd Nov 2006, 15:57

Could somebody fluent in French translate for us what the guy is shouting...
I understood only:

"Get the ladder, where is the ladder, we need a ladder,
we have to evacuate them, get the ladder...
O, bitch (Oh, putin)...
Get the ladder..."

:eek: :eek:

During such a test the AC is at the MTOW, so tanks full...
Could you imagine the flames reaching a little higher...
What chances for the crew ???

:ugh:

Airbubba

22nd Nov 2006, 16:05

The 777 RTO test was relatively uneventful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5N2uBqJbVU&NR

con-pilot

22nd Nov 2006, 16:24

That tape is an excellent reminded of why you never, ever approach a hot tire/brake from the side. If fact, just don't get near the blasted things in any case.

It is funny watching the poor lonely firefighter trying to get more pressure for his hose.

Clarence Oveur

22nd Nov 2006, 16:56

Isn't PPRuNe amazing. Where else could you get such excellent analysis from experts of both fire fighting and aircraft testing.

It really is amazing.

ATC Watcher

22nd Nov 2006, 17:08

This was one of the certification RTO/ EVAC test for the A340-600. The voices one hear are those of the test pilots who first do not want the fireman to extinguish the fire as time has to be measured and for the test to be successful it must not be less than 180 seconds I think.
The lone fireman so early is in fact a nuisance .

What did go wrong in this test is that the Tyres fuses did malfunction .

Later when the fires are larger and have to be estinguished, there were far more firemen , but approaching from behind and invisible by the video camera.

The ladder request is for the crew to exit the plane ( foreseen but not in place ) I do not think this was meant for public diffusion.
In fact this iwhole thing is part of a normal testing process.

Lyneham Lad

22nd Nov 2006, 17:21

What happened to the fusible plugs - they clearly didn't function. I was alway taught that brake fires are best dealt with by dry powder extinguishers, to avoid thermal shock and exploding wheels - especially when the fusible plugs malfunction.

ABX

22nd Nov 2006, 20:28

I am a volunteer fire fighter and can tell you for sure, some butts should be kicked in the post event debrief.

No pressure, insufficient hose length, one man alone (where was his partner?), the list goes on. :ugh:

Very interesting video though. :ok:

Cheers,

ABX

stevfire2

22nd Nov 2006, 20:31

for a brake fire, yes, powder is good, but you must be prepared to back it up with foam/water spray, should it escalate. powder is only effective whilst in use, has no burnback resistance nor cooling qualities. with tyres involved, only water/foam spray is going to be effective, with powder or halon available should hydraulic lines fail, releasing free flowing flammable liqiuds to create a "three dimensional" or "running fuel" fire. glad the fire fighters remembered their correct positioning.:ok:

aerotransport.org

23rd Nov 2006, 00:14

Results here ;-)
http://www.aviationpics.de/test/a346/page_01.htm
/*

SWA Aviator

23rd Nov 2006, 01:58

I don't know what was worse the Airbus or the French fire fighters!

Great link!

If it ain't Boeing I ain't going!

Farrell

23rd Nov 2006, 02:15

He's not asking for the ladder....he is asking for the stairs.

French firefighters.....Sapeurs Pompiers.....are fantastic, brave men and women.

....Putain mean wh*re by the way.

boofta

23rd Nov 2006, 02:25

Another Number

23rd Nov 2006, 03:31

Higher Quieter Smokier (http://www.aviationpics.de/test/a346/a34601.jpg)

Volume

23rd Nov 2006, 05:57

only an extremely patriotic Frenchman could draw anything
positive from quality fuse plugs fitted to this A340

I was not aware, that North Carolina is still french. (Thats where the wheel manufacturer Goodrich is based....)

DingerX

23rd Nov 2006, 06:14

According to a Learmount-reported article in Flight International, duped to Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2002/03/12/144417/Airbus+to+modify+A340-600+wheels+after+RTO+test+failure.html), the problem wasn't the fuze plugs' failure to operate at a low enough temperature, but rather the wheels' failure to withstand the strain of the increased tyre pressure. Je te jure!

London Mil

23rd Nov 2006, 06:39

I was not aware, that North Carolina is still french. (Thats where the wheel manufacturer Goodrich is based....)

OMG, I have just wet myself.:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

wombat13

23rd Nov 2006, 08:06

I don't know what was worse the Airbus or the French fire fighters!
Great link!
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................

Sleep well my high school educated little friend.

Je ne sais pas

ABX

23rd Nov 2006, 08:07

Watch the 777 RTO test and you will see firemen who are better organized, the French fireys in the Airbus video scared me. :eek:

In all seriousness, I would hate to have a real RTO at that airport. And to make things worse for them, they knew ahead of time what was going to happen and should have been prepared for it.

Farrell: French firefighters probably are fantastic, brave men & women. They did not demonstrate this on the day of the test though.

Volume: I assume the 340-600 wheels were made by Goodrich to Airbus specification?

Cheers,

ABX

Paul Wilson

23rd Nov 2006, 09:22

I would imagine that the wheels were made to Airbus specification, but Airbus would not design them or contstruct them.

i.e. Airbus says "we want a wheel combo to go on here, and be able to do this, and weigh no more than this amount"

The wheel then failed to meet the specification laid out by Airbus.

On the other hand the problem was obviously fixed, as the 340-600 is flying today, and wouldn't have if it could not pass the tests.

ABX

23rd Nov 2006, 09:33

Fair comment, point taken.:ok:

On another note: Those RTO tests must be ridiculously expensive to run. The damage done to that plane must have cost a small fortune to fix, let alone the expected cost of having to replace a full set of wheels, tyres, brakes, lines etc! Must have cost ... what? Million pounds plus?

Cheers,

ABX

55yrsSLC_10yearsPPL

23rd Nov 2006, 11:01

Clarence, irrespective of the collective expert analysis of the previous
posters, only an extremely patriotic Frenchman could draw anything
positive from quality fuse plugs fitted to this A340.
I sure hope the French nuclear reactors did'nt get the same batch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

It appears they didn't.

I still believe competence or otherwise has no gender, age or nationality.
Nor is it the exclusive province of a particular profession.

I for one am glad that actual testing takes place and lessons learned can be applied. :) :)

cargo boy

23rd Nov 2006, 13:14

Now, I really don't want to stir the pot but there are really some very amateur spotters contributing to this thread. :rolleyes:

I was not aware, that North Carolina is still french. (Thats where the wheel manufacturer Goodrich is based....)
DO Goodrich manufacture the whole landing gear assembly, including the wheel rims? It would appear to me that the the landing gear stood up very well, during and after the test. The wheel rims are another matter of course.

The 'Sapeur Pompier' who is seen in the video is a very brave man. Would you risk everything standing under 300 odd tons of aircraft when everything that is supporting it is in flames and disintigrating in front of you? No, I thought not. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the bit about the landing gear is not really applicable. Are the fuse plugs that are supposed to melt before the pressure inside the tyres becomes too high and prevent the wheels from exploding, a part of the tyre or the wheel rims?

According to Airbus sources the aircraft was fitted with Michelin's NZG radial tyres, which, according to Airbus, were believed to have performed adequately. Isn't Michelin a French company? Just teasing there. If the fuse plugs were a part of the tyre then I suppose that the fault would lay with the tyre manufacturer or if the plugs are a part of the wheel assembly then the fault would be with whoever designed and manufactured that bit. :oh:

As a Boeing driver and one who is distinctly uncomfortable with 'the dark side' and all the new philosophies (only because I'm too old and long in the tooth to have to learn them if I should be transferred to a Tuppaware jet), I was impressed with the B777 V1 reject trials that were filmed. Perhaps Airbus just need to make sure their cockpit video trials are edited suitable before being leaked to the public.

Still, it does make for entertaining watching and then reading some of the comments from complete know-it-alls who obviously don't. :ugh: To those who do know what they are talking about, thank you for your insight. As for the French firefighters, unless any of you have the cojones to do their job then at least have a bit of respect for the danger they are prepared to put themselves in so that the test pilots and their crew have a chance of getting out. :D

woptb

23rd Nov 2006, 13:20

The fusable plugs would form part wheels hub.

nikkkyg_v

23rd Nov 2006, 14:26

Saw this test about 2 years ago on a CD (floating) around the office. D'ont think it's that new.

Sensible Garage

23rd Nov 2006, 14:50

Loose rivets

23rd Nov 2006, 17:01

Well, 3/4 of a $m was mentioned for the 777, how much to repair the Airbus?

As for the turnout, they should think themselves lucky. I used the whole of the runway to stop one night at CDG, having asked for the fire crews to monitor the left undercarriage etc etc.

We were standing near a lake of hydraulic fluid when, TWENTY MINUETS LATER, a 7foot tall policeman unfolds himself from one of those Vegetarian cars, puts on his hat and adjusts his tunic, before demanding to know why I had parked there.

ABX

24th Nov 2006, 00:47

Now, I really don't want to stir the pot but there are really some very amateur spotters contributing to this thread.

Truly spoken like someone who is reaching for the biggest wooden spoon they can hold. :E

cargo, you are right, there are many and varied spotters AND professionals on PPRuNe. For example, as a long time spotter and fresh student I rank myself low on the list of 'professionals' when it comes to a/c & flying, however I have been an active fireman (volunteer) for well over 20 years and I know that the fireys in the video did an appalling job of it.:ugh:

There never was any danger of the main gear itself failing and bringing the a/c down on the head of that poor lone firefighter, if, in fact he was too close and a little ineffective, it was because his buddies back at the safety of the pumper did not give him enough pressure. The significant damage to the a/c that resulted from the fire tells the story. Put simply; the fireys failed that test. :yuk:

ABX

ABX

24th Nov 2006, 01:10

12feb02 F-WWCA A340-642 360 Airbus Industrie
Suffered heavy undercariage damage damage during max landing weight test at Istres airbase, France. Aircraft was loaded to 370 tons while it will be certified for max landing at 254 tons.

If the MLW is 254 tons then I would guess the MTOW would not be 116 tons higher ... did you mean to say 270 tons? Or was the a/c deliberately overloaded for the test? If 370 tons is the correct number, do you know why they went with such a high weight?

I find it interesting is all ... :8

Cheers,

ABX

eal401

24th Nov 2006, 05:58

If it ain't Boeing I ain't going!
Aaah! You can't beat that saying!

The stupidest and most ignorant in the aviation world.

BahrainLad

24th Nov 2006, 06:08

There never was any danger of the main gear itself failing and bringing the a/c down on the head of that poor lone firefighter, if, in fact he was too close and a little ineffective, it was because his buddies back at the safety of the pumper did not give him enough pressure. The significant damage to the a/c that resulted from the fire tells the story. Put simply; the fireys failed that test. :yuk:

The whole point of the test is to see if the aircraft can cope with a wait of 15 minutes after the RTO without having to evacuate (this is to account for the delay in the fire service arriving which might occur in a normal scenario). My French is a little rusty, but at one point I believe you can hear the test pilots asking what the hell is the firefighter doing, as he is interfering with the test (no outside involvement unless absolutely necessary).

As soon as the test is declared a failure, the cavalry arrive, but mainly from behind the MLG and they're obscured by smoke.

ABX

24th Nov 2006, 06:18

Thanks for your post, my French is practically non existent. :)

If the fireys (or maybe just the one firey) tried to put the fire out before either the test was completed or declared a failure, then I stand by my comments that they did not put on their best display on the day.

Also, I think the test only goes for 5 minutes.

Cheers BL,

ABX

DingerX

24th Nov 2006, 14:38

From the cockpit dialog, it sounded like when they were taxiing, they spotted something in front of them that was not in the plan -- that could easily have been the one fire truck from which our hero came. There are plenty of fire trucks following the bus.

Also, when he does come on camera with the hose, the "five-minute wait" is still in effect (it's about 2:30), and someone on the gorund tries to call him off; there's concern that he'll ruin the test. With the fire, and when the guy starts the hose, the folks on the flight deck try to argue that it's "not a serious fire" -- and they can make it. Then the tires start exploding.

From a logical point of view, it would not make sense to give the test pilots veto rights over fire crew intervention. So the crew's call that it's "not serious" wouldn't prevent the fire folks from stopping the test -- and the crew seems to realize this.
At the same time, you get the feeling that the truck wasn't where it was supposed to be, and acted autonomously. But given the facts of the matter: the tires were still inflated, and the test was going to fail spectacularly, the "rogue hose" could have been prescient instead of stupid, and they could have been positioned to deal with the NLG if need be.

Even so, you do have to wonder why there appears to have been nobody whose primary task was assisting the crew with evacuation: for several minutes after ground gives the call to evacuate, they sit up there, asking for the stairs with no response. My personal favorite is:
"Uh, excuse me, could we have the stairs or something please?"

cargo boy

24th Nov 2006, 15:45

ABX, I'm more than willing to wave the wooden spoon if I so deserve it. I only fly the darned things and hopefully will never have to try and get out of one with flames coming from anywhere. :oh:

I still believe that there are some very amateur spotters who don't have any credentials, airline pilot or firefighter, who jump in with observations that do deserve the biggest wooden spoon. As was mentioned, we don't see what the firefighters at the rear of the a/c are doing. However, the chap we see with the dribbling hose :ooh: is either very stupid or very brave, whether or not he was doing the right thing.

Standing under the a/c whilst wheels are exploding, whether the landing gear is going to be affected or not, must have an effect on ones perception of the world around you. 200 or 300 or whatever tons of airliner suddenly dropping 4, 5, 6 or 10 inches towards your head should have an effect on any normal humans sense of wellbeing. :bored:

No doubt Gallic passions and excitement were at play during the unfolding scenario and thankfully no one was physically hurt although there are probably some badly bruised egos. I still think the lone firefighter was brave even if he wasn't supposed to be there. Rather him than me. :O

visibility3miles

24th Nov 2006, 18:50

At least two or three times the pilot (?) says "fermez le bouche" which is "shut your mouth" or "shut up."

"Quoi?" is "What?"

"Arret" is "stop"

"feu" is "fire"

"perdu" is "lost"

"escalier" is "staircase"
regardless of whether they asked for a ladder or staircase, clearly they didn't wan't to be in the cockpit anymore.

"D'accord" is "okay"

"sh*t" is "sh*t"

"mal" is "bad" or "sick"

The fireman may have messed up the test, and there may not have been enough water pressure, but there was a fire and he was trying to do what he'd chosen to do as a career.

Impress to inflate

24th Nov 2006, 19:03

Like something from Dad's Army. "Don't panic............Don't panic.........Capt Mannering I've got it under control"

Flyingmole

24th Nov 2006, 19:40

I don't know what was worse the Airbus or the French fire fighters!

Great link!

If it ain't Boeing I ain't going!

For those looking at the whole thing theoretically, a few years ago as a passenger outbound from Doha to LHR on a QA A300, we hit birds at V1. Brill pilot brought us to straight line stop, turned off runway, all tyres quietly went "pop", no fuss, no fire, we disembarked. :):D I have reason to trust Hairbus after that!!!

hobie

24th Nov 2006, 20:24

A question for the "Fire" professionals ......

once a serious fire situation had been identified would not the best course of action be to use roof mounted guns/nozzles and keep personnel well away from the danger areas? .... :confused:

http://www.foxvps.co.uk/images/image040.jpg

http://www.foxvps.co.uk/images/image040.jpg

fredchabbage

24th Nov 2006, 20:39

I dont know a thing about fighting fires but its interesting how the fireman appears to completely ignore the port side main gear (even when the second hose joins in on the starboard) letting the flames lick the underside of the fuselage.....

ABX

24th Nov 2006, 21:38

cargo boy, I agree with much of your post, and I do believe that the lone firefighter is equipped as stated above, even if he was stupid (& he may not have been) he was definitely brave. Also, I would never argue with you about flying the darned things as I am not a jet pilot, that is your bailiwick, not mine.:ok:

The reason that I don't want to call the lone fireman stupid is that I don't know who had the authority to decide when the test was a failure. Was it Airbus management? The pilots? The fire crew (with better visibility and experience with fires)? Another party? Don't know.

hobie:
once a serious fire situation had been identified would not the best course of action be to use roof mounted guns/nozzles and keep personnel well away from the danger areas?

Maybe. If they had such a tanker in position and ready to go. If they didn't have one, or had to wait for one to arrive they are better off to "get the wet stuff onto the hot stuff" as quickly as they could. Also, such a tanker would need to be able to project the water under the a/c effectively.

fred:
Here goes, I'll stick my neck out again. Lets review basic fire management. Fire needs 3 things to survive: fuel (something to burn), oxygen & heat. It probably would have been better to spray water onto each MLG set in turn, without trying to fully extinguish one before turning to the next. That is, take some of the heat out of each set and this will retard the fire (make it manageable) and prevent one of the MLG fire entering the rest of the plane.

Airbus to fireman, "You let our plane burn to the ground!"
Fireman, "Well yes, but I got two of the fires out before the third one lit the fuel in the wing..."

Cheers,

ABX

aerotransport.org

24th Nov 2006, 23:17

Couple of points of interest:
The RTO test was undertaken at Istres. This is a military airfield (hence no civil ARFF, and not a lot of heavy jets) with a loooong runway (designated as a Space Shuttle alternate - but also means RTO's there usually mean move the throttle lever to idle and wait for the bird to stop). Basically I would suspect the firemen had no prior training specific for this A340 test should it go wrong.
/*

ABX

24th Nov 2006, 23:25

Agreed, that would seem a likely scenario.

move the throttle lever to idle and wait for the bird to stop

I stand to be corrected, but isn't SOP for an RTO test, to pull the throttles to idle and let the wheel brakes do ALL the stopping, the a/c config looked pretty clean in the RTO videos I have seen.

cargo boy, you might be able to elaborate a little here?

Cheers,

ABX

aerotransport.org

24th Nov 2006, 23:27

I meant to say this was the usual behaviour for RTO's - obviously not for this specific test!

ABX

25th Nov 2006, 00:07

:}

(just writing a minimum of 10 characters)

con-pilot

25th Nov 2006, 00:38

Well, back in my days the standard test RTO (in training) was;

At the call:

Brakes apply. (maximum to anti-skid activation)

Thrust levers idle. (If one was really good both could be done at the same time, however, brakes first always.)

Spoilers deployed.

As thrust reverse cannot be used in planning they cannot be used in the test. Of course in real life you use everything you can.

hobie

25th Nov 2006, 09:36

This looks very impressive .... :confused:

The C-17 Test Force successfully completed its final brake test mission. Firefighters unleashed more than 32,000 gallons of water on the new wheels, tires, and brakes to prevent extensive damage to the plane and axles.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/2002/images/c_17brakes2.JPG

http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/2002/images/c_17brakes2_sm.jpg

vapilot2004

26th Nov 2006, 06:04

BahrainLad, I thought the rule was once there is fire, the test is considered failed and over?

The firefighters should have been given the go-ahead to extinguish the fires. The fireman at the wheel calling for more pressure from the pump operator seemed to know better than the aicraft test crew, but was made to appear unfairly inadequate in my opinion. But very, very brave. Once those tires popped, hydraulic fluid was aerosolised and ignited. :eek:

There were proposed changes around 02 or 03 regarding RTO testing rules which included as one of the RFCs the modification of the 3 or 5 minute wait.

The fuse plugs did not fail. They had yet to reach their design melt point.
The assembly is designed to withstand a specific maximum kinetic energy absorption rate before failing. That energy rate must have been exceeded by this RTO test. Because of the overload, the wheel and brake assemblies heated up faster than the combined sink could absorb. The rapid heating caused local temperatures (thus overall pressure) to rise faster than the wheel temperature at the fuse location.

Wheels and brake assemblies for the A340 (and A330) are made by Goodrich-Messier Inc - a joint venture between Goodrich and Messier-Bugatti of France. Final assembly and testing occurs mostly in Goodrich's North Carolina plant, while design work is handled by the Messier-Bugatti group in France.

The A320 series and most recent Boeing aircraft have assemblies designed and manufactured by Goodrich of Troy, Ohio. The A330/340 is the first aircraft series to use the newly formed alliance partnership between the French and American companies.

Perrin

26th Nov 2006, 08:32

While working for Saudia in Riyadh SA, pilot reported noise and lost of control of nosewheel stering on TO. After offloadingpax and doing usuall checks, tyre pressures, things loose etc it was taxied out for high speed taxi with pilot at controls he said it wasn't as bad so I said let me have a shot as I was covered for high speed taxi got started down the runway and the engineer on the panel
(747-300) said the brake temps were going up fast so get off runway. Did that and got out and watched with great red faces as ALL the wing and body gear
fuse plugs gave out. As we were going off shift it was a nice gift to the next crew. The only saving grace was the temp that day was 44c. But it goes to show they do work!!!!!!!!! At least the nose wheels were ok!!!!!!!!!
Keep them flying boys:

TheOddOne

26th Nov 2006, 08:44

. Once those tires popped, hydraulic fluid was aerosolised and ignited. :eek:

If they were using Skydrol, or equivalent, I'd be suprised if it would have caught fire immediately, as this fluid is fire resistant. What we often see from hydraulic failures during landings is hydraulic fluid dripping onto hot parts and vaporising into a white gas, NOT burning. Quite spectacular, but NOT a fire.

Skydrol WILL burn, but not until a higher temperature is encountered.

So, what's left to catch fire? The tyres themselves, I guess..

TOO

ps another favourite at this time of year during a landing roll is de-icing fluid applied at take-off dripping onto hot brake assemblies - also pretty spectacular and who can blame any AIR controller for hitting the 'Aircraft Ground Incident' button?

Agaricus bisporus

26th Nov 2006, 08:52

Well, it makes my flesh crawl to think of having an accident with fire crews like that around. I shan't have Istres on my diversion list though...

"Aerosolised" !!!!!!!!!AAAARRGGHHH!!!!

Fbrigade

26th Nov 2006, 20:21

The 'Sapeur Pompier' who is seen in the video is a very brave man. Would you risk everything standing under 300 odd tons of aircraft when everything that is supporting it is in flames and disintigrating in front of you? No, I thought not.

The real problem is training about such situation and positioning the fire truck at the right place.
If I am observing this video in the point of view of a "Airport firefighter" and not a " Sapeur Pompier (very brave in did)" I need to accept the fact they was simply not ready to deal with this type of action. :\
1. Application rate of water was wrong and this impossible to reach the right application rate with this type of hose.
2. If you want to achieve the right action you need to use a dual agent to extingusih this type of fire.
A) Use water to cool down the fire and project powder inside the water spray.
B) Coll down the brakes assembly with a water spray and never attack the fire on the side.
C) Be ready to bring a lot of water at the scene just because the discharge rate of a real water branch for airport firefighter is 450 liters per minutes:yuk:
3. The poor french firefighter was not ready to deal with such fire and they are note working with the right tools.
4. The major risk in this situation is an hydraulic fire and a center tank fire just because the heat is climbing along the wheels assemblies and reaching the tanks (hydraulics and fuel)
5. And once again evacuate this big bird as soon as possible for your own safety

This type of test and videos are very usefull to remember to all of us the danger for all involved to protect the life of the crew and passengers.
The amount of post and readers are a good news to work together for safest aviation.:ok:

Be coordinate to minimize the risk for the life :D

broadreach

26th Nov 2006, 21:22

For me, a few more lessons learned via pprune. Thanks ConPilot for the remark about never approaching a hot tyre from the side. Exactly what the firefighters did in the 777 video!

And a bit of practical backseat firefighting for all of those who laughed at the lone fireman attacking - or trying to - one set of gear only. It's difficult enough aiming a pressurised firehose accurately at a single target, let alone three at once; and he would have seen his colleagues approaching from the side and behind to tackle the other fires.

patrickal

27th Nov 2006, 16:10

With regards to the single fireman's focusing on one bogie, consider this. Here is a picture taken during a mock disaster drill at SWF (Stewart Airport, Newburgh NY).
http://k47.pbase.com/u8/chasp/medium/37416919.inthefire.jpg
In it the two firefighters have been sent in to extinguish an engine fire in a tail mounted engine. What they do not know is that a fuel spill has occurred to their right. This shot was taken about 5 seconds after the spill was igninted, and you can see through the heat that the hoseman does not realize this. His partner has just noticed that they are about to be overrun, and is trying to alert the hoseman to the situation. The entire point of this element of the drill was to teach the firefighters to be aware of the entire situation, not just the target zone of the hose. In any case, my point is that it is possible he was fixiated on one point, and just didn't realize the overall magnitude of the situation

(for more pictures of this drill: http://www.pbase.com/chasp/disaster_dirll_at_swf

hobie

27th Nov 2006, 20:48

for more pictures of this drill: http://www.pbase.com/chasp/disaster_dirll_at_swf

105th Fire Brigade Arrives

it's a pity the 105th didn't arrive first ..... :)

http://k53.pbase.com/u17/chasp/upload/39151810.stewartdrill167.jpg

RECSAM

28th Nov 2006, 11:33

As an aside to this discussion, can anyone recall or direct me to the following story please. It referred to an airfield in Southern Europe, where a small fire was started, I believe, by a hot start on a jet engine. The gist of the tale was the inability of the local fire services to get one of their trucks running, necessitating it being push-started by the other one. Whilst this was going on, the fire spread to the tinder-dry grass. The story was told by an aircrew member who, in his words, nearly died laughing as he watched the firemen jumping up and down in frustration.

aviosaurus

28th Nov 2006, 20:15

In the mid-seventies, I worked in ATC at an airfield in west Africa. For night movements, we had a practical problem - the mains electricity supply was "unreliable" and the stand-by genny was only capable of supporting the technical equipent (radios, nav. aids, etc) or the runway lights, but not both at the same time.
As a result, the standard procedure if a night movement was anticipated was that the AFS placed, before it went dark, an (unlit) gooseneck flare next to each runway light. About thirty minutes before the anticipated movement the AFS would light the flares by the simple method of driving along the edge of the runway in a fire engine with someone sitting/standing on the back step with a lighted gooseneck, lighting each flare as they passed - he also a reserve of charged goosenecks available if one failed to light.
One particular night, that was the problem. For reasons unknown to me, the man on the back of the truck managed to light the reserve goosenecks. The truck left the runway with the whole of the back end on fire and the crew exited the immediate scene asap.
The now merrily burning fire engine set the surrounding bush on fire.
It took ten minutes to (bump) start the other fire engine to deal with the situation.
A significant proportion of the airfield was burned to the ground.
The municiple fire service arrived two hours later.
The inbound aircraft decided to divert - even thought the airport was "well illuminated" .

Sorry for thread drift.:ok:

Jetstream Rider

29th Nov 2006, 07:02

I learn't some good things from this video. At first, I thought the RTO went very well and that the brakes were a bit hot, rather than about to burst into flame - I was impressed (see below). It was interesting how quickly the situation escalated and how the first tyre exploded with almost no warning. Next time I have hot brakes I will bear that in mind.

Secondly, if you look carefully there is a tender (possibly) fighting the LMG behind the smoke, it is hard to see at times but the criticism of the firefighter only dealing with one fire might be misplaced, as there is a tender dealing with the one he ignores, but hard to see.

A while ago I saw an RTO video from the original 747, the brakes were on fire before the aircraft stopped and a wheel exploded during the 5 minute wait. The flames were much worse than the ones in this video and the test was hailed a success - the video was released by Boeing as a promotional video. It just goes to show the "if it ain't boeing" crowd selectively look at the facts.

How many of us react with venom when a non-aviator criticises our actions? It is amaing how many people think they know how to put out fires even though they have little or no training. (I've been taught to use Water and Halon handhelds - hardly a firefighter). In our industry unfortunately we get "soundbite teaching" about a lot of things, I for one would appreciate more knowledge of firefighting. I think that whatever the actions of the chap in the video, we can all criticise the lack of pressure, too small hose, poor communication (perhaps before the test too) and excessive danger that the firefighter was or put himself in. Regardless of whether the aircraft would have dropped on him or not, being hit by a flying brake pack or rim will do him no good at all!

aerotransport.org

18th Dec 2006, 01:20

Video #2
with a soundtrack a bit creative..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3F0wgJx_I

or provocative ?

Mork

18th Dec 2006, 10:43

Good morning to you all. I have seen the video and read the posts, and would like to give my insight as far as this test is concerned.

The test appears to be a maximum kinetic energy test to verify the capability of the brakes in absorbing energy. Since the airplane accelerated and stopped, I imagine that the test was accomplished with at least the aircraft's MTOW. The brake units are usually worn down upto about 10%. This is all done to make it a worst case scenario.

The pilots will accelerate the airplane to a speed that was previously calculated by the systems engineer. A speed of upto 160 kt would be a ball park figure. At that exact speed the pilots will simply step on the brakes and wait until the aircraft reaches a full stop. By regulations he is allowed to taxi the airplane in order to vacate the runway.

It is quite normal to have the brakes catch on fire. The fire has to be contained to the wheel well area and the test finishes 5 minutes later.

It appears that this test didn't go as predicted, and that is why the pilots seem to be a little aprehensive to leave the plane. The person who decides if the test should be aborted is the engineer responsible for this test (not the pilots).

This said my conclusion is the following. Flight test is just that!!

Things usually go ok, but sometimes they might not. That is why we do these tests. To make sure, that after certification, the airplane is totally safe for passengers to fly in them. Sh.. happens. Let's not get too excited. It just happened that things didn't go as planned on this one but eventually it did since the 340-600 was certified. Things like these are absolutely NORMAL in a flight test campaign.

Hope this has helped.

Take care,

Mork