BA 757 engine fire on approach to Glasgow

[captainmacuk]

Did anyone hear about the BA 757 heathrow to Glasgow shuttle engine fire yesterday(25.05.01) My old mans pal(who is a BA engineer) was on the flight.
It was on approach a few miles out when no2 engine went on fire so the fire bottle was fired and engine was shut down.
On the landing run no 1 engine was shut down and the aircraft came to a halt with the usual fire services(etc) surrounding it

Did anyone else hear about this or have any other info on it?

Happy flying, see ya

[This message has been edited by captainmacuk (edited 27 May 2001).]

[Raw Data]

Somehow I rather doubt they "panicked"...

(checks profile)

Flying and drinking, huh? Must have been drinking a little too much, it seems...

[drop bags bar]

Raw Data, The flying and drinking was also the first thing to catch my eye.

[Maxfli]

looks like Engine fire drill followed by OGE check list, don't see the panic anywhere and who was drinking and why wasn't I invited.

[The Zombie]

OGE checklist would that be 'on the ground evacuation' or something else?
Just asking!

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.......... ;)

[MAPt]

I was their when it happened. We were just about to line up when we heard the 757 declare a "Mayday", and stating they had a left engine fire. We held at the Cat III hold as the aircraft landed. There were no signs of any fire on the engine to us.
After landing they shut down on the runway and were inspected by the fire service, who saw no signs of fire either. The runway was closed for about 45 minutes, almost necessitating a return to stand for more fuel!!!

[Raw Data]

I'm sure they had a fire warning at the time they issued the mayday, but it probably went out when they fired the bottles.

They did exactly the right thing, even if it appeared to you a little unnecessary, MAPt. I'm sure you'd do the same in their shoes.

Maxfli, captainmacuks' profile says his interests are drinking and flying. Not much future as a professional pilot there then...

[MAPt]

I wasn`t complaining. I agree, they did exactly the right thing. They declared the mayday when they were about 4 miles out.

[Phoenix_X]

Am I going blind and missing the 'panick' bit, or has captainmacuk edited his post to suddenly seem more friendly/professional?

[stickshake]

Nope, I can't see the 'panic' bit in his post either.....editing is a wonderful function.

I think the bit where the aircraft stops on the runway and prepares to evacuate in the event of a fire warning is SOP isn't it ? Didn't we learn about trying to clear the runway with a fire indication at Manchester a few years ago ? We're told to 'think wind' and consider where the smoke and flames would drift in such cases and the best place to be is on that lovely bit of wide concrete where we can turn to keep the smoke away from the aircraft. I think most folk understand that and as was mentioned earlier are happy to accept it, and indeed would expect it themselves.

What was the bit about panic anyway (before the edit)?

[Raw Data]

It went like this:

"It was on approach a few miles out when no2 engine went on fire so the fire bottle was fired and engine was shut down. Panic!" etc

At least he could have apologised... probably too busy drinking and flying (or has he edited his profile as well???)

[Old King Coal]

Our QRH and 'memory recall items' drill do not say that you have to evacuate just for a fire warning, and for the most part to do so is entirely the prerogative of the Captain.

If you understand just how the overheat / fire loop detectors work then you'd realise that it is possible to have false fire overheat / fire warning (e.g. some sort of hot gas leak from the engine could well indeed set off the warning, but you're not actually on fire ) and, certainly before issuing the command to evacuate the aircraft, you'd accordingly want some sort of corroboration of a fire emanating from your aircraft (e.g. the ATC tower folks can see smoke and / or flames, or that perhaps there's smoke in the aircraft, etc….. )

Now w.r.t. shutting down the 'good' engine - yes you would do this on the basis that if a fire was indeed confirmed to be blazing away you'd be immediately ready to command an evacuation, e.g. it's rather distressing to have pax successfully alighting from the cabin only to get sucked-into / blown-over by that big RR donkey - and it takes quite a while for an RB211 to stop spinning.

Ultimately the last thing you want to do is to order an emergency passenger evacuation for no good reason, i.e. you panicked and failed to properly evaluate the situation - so in this instance it sounds like the crew did a top job !

[mainfrog2]

Old King Coal,

What happened to CRM at your place, if you'd got an engine fire on a 757 chances are that at least 6 crew and possibly around 160 pax will also have noticed something. Why wait for ATC to tell you somethings burning. There is more than just 2 crew on an aircraft you know. (phew glad I got that off my chest)

[stagger]

Old King Coal,

You write that "the last thing you want to do is to order an emergency passenger evacuation for no good reason."

Surely, the that's the second last thing. The last thing would be to fail to order an emergency evacuation when it really was needed.

[Kiltie]

Leave the poor loon alone. So he likes drinking and flying. You guys are deliberately applying these interests in the same context when you know damn well this is not what the chap's profile is supposed to convey.

I have a successful career in professional aviation & I have an interest in drinking as well; doesn't mean to say that I arse a bottle of Gin before going to work.

Lighten up.

[Basil]

mainfrog2,
The flight crew would probably get a more immediate answer from ATC or directly from the fire chief but that doesn't rule out confirmation from cabin crew. In daylight fog, for instance, then a cabin crew report might be the better course of action (reflection from night time fog and would leave no-one in any doubt http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif )

stagger,
No, the last thing you'd want to do would have a learned discussion on semantics :)

[Devils Advocate]

So Mainfrog2 (and having had a look at your profile), pray tell me who is it that is responsible for ordering an evacuation AND ( / or) just when is it / under which very special / unique circumstances (please define) are cabin crew allowed, of their own volition, to initiate an evacuation ?........ e.g. given the above, would you have evacuated ?

And let's get this straight - an evacuation is a SERIOUS thing to undertake, e.g. that's why the briefing that flight-crew undertake prior to (for instance) taking-off usually includes a bit about what you will do after an RTO (having safely brought the aircraft to halt, applied the brake) to the effect that "We will sit on our hands, and take our time to properly identify just what is / was the problem(s)", and only if deemed serious enough / necessary will the Captain then make the order to evacuate.

E.g. let's say that the aircraft suffered some sort of fire indication (but not much else by way of smoke / flames), the technical crew land and bring the aircraft to a rapid stop, suddenly there's a smell of smoke in the cabin.
Would you evacuate immediately ? If not immediately, how long would you wait ? What would be your decision making process ? How would you corroborate that the a/c, and its occupants, are indeed in imminent danger ? ........... for all you know, in the preceding, the engine fire indication was caused by a major bleed-air leak in the vicinity of the fire protection loop, the smoke in the cabin was caused by the brakes getting seriously hot during the rapid stop and melting one of the fuse plugs - the smoke from which was ingested into an air-conditioning pack via the engine intake just prior to the engine being shut down. Indeed, there was actually never any fire - but that's not to say that it mightn't have all the symptoms of one - and that's why the Captain uses his/her knowledge and judgement to make the decision w.r.t. the risk - both of an apparent fire indication and / or of evacuating; It is not a time when you PANIC - it's a time for cool, calm, and collected thought !

I'll also go so far to say that a great many cabin-crew, and I mean no disrespect (i.e. it's not their / your job to know), have very little idea as to the 'finer-points' w.r.t. the operation of a large Public Transport jet aircraft and / or the thought processes and technical drills that the flight crew are required to undertake prior to / during / after a major malfunction.

To be honest I'd like all cabin crew to be able to attend one of the flight crew six-monthly simulator sessions (sit in the back and watch) during which we revisit the above scenarios, I'm sure that such an insight would indeed be of great value.

Also, CRM (Crew Resource Management) is not about a Captain being pushed / influenced into making decisions (which I believe is more properly known as 'Risky Shift') by having the purser / CSD / #1 / Senior Cabin Crew member / etc… come bursting hysterically in to the cockpit spouting on about "there's smoke in the cabin, I think we should evacuate !" (see the scenario above), i.e. one of the great things about using CRM is that you can canvas ideas / information from your crew.... but you don’t have to take it !

[captainmacuk]

Hi people sorry I couldnt get logged onto the net for a while(modem prob) to answer some of the people questioning the drinking thing.
For a start i was being silly just adding a little humour (you know the BA pilot thing) to my profile and cheers Kiltie for sticking up for me mate
and i am not exactly a pro pilot (yet) Im an 18 year old student learning to fly so I can go out for a drink or two with my mates

The edit thing (panic!!!) I was being sarcastic, again a little humour

And it wasnt the ATC that spotted the fire it was the warning systems and a couple of passengers.

just another thing what do you all work at in aviation as I would like to know,
any advice for a future pilot(hopefully)
I know I know Im not in the right forum but you dont get the top pros going into the wannabee forum do you?

See ya all later
thanks for the answers and info

[ExSimGuy]

Cpt. Mac,

I for one guessed at your "connections" from your post. If you wanna "mix it with the lads" (and lasses these days http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif ) just get on down to the GatBash or one of the bashes at EDI or GLA and you can certainly learn (until they get toooo far gone that is :)

Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to get to the GatBash this time http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif but it's a great opportunity for wannabees to chat with the "Old Pros". And what about the seminars that Infin & Stan have organised!

Hopefully see you'all at the Xmas Bash


------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!

[mainfrog2]

Devils Advocate
Sounds like a suitable handle for you.

The times when cabin crew can initiate an evacuation without a call from flight deck is when the landing is -clearly catastrophic-
that is to say

the A/c lands on water
there is fire in the cabin
if the aircraft fuselage breaks up (big bits missing)

also there has to be a system in your training which allows for the fact that the flight deck may not survive the incident.

Also I think as well as cabin crew having time on your simulator, maybe you could take a quick peek at our training. When you call for the a/c to be evacuated who do you think does the door opening, moves the pax away safely. That'll be the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

In an incident on an a/c I will be expected to get a briefing from the flight deck on the nature,intentions, time available and special instructions. This will not go over my head, I will know what you are talking about and I will prepare the passengers in a way which should minimise casualties.

Also all my profile tells you is that I am cabin crew I live in Crawley and like sailing. Your powers of deduction are quite fantastic Devils Advocate.If you know anymore than that I'd love to know how. Stop flying become a medium.

My point on my original post was that not to forget that you have crew at the back. This incident appears to have started miles away from the airport and well out of view of ATC and you fire officers.

CRM seems to be talked about a lot but not always put into practice.

Also there have been many incidents in the past were errors on the part of pilots could have been prevented if the whole crew had talked to each other. Better to learn by other peoples mistakes.

The original post I placed has obviously been misconstrued as I only wished to point out that there are more than two crew on the aircraft. I bow to your greater knowledge on the workings of a jet engine. I don't expect any captain to make a descision based on information from only one source.

Also contrary to popular belief cabin crew are a pretty switched on lot, all you have to do is fly the aircraft we have to deal with hundreds of scared people.

Enough now I'm of for my tea.



[This message has been edited by mainfrog2 (edited 29 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by mainfrog2 (edited 29 May 2001).]

[sudden twang]

So let me get this straight 4 miles out with an engine fire exactly who would at this stage get onto the cabin interphone to confirm it ?

The flight crew will be flying the plane and putting the fire out and preparing for a single engine landing with more flap than is practiced in the sim as flap 30 will have been selected by 4 miles .

if cabin crew think the flight crew will be able to talk to them at this stage they need more crm trng .

Oh and I believe atc have binoculars so seeing smoke at 4 miles will be possible .

[mainfrog2]

So sudden twang your too busy fighting your engine fire to talk to the cabin crew but not too busy to talk to ATC four miles away looking at you through binoculars. On our a/c I'm 12 ft away from your engines.
Just to let you know four miles out I'll be strapped in my jump seat for landing mate. Either I'm not making myself clear or I'm just having my tail pulled here. I do understand the chain of command on the aircraft and I do understand who is ultimately in charge I also can get my head around the fact that you will be busy if you have an engine fire. I'm just saying don't discount the potential information the cabin crew can give in these situations. If your asking ATC for information why not cabin crew.

Some of you seem to be a bit jumpy about getting cabin crew involved in some of your descision making.


[This message has been edited by mainfrog2 (edited 29 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by mainfrog2 (edited 29 May 2001).]

[whats_it_doing_now?]

I think mainfrog has a very good point. However 4 miles out its easier to talk to atc than cabin crew, and the last thing you want to do at that stage in the game is to complicate things when the engine has gone pop. The workload has already gone through the roof.
In practically all engine fires the main thing is to get the aircraft on the ground, and at no position are you better placed to do this than at 4 miles final and configured. So what if you've got a touch more flap, use some flying skills and stick a bit more power on the other engine, try and get the fire out, but get it on the ground!
I certainly think its important to canvas opinions from all sources where there is doubt about the problem, but time was a factor here. In my opinon the bright red lights and the fire bell would be enough at this point in time. Unless you're of the community who would question this, believing the indication to be caused by 'a major bleed leak'... Where's the indication to tell you that it wasn't!?!

[sudden twang]

Mainfrog 2 you've just proved my point perfectly .

To transmit to atc tower you just need to key the mic on the ctl coloumn already in your hand . You will already be calling mayday anyway as it is mandatory in BA .

To contact the cabin crew you need to select cabin interphone on the centre pedestal ie look down away from the shop then press the cabin call on the overhead panel yes more distraction then wait for a reply from someone who has to peer through a
very small aperture unless they leave their seat and you suggest this should be done with 100 seconds to touchdown . The last time a BA 757 was trailling significant amounts of smoke ... you know the one the went into GVA , nothing could be seen from the cabin.
No matter what the response from the cabin you would still execute the engine fire checklist .

You missed the point if you think that I do not believe in involving the cabin crew . So to reitterate I'm suggesting that one pilot will fly the plane coping with assymetric flight on short finals probably transmitting to atc whilst the other pilot executes the emergency checklist .

Once the a/c has touched down one would expect a cabin crew member to use the alert call to advise the flight crew of any untoward signs . Now that would be CRM in action .

[mainfrog2]

Sudden twang... I stand corrected.

My original post was trying to point out that the cabin crew can be useful in emergency situations. Even after following this thread I still don't know everything that happened on the BA Glasgow flight and so my comments were meant to be more general. Maybe I was rising to Devil's Advocates bait after their post which seemed to imply we would just crumble into jibbering wrecks at the first sign of trouble.

Horns now pulled in.

[Devils Advocate]

Mainfrog2, I certainly never forget that I have a crew or pax in the aircraft - i.e. all the lives onboard are priceless, indeed I similarly remember that sometimes (read, 'many a time') it's the actions of individuals that have saved the day.

However (and you knew that was coming, didn’t you ? ) w.r.t 'CRM seems to be talked about a lot but not always put into practice'.... maybe, and maybe not, e.g. I'd say that a lot of CRM seems to be about 'team building' (rather than focusing on the idea of 'the crew' - and there is, imho, a subtle difference between the meaning of being part of a team and / or part of a crew - Nb. however they are not mutually exclusive) when it might perhaps be better orientated towards getting the best decision / action / outcome from the crew.
Ok, this is all very nebulous, I know, but I'm afraid to say that in the airline which I work for the meaning / focus of CRM may seemingly, imho, have drifted towards PC thoughts on equality and an individuals human rights - rather than the real meaning of the words that form the title of CRM.

Ps. With regards to becoming a 'medium', uhm, I think I'll stick to flying aircraft - that said, the ability to clairvoyantly foresee that you're about to crash into a mountain could indeed be quite useful !

[Ignition Override]

Just the idea of people springing onto evacuation slides while very high above the ground (757 or larger) is a very serious option. If a slide fails to inflate etc, people might jump or fall anyway if they panic, or are pushed, when the "reptile brain" takes over in those behind you. Now if fire trucks are quickly next to the plane and tower control gives you their radio frequency, they can help decide if there are flames coming OUT of the engine. A little smoke from an engine and/or brakes, wheels while quickly being sprayed by a fire truck, might not require a very hasty, risky evacuation.

Broken legs, arms or necks could result from any evacuation, even from a much lower (to the ground) MD-80 or 737.

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 31 May 2001).]

[Ignition Override]

Sudden Twang-in contrast to your idea, if the plane is within about ten miles or so of the runway when the fire bell & lights come on, would it be better to pull the affected engine to idle power (once the rudder into the good engine is "cranked in" and the heading control, power and speed are stable with desired single-engine flaps and gear all down, start the APU...)? When an emergency has been declared and you are on the ground, smoothly reverse only the good engine? This has already been suggested: focus only on flying the plane using one engine, unless a few minutes or more from the airport?

How about fire lights/bells on takeoff (normal flap setting on long runway) a bit over 100 knots-cancel the bell and continue? If so, how many Captains brief this during the first leg of a trip?

[sudden twang]

ignition Override ...

this must be a wind up . I only laid out the procedure pedantically for our cabin crew friends as I know they would help me in their specialist areas that I am not familiar with .

if this is not a wind up ...oh dear.

[Ignition Override]

Sudden Twang-I was only addressing the issue of avoiding too many checklist items when very close to landing (suggested by others), other than flying the beast. My questions were for any reader on Pprune, in order to promote a discussion of emergency procedures in this situation, but I was not trying to second guess your very good ideas ideas and points.

[flapsforty]

Sudden Twang, I have never seen Ignition Override engage in that peculiar form of entertainment known as "wind-up" here on PPRuNe, and I'm convinced he's not doing that now either.
Why don't you have another look at his post, and consider it with a fresh mind?

BTW, interesting discussion Ladies & Gents :)

[tunturi]

I know nothing about this incident other than as presented here but thought I might stick a couple of pence worth of technical info into the pot. "Modern" fire detection systems are much less likely to give false warnings tha older sytems. There are two independant fire detectors (as well as overheat detectors) and in normal operation both loops must detect a fire or overheat to present the indications to the crew. It is possible for a single loop to develop a fault which will not present a fire warning but will cause the system logic to automatically re-arrange itself so that the remaining good loop now operates as a single loop system and this can then present fire warnings if one subsequently occurs. (most MELs allow for dispatch in this config). Additionally, "most" Fire warnings are caused by hot gas leaks and do not necessarily involve flames at all BUT if it is hot gas then the warning will nearly always extinguish as thrust is reduced which of course will cause the temp of the gas leaking to reduce and will certainly disappear when the engine is shutdown. If fire warning indications persist after the appropriate drills then it is either a real fire or a false warning (subject to above comments). The latter is of course possible when the system is operating as single loop as mentioned.

Don't know if this helps or confuses.

[LargeJet]

Just while we are on the subject of fire/overheat detection, someone once gave me this little piece of info. Just thought I'd pass it on. The Systron Donner system uses a pressure tube type system, meaning that the hot gas outside the tube increases the pressure inside the tube and at a predetermined level will give an overheat warning. Should the pressure continue to increase to a higher level, indicating a fire then a fire warning will be given. Yes and?..........I hear you all cry! Okay, now consider what a fault light means - somewhere in the overheat/fire "tube" a fault has developed, since this is a pressurised tube this could be a pressure drop below a predetermined value, resulting in a fault light coming on.
So back to the practical scenario. Fire bell goes off, shut engine down, fire bottles, lights go out, etc etc but then you notice the "Fault" light illuminated. So is the fire out or not? Maybe, maybe not, if the fire has burnt through both fire loops this is what you'll end up with. As I said someone once told me this and this thread brought to the front of my mind!

[Old King Coal]

Now I was told that the way that it works is that some engine fire 'loops' are basically constructed in a way that has a central core of conducting wire, this is then sheathed by a normally non-conducting (dielectric) material, which is itself is then sheathed by another layer of conducting material.

The ends of the conducting materials are linked to the fire detection unit, and an electrical signal/potential is applied to each.

Now clever bit is that with an increase of temperature the intermediate dielectric 'breaks down' and becomes conductive - allowing current to flow between the inner and outer conductors - and one would imagine that it's the level of current flow sensed between the two that triggers either the overheat or fire annunciation.

But perhaps the cleverest bit is that even if the wire is cut (i.e. the loop is broken) the system will still work.

For those who fly the B737-3/4/500, you'll know that there are two detector loops and two levels of fire/overheat detection…. HOT, and HOTTER.
If a HOT situation exists, you get an OVERHEAT indication.
If HOTTER, you get the full blown FIRE indication.
During NORMAL operation, both of the detectors must sense an alert before it is displayed.

Now the detection system needs to be able to handle internal faults and to that end it has a FAULT DETECTOR SYSTEM which automatically deselects a faulty detector…. and here's the rub... the system will NOT turn on the fault light to tell you that you have lost a detector loop, unless you do an OVHT/FIRE test.

The subsequent test is a tricky thing to do: If the OVHT DET switch is NORMAL and you get a FAULT light... you have a failure of both detector loops on one or both engines.

If you then push the OVHT/FIRE test switch and you get a FAULT light... how do you determine which loop is the one with the fault ? Well, push OVHT DET switch to A (or B) and if the light comes on, that is the broken one.

Uhm, but can the system still detect a fault ? Well place the FAULT/INOP and OVHT/FIRE test switch to the FAULT/INOP position and if the FAULT light comes on you're in luck it's still working !

Of course please do check this in your Technical Manual and / or with a Training Captain.

Ps. Any engineers out there got some more info on how these systems really work ?