UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai [Archive]

Antman

3rd Sep 2010, 17:23

From UPS:sad::sad:

A UPS cargo plane has been involved in an accident in Dubai.

At approximately 12 p.m. EST, UPS Flight 6 from Dubai, UAE, to Cologne, DE, a 747-400 with two crewmembers on board crashed on takeoff. At this time, we have not confirmed any casualties.

"Safety is a key priority for UPS," said Airline & International Operations Manager Bob Lekites. "This incident is very unfortunate and we will do everything we can to find the cause," said Lekites. "Our thoughts go out to the crewmembers involved in the incident and their families."

"We will also release more information as it becomes available, in cooperation with government authorities. We will not speculate about the cause. Until then, we ask for your patience in this difficult time."

A media information hotline has also been established. The hotline number is (502) 329-0110. A recorded message will provide any updates; the system will also allow reporters to leave messages if they would like a return call. Regular updates will be provided throughout the day.

captainsmiffy

3rd Sep 2010, 17:25

Have driven near to the crash site; save any confusion - it lies between the 311 and the 611, west of the Al Ain road and just beyond (west of) the army camp.

It is definitely NOT on any road, as is being reported on the news.

Extremely low over DSO on its way in. Heard it very, very low over B block.

A lot of very, very lucky families this evening in DSO....

walu

3rd Sep 2010, 17:25

It's Dubai Silicon Oasis, I was about four miles away on a tour, next to Maidan Race Track when it went in apparently, nothing on tower said at time or when I departed Dubai Creek at 18:10 pm! Just found out whilst having dinner, it's quiet surreal, have some good friends living in Silicon Oasis with EK who would be very close to this tragedy right now.. Very shocking.

surajr56

3rd Sep 2010, 17:25

Seems bad..
Was driving through Dubai - Al Ain Road, towards Dubai Academic City.. almost an hour ago when I saw all the emergency vehicles screaming past.
From the road, I could see heavy smoke at the site...
The crash site is on the right side of Dubai Al Ain Road, while going towards Al Ain, between exit 14 and exit 16.. Do not know if crash site included emirates road also..

Site should be near this area..
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=25.1069741&lon=55.3603649&z=14&l=0&m=b

Desert Dawg

3rd Sep 2010, 17:26

@atakacs

I agree it's extremely early to say for sure....

Let's keep a thought in mind for the two airmen who lost their lives tonight in the pursuit of a profession they loved.

EK380

3rd Sep 2010, 17:27

Aircraft came over my house in DSO very very low... to me it seemed low power. Estimated 300ft. Very shallow rate of descend. Was in control, until impact. Estimated track 240deg. No sign of fire before impact.

For the moment min 2 casualties reported. No ground casualties for the moment reported.

Fire spreading in a very large area, estimated min 1000mx1000m. Surely not on Emirates road. Some buildings on fire, but likely buildings under construction.

Rollingthunder

3rd Sep 2010, 17:39

Flightdeck fire on B744F???? Very worrying.

kotakota

3rd Sep 2010, 17:43

Come on just4fun , calm down , sorry if the UPS crew are your mates and even more sorry if they have been hurt , but please do not start a fight about some of the comments appearing here , looks like many pilots have been eyewitnesses for a change so maybe we can get to the bottom of this a lot quicker than normal .
It is terrible that anybody should perish in a modern jet aircraft , but surely it is also terrible if 'innocents' on the ground should perish by an aircraft taking out their home ?
I am a few miles from Dubai as we speak and have a niece and her family living not far from DSO , very relieved to hear they are fine.It is only natural to be more concerned about the ones you love .
Fingers crossed for the crew.

atakacs

3rd Sep 2010, 17:44

As they where just departing it must have been a pretty massive fire...

Huck

3rd Sep 2010, 17:44

A fire of any kind with only two people aboard is worrying.....

justforfun

3rd Sep 2010, 17:45

Typical bullsh%t...

Found and ex "expert" now quoting Kalitta in Columbia and spouting utter rubbish about fuel and MX...

Instant "experts"

Makes me sick.

captainsmiffy

3rd Sep 2010, 17:46

Concur with the low power setting for sure.

Definitely not hit any major road; everybody please stop surmising that it hit a major road! See my previous post as to exactly where it is! It is in the area of the new build villas though, just past the army camp.

Desert Dawg

3rd Sep 2010, 17:48

@atakacs

My mates in DSO confirmed fuel was being dumped right up to impact.. it's all over the place and he was outside at the time the plane went over... he got wet with the stuff (fine mist)....

Keep the kids and animals indoors for a while....

visibility3miles

3rd Sep 2010, 17:49

3 September 2010 Last updated at 13:37 ET

Cargo plane crashes near Dubai motorway

A cargo plane has crashed near a major motorway in Dubai, according to local officials and media reports.

There is no word yet on casualties.

The plane came down near the Emirates Road, setting some cars on fire, al-Arabiya television reported.

An official quoted by the channel said a fire had broken out in the plane as it attempted to land at Dubai airport.

No details on the model or size of the aircraft were provided.

The official news agency WAM said the plane had come down in an unpopulated area on Friday evening.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48977000/gif/_48977600_dubai_plane_crash_624.gif
BBC News - Cargo plane crashes near Dubai motorway (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11183476)

gravity enemy

3rd Sep 2010, 17:49

UPS freighter crashes in Dubai (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/03/346993/ups-freighter-crashes-in-dubai.html)

justforfun

3rd Sep 2010, 17:51

Anyone know for a fact if it was on departure or landing??

:(

Enos

3rd Sep 2010, 17:51

Hi was out walking from Cedre Villas towards Semar Villas, DSO if thats how you spell it.

UPS 747-400 clean flew at approx 500ft from direction of airport towards Arabian Ranches in a slow descent, aircraft disappeared from view over horizon followed seconds later by very large explosion, could not make out if A/C was on approach or departure, however engines seemed to be at low power.

Desert Dawg

3rd Sep 2010, 17:52

@justforfun

It had just taken off from 12R... declared emergency and tried to make it back to 30R..... failing which he must have gone for the military base.

justforfun

3rd Sep 2010, 17:54

@justforfun

It had just taken off from 12R... declared emergency and tried to make it back to 30R.....

Thank you.. another sad day in aviation.

grizzled

3rd Sep 2010, 17:57

tried to make it back to 30R

Or Minhad (Air Force Base)?

glhcarl

3rd Sep 2010, 17:57

Flightdeck fire on B744F???? Very worrying.

as for a "flightdeck fire". There is the possibilty that the fire was on the main deck "under the flight deck".

wingview

3rd Sep 2010, 17:58

CNN confirms bodies of the crew recovered. An other sad day for aviation this year...

kennedy

3rd Sep 2010, 17:59

Wrong direction for return to 30R, visual app to R27 at Minhad possibly, crash site about 2-3 miles from threshold.

And yes, justforfun, I'm also hoping for the miracle!

Edited to say unfortunately, news outlets quoting officals now confirming two fatalities, :mad:

justforfun

3rd Sep 2010, 18:01

CNN confirms bodies of the crew recovered. An other sad day for aviation this year...

For once I'm hoping the news agencies are wrong...

Gutted...

Machaca

3rd Sep 2010, 18:11

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/DubaiMap1.jpg

backseatjock

3rd Sep 2010, 18:12

I’m in DEL tonight and BBC World is still reporting that it was an Emirates cargo aircraft. Not sure if I should be surprised by that inaccurate reporting but, with a statement already issued from UPS, it just is not acceptable

airbusdriver123

3rd Sep 2010, 18:15

justforfun

3rd Sep 2010, 18:21

Flight from Dubai to Germany
Emergency with Barhain Control and emergency descent to 10000 ft
Fire in flight deck
unable to read instruments or changing freq with UAE control
several a/c relay transmission and radar vectors from UAE control on to Barhain freq
Last position on OMDB was 7000 ft - 6 nm final 12L.

Can we try and stick to the very little information we have? ... UPS are reporting:

Atlanta, September 03, 2010

A UPS cargo plane has been involved in an accident in Dubai.

At approximately 12 p.m. EST, UPS Flight 6 from Dubai, UAE, to Cologne, DE, a 747-400 with two crewmembers on board crashed on takeoff. At this time, we have not confirmed any casualties.

Given that until recently I worked for a very similar and just as large company, I'm fairly certain that UPS know which flight phase this unfortunate incident occurred...

Left Coaster

3rd Sep 2010, 18:25

akerosid

3rd Sep 2010, 18:26

Wrong direction for return to 30R, visual app to R27 at Minhad possibly, crash site about 2-3 miles from threshold.

While Minhad would make sense, the crew would presumably have been flying a wide turn to return to 30R, after departure from 12L; I guess we'll have to wait for a statement from Dubai ATC, as to whether the crew stated their intentions.

meekg

3rd Sep 2010, 18:30

I confirm the report of Airbus123.
I witnessed the whole thing on the radio while landing into AUH.
After attempting a straight in approach for 12L and getting there high and fast they were suggested to try OMSJ on hdg 090 or make a 360°.
I am afraid they lost spacial orientation while trying to join a RH downwidn for 12L.
They seemed to be unable to see any flight instrument or radio in the cockpit and they continously asked for their altitude, speed, heading to ATC through the realy of other airplanes cause they could not see their own radio panel to swith to UAE Control or Dubai Tower.

Tower Ranger

3rd Sep 2010, 18:31

Airbus drivers info is sound, the A/C was about 120 miles from Dubai outbound.

Dengue_Dude

3rd Sep 2010, 18:31

When we were heavy out of Sharjah or DXB, we briefed that if we lost an engine (we were performance limited), the FE would begin dumping immediately on verbal instruction of skipper.

:mad: the QRH as we had NO spare performance (DC10-30F).

Yes I've done Perf A etc etc. However when you look at the rate of climb after take off on ALL engines, you can see why.

Left Coaster

3rd Sep 2010, 18:37

If the ATC report is right then a fuel dump makes way more sense... and I stand corrected...BTW there are no FE's on the 744...I will stick to my previous question about dumping fuel right after TO. It would be the PM's job...and at such a busy time?

MosEisley

3rd Sep 2010, 18:39

Machaka's map is exactly correct as to the position of the crash site which would be consistent with a 12R departure for Europe. Just had friends who live nearby try to drive out to the site but could not get close.

Burger Thing

3rd Sep 2010, 18:41

Just have to say that if they were in fact dumping fuel...it was pretty quick..It's supposed to be a QRH action, and to get to it so quickly after TO makes me wonder what else was happening...low power (as reported here on PP) and fuel dumping so quickly after TO doesn't seem to add up...on the 744 (as with most heavy jets with the capabilty) dumping fuel to lighten up for a possible return is something that happens sometime later in the decision making process...if a quick return is an issue, an overweight landing can easily be done (esp with longer runways such as DXB) If the DSO people have fuel in their back yards...I wonder what else would have caused that? A leak of some sort after a catastrophic failure? Guess we'll have to wait and see...sad news tonight for sure.

Not all malfunctions develop as "predictable" as a rehearsed simulator script. Could well be that the crew were trying desperately to lower their weight to keep the aircraft flying after loss of thrust (catastrophic multiple engine failure?). No time for QRH when close to the ground and not enough power available to keep the aircraft flying and trying to stay clear off buildings, etc.

Sad, sad day.

Master_Dn

3rd Sep 2010, 18:45

(Reuters) - DUBAI (Reuters) - The bodies of two crew members were recovered after the crash of a plane in Dubai on Friday, the United Arab Emirates' civil aviation authority said in a statement carried by the UAE news agency WAM.
Earlier, delivery firm United Parcel Service Inc said its plane, a Boeing 747-400 had crashed at a Dubai air force base with two crew members on board.

SR71

3rd Sep 2010, 18:55

Multiple malfunctions?

Huh?

If you can't even see your ADI(s), EHSI(s), altimeter(s) on the flightdeck (due smoke), you don't need multiple malfunctions to have a (U)CFIT event.

atakacs

3rd Sep 2010, 18:56

They seemed to be unable to see any flight instrument or radio in the cockpit and they continously asked for their altitude, speed, heading to ATC through the realy of other airplanes cause they could not see their own radio panel to swith to UAE Control or Dubai Tower.

I can't imagine a flight deck fire developing into such a dire situation so quickly so it seems to points to a very bad case of cargo fire.

I guess the 747F is equipped with cargo fire suppression ?

Huck

3rd Sep 2010, 19:01

I guess the 747F is equipped with cargo fire suppression

Not in the main deck, I suspect. Detection, but no suppression.

MacRider

3rd Sep 2010, 19:06

no,not on the main deck,just the bellies. Cockpit fire, remember the Swissair MD11 at Halifax and how quick that developed. Fire to me is one of the worst things that can happen to you in a ac.

grizzled

3rd Sep 2010, 19:07

I think many of you are missing what some (literally on scene) ppruners have tried to tell you:

The aircraft had departed for Cologne much earlier than you are surmising. Its difficulties began whilst in Bahrain's airspace and they elected to return to DXB. On their first approach things got very bad very quickly and (without too much detail) they were unable to see their instruments or the airport.

Things were obviously VERY VERY nasty for these two guys.

BusyB

3rd Sep 2010, 19:08

Left Coaster,
Takes seconds only to start dumping:ok:

heavydane

3rd Sep 2010, 19:08

Correct, Suppression only on lower deck. Main deck is detection only.

Regards

Heavydane

N827TM

3rd Sep 2010, 19:11

The B747-4 has main deck detection, but no suppression. The Suppression in the main deck is to depressurize the aircraft at altitude. The lower lobes have detection and suppression. There is a Fire extinguisher and a wand to fight a fire but not likely to happen operating with two crewmembers.

golfyankeesierra

3rd Sep 2010, 19:16

Dumping is only usefull if you really need to squeeze the last performance out of your plane. You dump 2.5 tons a minute and speeds go down 1 knot per 5 tons.
So the fact that they were dumping suggests a performance issue, ie 1 or more engines out.

On the other hand there are strong reports of heavy smoke in the cockpit.
Unless these are related (ie airco smoke due to contaminated bleed air from a partly failed engine.. quite remote in this severity I might add), it is a multiple failure. Not unlike a sim-scenario after all.

skidbuggy

3rd Sep 2010, 19:19

Does UPS use EVAS in their cockpits? Would it have made a difference in this mishap? ... Too soon to know... These are questions that may be asked in due time.

meekg

3rd Sep 2010, 19:19

L-38

3rd Sep 2010, 19:20

Fire in the cockpit (or anywhere in the aircraft) shortly after T.O. is just too much workload for only a crew of two to be reasonably expected to handle on an aircraft of this size and complexity.

. . but then again, only two have unfortunately lost their lives - not three.

Flight Safety

3rd Sep 2010, 19:30

meekg said
I confirm it was not quick at all. They started their emergency descent around the Bahrain/Doha area. I estimate their crash to have occurred after 20-25mins.

This is far too long. With a fire you have to get down ASAP, it cannot wait as rate of system deterioration is unpredictable.

LongBeachTrijet

3rd Sep 2010, 19:37

At this point, there is no way of determining if the crew didn't get it down ASAP and what is and is not too long.

AN2 Driver

3rd Sep 2010, 19:51

Cockpit fire, remember the Swissair MD11 at Halifax and how quick that developed. Fire to me is one of the worst things that can happen to you in a ac.

Of course you realize that today is the anniversary of that crash? September 3, 1998, 01:31 UTC.

skytrax

3rd Sep 2010, 19:51

LongB, I agree. there is not much info at this moment therefore I suggest guys to take it easy with all sorts af assumptions. I read all sorts of stuff but there is not a single evidence yet of what happened apart from the fact that the crew declared emergency and there is a post on the previous page of the user meekg that witnesed on the ATC.

"After attempting a straight in approach for 12L and getting there high and fast they were suggested to try OMSJ on hdg 090 or make a 360°.
I am afraid they lost spacial orientation while trying to join a RH downwidn for 12L.
They seemed to be unable to see any flight instrument or radio in the cockpit and they continously asked for their altitude, speed, heading to ATC through the realy of other airplanes cause they could not see their own radio panel to swith to UAE Control or Dubai Tower."

Obivously they had a serious techincal problem but very little is known at this point so I suggest to not post all sorts of possible scenarios untill more is known.

Kinetika

3rd Sep 2010, 19:54

Be advised that the Journalistic Vultures are circling already and already sprouting ****e that they don't understand from reading the boards here

UPS cargo plane crashes in Dubai, killing two | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/03/dubai-plane-crash)

Cheers

K

blind pew

3rd Sep 2010, 19:54

Had a mate have a cockpit fire on a Swissair MD80 ex Munich. Within a couple of minutes the could see hardly anything, did a 180 and carried out an autoland downwind.
Fortunately they traced the source very quickly - the emergency power bus bar in the overhead panel. Skipper got a bit burnt and they couldn't see out to clear the runway until they had taken off the smoke goggles - the whole interior had been covered in fine grey ash within minutes.
The flight was around 20 mins with the smoke developing 10 mins after take off.

BOAC also nearly lost a VC10 ex New York? with aircon smoke when the skipper got engines to jump into the electric smoke checklist rather too quickly. They lost most of the instruments and entered a spiral dive rather promptly.
The very junior nav f/o pushed his nose and torch into the face of the standby horizon and yelled instructions to the captain.
I think that they bent the fin but it flew again - they got some sort of award!:D

barit1

3rd Sep 2010, 19:56

grizzled:
The aircraft had departed for Cologne much earlier than you are surmising. Its difficulties began whilst in Bahrain's airspace and they elected to return to DXB. On their first approach things got very bad very quickly and (without too much detail) they were unable to see their instruments or the airport.

That would appear so to me. If they perceived a critical situation earlier, you'd think they would have headed directly to the desert - or the Gulf.

atlast

3rd Sep 2010, 19:59

Just remembered something a very fine check airman made me do on my IOE on the 744F back in 98. I thought he was a bit of a wombat at the time but he made me close my eyes and find the smoke evacuation handle by feel. Think I'll re-practice that tomorrow.

protectthehornet

3rd Sep 2010, 20:08

halifax crash was sept 2, 1998...but that is local time...interesting question of "times" and coincidence...

-----

I think of all the fires aloft...Valujet in florida with passengers... the UPS DC8 at Philadelphia (KPHL) a few years ago due to lithium battery fire...and our friend EK GANN's "Fate is the Hunter" adventure...he found the sucker hole that was big enough to spiral down rather than do the instrument apch.

Old King Coal

3rd Sep 2010, 20:09

Wonder if this might have helped?

EVAS - Emergency Vision Assurance System (http://www.evasworldwide.com/index.php?p=video)

A UK CAA report (in 2002) supports the generally held view that, from the first indication that there is a fire onboard the aircraft, the crew historically has approximately 17 minutes to get the aircraft on the ground.

See: Fire in the Air (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Fire_in_the_Air)

and: In-Flight Fire: Guidance for Flight Crews (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/In-Flight_Fire:_Guidance_for_Flight_Crews)

Fighting a fire on the main cargo deck of a freighter, i.e. when there's only two crew members onboard is almost an impossibility, especially when you consider that a fire that goes undetected for even 2 minutes can turn into a monster to deal with.

deSitter

3rd Sep 2010, 20:13

Guy on CNN - sounds Aussie or Kiwi - says no fire visible on plane, did not mention trailing smoke, did say plane was banked and yawed and losing height with engines "struggling", passed over about 150 ft. Saw fireball. Sounds credible.

-drl

AN2 Driver

3rd Sep 2010, 20:17

Blind Pew:

Had a mate have a cockpit fire on a Swissair MD80 ex Munich. Within a couple of minutes the could see hardly anything, did a 180 and carried out an autoland downwind.

Check again, no autoland, far from it. They had preciously few instruments let alone automation left and handflew the thing, changing over controls between PIC/FO several times in the process. They were extremely lucky and also very skillful getting it on the ground. We were all stunned here when the extent of the damage became known. (Reason was a defective Emergency Power Switch).

http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1602.pdf

There are several accidents / incidents known with cockpit/cabin fires. Many ended in tragedy (Saudia 163, SR330, SR111, Valuejet just to quote a few). Time is the absolute essence in these. I recall some statement from Boeing after SR111, stating something to the effect that either an airplane would land within 15 minutes after discovering an in flight fire or "the accident is a fact". Sent chills down my spine when I first read it and is burned in my memory ever since.

I also recall a crew of a DC10 freighter at SFW Newburgh who got violently criticized for abandoning their checklists and putting it down fast, pre SR111. I think some people were thinking again afterwards.

blind pew

3rd Sep 2010, 20:24

Thanks for the correction - age:(.
Great link - confirmed the total flight time 20 minutes, smoke appeared after 10 mins, 2 mins later elected to return to MUN, emergency declared and after a further eight minutes they were on the ground but could not see out of the cockpit.
The skipper was very bright and also an excellent pilot, think a lot of our guys might not have got away with it.
Spoke german with a funny accent though!:O

Huck

3rd Sep 2010, 20:26

I also recall a crew of a DC10 freighter at SFW Newburgh who got violently criticized for abandoning their checklists and putting it down fast, pre SR111. I think some people were thinking again afterwards.

That is basically true. The crew landed with their goggles pressed against the instruments. They walked away from it - just barely.....

It was undeclared hazmat, by the way. I'm sure that'll be a focus of this investigation.

BreezyDC

3rd Sep 2010, 20:35

Huck and MacRider noted only fire detection on main deck, no suppression. Given that only mitigation is dumping cabin pressure, one ends up in a Catch 22 with increased oxygen feeding a fire below about 8,000 ft as one attempts to land. Any other suppression methods available upon descent (other than the previously cited handheld)?

Is it just too expensive, or beyond the laws of physics to provide fire suppression to the loaded main deck of a 747 or other heavy cargo aircraft? Or is this just an economic issue for the freight carriers?

AN2 Driver

3rd Sep 2010, 20:36

If it is generally agreed that there WAS a fire on this aircraft, then that makes it the 2nd cargo hull loss in a relatively short time with fire confirmed/alleged on board after LH @ Ryadh.

@blind pew

never mind, thanks for reminding us of that incident. I was fully aware of it, knew the FO on and off, can't recall who the captain was. It was a massive piece of great airmanship, they could have done with a medal or so for saving that one.

@Huck

That is basically true. The crew landed with their goggles pressed against the instruments. They walked away from it - just barely.....

I recall reading the NTSB report on that one and that the PIC and FE were severely criticized because in the rush to get down NOW they forgot one or two items, which the experts afterwards found could have contributed to the difficulties in extinguishing the fire. I thought to myself even then, and that was pre- SR111, that this was a fairly easy thing to say to them for someone who had not been there. With the background of SR330 (bomb explosion with fire) I thought even then they did a phantastic job to get it down and to be alive.

We don't know if this was an issue here, from what our friends who overheard the whole thing (and how terrible that must be I don't want to contemplate), it may well have been.

waldorfin

3rd Sep 2010, 20:45

Guy on CNN is a senior trainer with Emirates. Spoke to him... he reckons there was thrust on the engines and no sign of fuel dumping. Looks like it was a shallow descent to the impact sight. He is safa by the way.

deSitter

3rd Sep 2010, 20:52

It seems to me that it should be possible to fill the cabin of a cargo plane with halon and isolate and over-pressurize the cockpit with say nitrogen with the crew on O2. That would drive the smoke from the cockpit. You wouldn't need a hermetically sealed cockpit.

-drl

NWstu

3rd Sep 2010, 20:53

From AN2 Driver:

I recall reading the NTSB report on that one and that the PIC and FE were severely criticized because in the rush to get down NOW they forgot one or two items, which the experts afterwards found could have contributed to the difficulties in extinguishing the fire. I thought to myself even then, and that was pre- SR111, that this was a fairly easy thing to say to them for someone who had not been there. Though the not the full report, here (http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1994/A94_133_136.pdf) is a letter from the NTSB to the FAA describing the incident, summarizing the cause and "pointing the finger".

lomapaseo

3rd Sep 2010, 20:57

I confirm it was not quick at all.
They started their emergency descent around the Bahrain/Doha area. I estimate their crash to have occurred after 20-25mins.
I doubt a bleed/pack smoke. He stated more then once "we are on fire" which makes me believe he actually had evidence there was fire.

Very important facts if corroborated

It puts a relative time frame on the degradation should a fire have been involved. Also provides a similar time frame if a fuel dump was commanded.

Up until the abandoned landing (as reported) it would be interesting to find out what the track of the aircraft was in the descent.

J77

3rd Sep 2010, 21:16

Mate of mine departed just ahead of the UPS. Said that the UPS reported "Main Deck Fire indication" and requested the closest airport from Bahrain Control. They suggested Doha which was 100 miles. After a brief pause the UPS crew requested "Why not back to where we came from". They said OK and offered a vector to the 10 mile final 12L. After a minute the UPS requested "Emergency descent due fire". They then informed ATC that the smoke was obstructing their vision and that they could not see anything. After that the comms were with DXB on 121.5 where they were cleared to descend to 9000', which was changed to descend at your discretion. The rest were bits on 121.5.

grimmrad

3rd Sep 2010, 21:23

I know that it might be a stupid question I guess and you might answer "who cares in these circumstances..." - but is it allowed to dump fuel so low and over inhabitant ground and - as some seem to indicate - just before an emergency landing not on a field...? (Am not a pilot)

Dufo

3rd Sep 2010, 21:31

It may not be specifically allowed or forbidden to dump fuel so low, but if it saves lifes.. it's better to wash those shirts soaked in jet fuel than let them burn in it.

TopBunk

3rd Sep 2010, 21:33

grimmrad

Normally, you would not dump below 6000ft in a B744, but if the situation was as bad as suggested, then I suspect stopping fuel dumping was the last thing on their minds.

soddim

3rd Sep 2010, 21:33

I guess a better question for the people who might be inconvenienced by jettisoned fuel is 'Would you prefer a diluted spray of fuel or a crashed aircraft on your property'.

However, yes, there are recommended procedures but in emergency it is preferable to allow the qualified human in the chain to decide.

grimmrad

3rd Sep 2010, 21:36

Soddim, TopBunk, Dufo - thanks dor the response. Thats what i figured but wanted to get the inside info. I can fully relate that I rather have jet fuel than jet metal on my head...

Guy D'ageradar

3rd Sep 2010, 21:37

As Topbunk says, fuel dumping restrictions, along with most others, go out of the window as soon as a problem escalates to this extent.

In an emergency, what needs to be done is done - if you need to redo the wash afterwards, so be it.

AN2 Driver

3rd Sep 2010, 21:49

NWstu

Though the not the full report, here is a letter from the NTSB to the FAA describing the incident, summarizing the cause and "pointing the finger".

err, I meant the FEDEX DC10 at Newburgh. Nobody I was aware of criticized the SR crew in the aftermath but one never stops learning... thanks for that letter.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1998/AAR9803.pdf

Just had another look at the FEDEX report. It took exactly 19 minutes from the first alert to the ground egress command after landing. The Swissair MD80 took 12 Minutes from the initiation of the turn back to landing from FL180.

@blind pew: Of course! Thanks for jogging my memory here.

Best regards
AN2 driver

stepwilk

3rd Sep 2010, 21:54

"They suggested Doha which was 100 miles. After a brief pause the UPS crew requested "Why not back to where we came from?"

Decades ago, I had a huge oil leak, at night, in a Cessna 310R climbing out of HPN for JFK. Called departure in a shaky voice--my first-ever emergency--and asked for vectors direct to JFK.

"Ah, yeah, we could do that," the bored controller said, "but why not go back to Westchester? It's just three miles behind you..."

Live and learn.

Halfnut

3rd Sep 2010, 21:57

Off the top of my head in the last 10 years hull losses from main deck cargo fires have been:

1996 FedEx DC-10 KSFW Newburgh, New York

2006 UPS DC-8 KPHL Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2010 UPS B-747 DBX Dubai, UAE

AN2 Driver

3rd Sep 2010, 22:13

They suggested Doha which was 100 miles. After a brief pause the UPS crew requested "Why not back to where we came from?

Ground Distance from Dubai to Doha is 206 NM. If they were 100 NM from Doha they were practically in equal distance to DXB, which they knew and probably had the plates ready.

Count Dracula

3rd Sep 2010, 22:13

Increase your SA....good reason to always fly with the MFD (if you have one) displaying airports. Select HDG, turn the heading bug to the airport and initiate the emergency descent (if required).

WhatsaLizad-II

3rd Sep 2010, 22:13

Anyone know if there has ever been a case where in a transport aircraft, the flight deck window(s0 were opened due to smoke obstructing vision? The downside is feeding the fire with oxygen of course.

411A

3rd Sep 2010, 22:22

Anyone know if there has ever been a case where in a transport aircraft, the flight deck window(s0 were opened due to smoke obstructing vision? The downside is feeding the fire with oxygen of course.

Yup, PanAmerican, at KBOS, many years ago.
The checklist mentioned...no side window opening advised, however, it was tried, anyway.
The result was not so good, all crew died.
Smoke/fume/fire cause...improperly packed dangerous goods, in that case.
As I recall, some of the shipper employees went to...jail.
Hope so...just where they belonged.:(

atlast

3rd Sep 2010, 22:25

@iflyboeing747 - Totally agree. Each case is different. Could it have helped in a total obscuration? Don't know. Hope I never find out my friend.

FDX aviator

3rd Sep 2010, 22:36

Breezy,
I believe the main reason there is no main deck fire suppression is that it hasn't been required by regulation.
FedEx is installing a self designed main deck fire suppression on their MD-11 freighters. It's a system that uses a can penetrator that runs along a track along the ceiling of the aircraft and is completely automated. It doesn't even have a system test or indication in the cockpit to show whether it's operational.

armchairpilot94116

3rd Sep 2010, 22:38

Swissair Flight 111: in-flight fires. (http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq8.htm)

Not the first inflight fire and likely , sadly not the last. Any chance hot wheels on take off caused the fire?

noblues

3rd Sep 2010, 22:38

I'm a Capt on 744 Freighters.

I always brief if we get ANY fire (engine/cabin/cargo) we WILL turn at 500ft to head downwind* for a return - Thats is againts our company SOP's to follow the SID and do the QRH/Checklist ... BUT I want to LIVE!!!

*OR do a teardrop land witn a tailwind

I also fear the casual nature in which Hazmatt is loaded, their just isnt the time to check every pallet in detail before departure. We put our faith in the shipping agents and handling agents that its packaged and loaded correctly, and is what it says on the paperwork.

I also fear we havent got a main deck fire suppression system on the 744F.
The QRH has us depressurize and suffocate the fire - yeah, right, when its a dodgy chemical spontously combusting ... and we are 600 miles from the nearest bit of tarmac ... get real Mr Boeing .. and the certfiication authorities.

I hope lessons are learnt from it and procedures changed in 'freighter world'....

The Turtle

3rd Sep 2010, 22:46

Who does the ground handling for UPS in Dubai? DNATA? or in house?

Wondering where the boys who loaded that plane are right now...

Molon Labe

3rd Sep 2010, 22:49

On opening windows during a hazmat fumes situation and or maindeck or cockpit fire, I am aware of at least 2 incidents(not accidents) where a window was opened. Procedure strongly discourages this but in the 2 cases it worked. Both cases were at the Flying Tiger Line, one in the late 1960's and one in the 1970's.... The involved captains told me that the checklist items had been accomplished and the situation was still pretty dire. And both captains said that it was a result of the following thought loop."Well that's every thing in the book, and things look like we are about to die so does anybody have any more ideas?" The window opening enabled a landing, make note that in both situations the aircraft involved were close to landing when the window was opened. There is no "window " to open on a 744 and how the escape hatch or smoke evac port would work might be quite different. Food for thought

RobertS975

3rd Sep 2010, 22:52

Another example of why any delay in getting it on the ground can be bad:

ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32 C-FTLU Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Airport, KY (CVG) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19830602-1)

AN2 Driver

3rd Sep 2010, 22:55

411A, this one?

Clipper Titian 11/03/1973 Boeing B-707-321C(N458PA)
Location: Boston, Massachusetts Time: 09:39
Flight: 160
Route: New York City - Prestwick
3 Aboard / 3 Fatal
Smoke in the cockpit and uncontrollable fire caused by spillage of nitric acid on sawdust packing in the cargo hold.

Machaca

3rd Sep 2010, 22:57

Anyone know if there has ever been a case where in a transport aircraft, the flight deck window(s0 were opened due to smoke obstructing vision?

ValueJet 592

GlueBall

3rd Sep 2010, 23:24

Anyone know if there has ever been a case where in a transport aircraft, the flight deck window(s0 were opened due to smoke obstructing vision?

1973, VARIG B707, PP-VJZ near Orly, Paris, after toilet fire. Capt had his head out of window to see field before flare; 11 survivors, incl crew, 123 fatalities

ATPMBA

3rd Sep 2010, 23:28

Many years ago I attended a seminar, an AME was one of speakers who had looked into that accident. He said the fumes/smoke the crew was breathing was basically LAUGHING GAS.

Halfnut

3rd Sep 2010, 23:35

Anyone know if there has ever been a case where in a transport aircraft, the flight deck window(s0 were opened due to smoke obstructing vision? The downside is feeding the fire with oxygen of course.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the 747 has sliding clear view windows. Just a hatch in the middle of the flight deck ceiling/roof.

Huck

3rd Sep 2010, 23:45

Here is the press release about the Fedex system. It will be sold to other carriers:

FedEx Express Advances In-Flight Safety with Automatic Fire Suppression System
FedEx Express, a subsidiary of FedEx Corp. (NYSE:FDX), has unveiled the industry's first onboard automatic fire-suppression system (FSS), elevating the level of safety during international, over-water flights. The comprehensive fire-safety system is the result of seven years of design and development efforts at FedEx Express, and expands upon the company's existing commitment to advancing aviation safety.

"The in-flight safety of crew and cargo is a top priority at FedEx Express, leading to our development of this enhanced fire-safety technology," said Joel Murdock, managing director, Strategic Projects, FedEx Express. "After seven years of design and development, we're proud to see this proprietary technology take flight on a variety of aircraft in the FedEx fleet, representing another strong step forward in our air-safety initiatives."

In April 2009, FedEx Express began installation of the FSS technology on MD-11 freighters " the workhorse of the FedEx international aircraft fleet. Each installation requires approximately 700 man hours and will be completed on the company's 59 MD-11 aircraft in early 2011. FedEx also plans to install the FSS technology on new Boeing 777 Freighters, which begin international service in the company's fleet in early 2010. In all, 74 FedEx wide-body planes used for international, over-water flights will be upgraded with the technology.

How the FedEx FSS Works

The FSS features a network of infrared thermal sensors, foaming-agent generators and an overhead cargo-container injector. If heat is detected by the sensors, the fire suppression technology located above each cargo container is activated, simultaneously alerting crew members. The metal container is pierced by an injector apparatus and filled with an argon-based biodegradable and non-corrosive fire-suppression foam that controls and extinguishes the fire in minutes. Cargo in other containers is unaffected by the system's activation, and the foam has only minimal impact on packages housed within the container. For palletized freight, a special fire-retardant blanket is used to cover the cargo; it restricts the level of oxygen around freight, effectively serving as a fire suppression tool.

In extensive testing, including the certification process, the FedEx FSS proved quick and effective on classes of fires, demonstrating its capability of protecting aircraft, crew and customer shipments from fires started by:

Ordinary materials such as paper or lumber (Class A)
Flammable or combustible liquids such as gasoline or kerosene (Class B)
Combustible metals such as lithium, magnesium titanium, potassium and sodium which burn at extremely high temperatures (Class D).
No other aircraft fire-safety system in use today is effective against Class D fires. Shipments that are subject to what would be considered Class C fires, electrical equipment, for example, will continue to be carried separately in the aircraft's lower belly compartment, and are safeguarded with the industry-standard halon bottle system.

How FedEx FSS Enhances Air Safety

A majority of fire-safety systems in use onboard cargo aircraft require manual activation by a crew member. In addition, many systems only address fires that could potentially occur in containers holding cargo that must be declared and labeled by shippers as being Dangerous Goods. Yet most cargo fires originate from undeclared Dangerous Goods, posing additional challenges to existing fire-suppression systems. Because of its unique over-head design and automatic activation, the FedEx FSS technology overcomes this challenge by suppressing fires contained within any cargo container or pallet on the main flight deck.

In addition, current FAA regulations require that aircraft depressurize, divert to the closest airport and land immediately after any in-flight fire situation. This means that the flight crew has about 30 minutes to safely land the aircraft. With the new FedEx safety system, aircraft on lengthy international flights, which can be up to three hours from land, are able to safely divert and land.

"Our new in-flight system has pushed the industry safety standard to a new level," Murdock said. "With the FedEx technology our pilots have more time to review and assess an in-air situation, further ensuring their safety, and the safety of their plane and cargo."

MATELO

3rd Sep 2010, 23:51

At FL350, is there any distinction between the following.
Ordinary materials such as paper or lumber (Class A)
Flammable or combustible liquids such as gasoline or kerosene (Class B)
Combustible metals such as lithium, magnesium titanium, potassium and sodium which burn at extremely high temperatures (Class D).I am bloody sure if a fire is indicated then I dont worry about what started it.

SMT Member

3rd Sep 2010, 23:55

Huck,

Very intresting, thanks for sharing. If FSS does what it says on the tin, it should be made mandatory on all freighters, both on factory fresh and through an AD for in-service aircraft.

Let's see what all those airlines claiming "safety is our number one priority" will say about that.

Halfnut

3rd Sep 2010, 23:59

More intel on the FedEx Automatic Fire Suppression System:

Industry First Onboard Automatic Fire Suppression System | FedEx Global Newsroom (http://news.van.fedex.com/node/14876)

411A

4th Sep 2010, 00:53

ANCFRTDWG

4th Sep 2010, 00:59

It could happen to any of us on any given day. Undeclared Haz is a major threat to the lives of the crews of cargo and pax ops! If you have any "good deal cheap chinese Li batteries PLEASE get rid of them immediately! Just had an onboard fire at FDX from flashlight batteries. All ended well this time??

WhatsaLizad?

4th Sep 2010, 01:14

There is no "window " to open on a 744 and how the escape hatch or smoke evac port would work might be quite different. Food for thought

Molon, thanks, I guess no side B7747 windows. My Boeing time is on light twins and trimotors and even the heavy twins had side windows.

Boomerang_Butt

4th Sep 2010, 02:21

Forgive the slight deviation... I know the hazmat suggestion is ONLY a theory at this stage.... but I have an interest (as someone who used to forward freight and always worried about something I sent being a link in a bad chain of events....)

In a situation such as this accident, IF a hazardous material was a major causal factor, how likely is it that they can trace it to a certain pallet/package/container? Is it all a matter of forensics (i.e. we found such and such a substance in X location) that is then matched to approximate locations on a manifest, that is, they can figure out who actually despatched/signed for the load from records, or is it all a guess at best?

Hope they get some answers as soon as possible, for the families. Intrigued by the varying reports of dumoing/not dumping fuel...

There were a couple of people I worked with who were a bit- ahem, "relaxed" about actually checking what they were sending... I emailed them some pictures/repors on Valujet.. funnilyenough they seemed a lot more detail oriented after that! It just sucks that our lives are so often left up to (inexperienced) others... e.g pax bringing on things they think are harmless, like the dude in SYD a few years back with a cabin bag full of fireworks!!! :mad:

400drvr

4th Sep 2010, 02:36

I guess no side B7747 windows

Never really saw the need for them, the cockpit is already loud enough. Besides, this sort of thing aint supposed to happen right?

lomapaseo

4th Sep 2010, 02:37

Machaca

Quote:
Anyone know if there has ever been a case where in a transport aircraft, the flight deck window(s0 were opened due to smoke obstructing vision?

ValueJet 592

After all these years that's the first time that I have seen that (fact?) in print :)

Huck

4th Sep 2010, 02:51

I think Bernoulli dictates that opening a DV window just sucks more smoke into the cockpit.

It happened in the Rick Nelson DC-3 crash, back in 1983 (?) in Dallas.

bond7

4th Sep 2010, 02:54

Anyone has crew names?

Iceman49

4th Sep 2010, 02:54

C141 out of Austrailia, mid 70's lost an engine on takeoff, that took out the adjacent engine and started the cgo compartment on fire. Cockpit filled with smoke. Nav opened up the sextant port allowing the smoke and fumes to be vented outside.

protectthehornet

4th Sep 2010, 02:58

Iceman 49 has a brilliant idea... a smoke venting port in all modern cockpits.

pull a handle, a vent opens sucking out the cockpit...pilots go on oxygen and smoke pulled out.

xaf2fe

4th Sep 2010, 03:04

According to the local paper here in Dubai, The Khaleej Times, Saturday, Sept 4:

Both crew dead as UPS jumbo crashes near Emirates Road.

A major disaster was averted by the pilots of a UPS 747-400 that crashed near the Emirates Road late on Friday evening when they avoided residental areas after their aircraft developed engine trouble.

Two minutes after the plane took off from the Dubai International Airport for Cologne in Germany, the plane developed an onboard crisis, and came down in a ball of fire at about 8pm near the Nad Al Sheba Military Camp close to the Global Village, just 20km from the airport.

Both pilots died and their bodies have been recovered, according to police sources. Some eyewitness reports said the jumbo jet streaking flames roared over the Emirates Road setting some cars on fire, but there is no report of any injuries on the ground.

Mohammed, a construction worker and witness to the accident, noticed the aircraft losing altitude and a truck in its way had a lucky escape. He added: "Within moments there was a loud explosion and we could hear people screaming for help." Another witness, who did not wish to be named, saw the fire as he drove along the road, while many others thought the plane was flying dangerously low.

Gentleman Jim

4th Sep 2010, 03:09

So where do the Khaleej Times get the 'Two minutes after take off bit'!!

Seems journo's will make anything up to get a story out.

Deltabravowhiskey

4th Sep 2010, 03:10

The FDX Suppression system mayl not work on a 747, the reason is that a 744, 742 and even the 777F do not use containers (typically). Each position is loose loaded to a specific dimension on a cookie sheet wrapped in plastic and secured with netting to the sheet. An injection system would simply flood a single box or several boxes but would not flood the immediate area surrounding the cargo in that position since no containment exists for that cargo.

I could see foam being used, but without knowing the specifics of the volume of foam that can be produced on board it may not be practical from a size/weight standpoint.

justwhenyouthought..

4th Sep 2010, 03:51

DUBAI // A cargo plane crashed in Dubai last night, erupting in a huge fireball and killing the two crew members on board.

United Parcel Service (UPS) Flight 6, a 747-400, had taken off from Dubai International Airport for the company’s European hub in Cologne, Germany, when it crashed at around 7.45pm in the Nad al Sheba Military Camp, missing the cars and residents of Emirates Road, Al Ain Road and Dubai Silicon Oasis.

Witnesses reported seeing a fireball that looked as high as a 20-storey building before smoke blackened the sky.

The pilot radioed air traffic control shortly after takeoff and said there was a fire on board, said Saif al Suwaidi, the director-general of the General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA).

“He reported fire and smoke in the cockpit,” Mr al Suwaidi said. “He was asked to return but he missed the approach and then he disappeared from the radar. We then found that he had crashed between Al Ain Road and the Emirates Road. So far there’s no casualties on the ground that we know of.”

The bodies of the pilot and co-pilot have been retrieved from the wreckage, the GCAA said.

Col Ahmed al Sayegh, deputy chief of Dubai Civil Defence, confirmed that the plane turned back due to a “technical error” after takeoff.

From outside the closed military base last night, the flickering blue and red lights of emergency service vehicles could be seen through the large plume of smoke. The service road leading to the base was cordoned off.

Jordana Fawaz was on Al Ain Road passing Emirates Road at around 7.45pm when she noticed the low-flying plane.

“My mum commented on how low the plane was. It was all dark but looked as though it was going in to land,” she said. “Then it disappeared from view and then all of a sudden a tower of fire and smoke came billowing from the ground.”

Ms Fawaz pulled her car over to the side of the road, alongside dozens of others, and called the emergency services.

“It looked like it just glided to the ground, it didn’t look unstable, just literally flying to the ground,” she said. “Then all of a sudden a massive tower of smoke and flames - a good 20 storeys.”

Five fire stations contributed manpower to extinguish the flames.

Joseph John, an academic, was driving with a friend when he saw the explosion nearby.

“It was pitch black and I saw an orange glow and then I saw the biggest fireball I have ever seen,” he said.

Baba Raqman, a worker at the housing development under construction adjacent to the military base, was sitting outside with colleagues when he saw the plane disappear behind some of the buildings.

“I didn’t know if it was a small or large plane, then I saw lots of smoke and the fire,” he said.

Bob Lekites, airline and international operations manager for UPS, a package delivery company based in Atlanta, Georgia, said the company would investigate the crash.

“This incident is very unfortunate and we will do everything we can to find the cause,” he said. “Our thoughts go out to the crew members involved in the incident and their families.”

UPS said it would not speculate on the cause of the crash. It said it is co-operating with UAE government authorities but is also dispatching its own investigation team to Dubai.

UPS Flight 6 was the third plane to crash after taking off from the UAE in the past year.

In October, a Boeing 707 cargo plane crashed shortly after takeoff at Sharjah International Airport, killing all six Sudanese crewmen on board and narrowly missing built-up neighbourhoods.

In May, 158 people died when Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai overshot the runway at Mangalore.

[email protected]
[email protected]

rolandpull

4th Sep 2010, 04:34

Wasn't there a day when large freighters carried loadmasters to monitor the main deck cargo holds? A third pair of eyes seems to make good safety sense, but I guess not economical in todays world of business?

Heracles

4th Sep 2010, 05:26

TWO MEN LEFT FOR WORK,, AND DIDN'T COME HOME..
period,, dot,, end of the proverbial story.

Let's all agree on that.
Let's all agree that what we do MATTERS.
It MATTERS that rules are in place trying to prevent accidents(every WARNING in the book is written in blood.)
It matters that everyone in the chain in supposedly there because they EARNED the right to be there..
Let's all agree that right now,, it's best to get all the facts in before we question causes, motives, actions. There is nothing more useless than a monday morning quarterback,, or runway behind you,etc.
As a 14,000 hr flight engineer and a 7 year ground engineer, my heart screams for an answer,, but let's let the DATA roll in a bit first.
If the initial reports are correct,, THEY FOUGHT IT, what better honor can we bestow?

kickstand

4th Sep 2010, 05:36

The MD-11 Volume I, QRH, under Smoke/Fumes Removal, Last item is:

Cockpit smoke severe?
Yes
Configure aircraft as required to maintain 205 KIAS or minimum
maneuvering speed whichever is lower.
Headsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ON
PNF Clearview Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OPEN 3 INCHES

clevlandHD

4th Sep 2010, 05:44

Well said Heracles...

413X3

4th Sep 2010, 06:01

C'mon now. This website is called Professional Pilot RUMOR Network. And for some a way to deal with the tragedy is to talk about it. If you don't like rumors then don't log on! RIP to the pilots and hopefully a report that helps others in the future comes out soon.

AirNoServicesAustralia

4th Sep 2010, 06:28

The problem is not who doesn't log in but who does log in. i.e. Journalists sniffing for info.

Details should not be released on here unless they are already in the public domain. Especially the names of the pilots. The families should be advised in the proper way first. I know if it was me, I wouldn't want my wife to read about my demise in the morning paper, or even worse get a phone call from a gutter rat asking for details about her recently deceased husband.

PPRUNE has already been quoted in the Guardian Newspaper and named the handle of the poster as the source.

I understand people speculating i.e. why did they not divert to Doha, why did/didn't they open a window, why didn't they have fire suppression etc. but actual hard personal sensitive details should be handled very carefully given some of the people reading.

atlast

4th Sep 2010, 06:29

@Huck - The DV (Direct Vision) windows on the L382, DC3 and CV240,340,440 did indeed all follow Mr B's principle but only in co-ordinated flight. A little rudder input would create a blast of air into the cockpit exactly matching the indicated airspeed!

Zeflo27

4th Sep 2010, 07:18

Apologies if already covered.

The only time I've had smoke in the cockpit I had the option of opening a window (Big help). Since then it is a question I ask when introduced to a new type, often feeling like a bit of a tw%t for asking. Can you open a window on a Boeing 747-400F?

vs69

4th Sep 2010, 07:32

Nope but there is a smoke evac handle overhead which when pulled opens a port just between the observers seat and flt deck door in the ceiling - Better and more controlled than opening a window.....

Stierado

4th Sep 2010, 07:38

Nope, None of the cockpit windows open in any way.
The Smoke EVAC handle is a primitive method of trying to get rid of SOME smoke. Downside is, that it depressurises the aircraft.
I doubt it would ever clear enough or all of the smoke.

Fact remains, that this is one of the worst things to deal with on an aircraft, and it is all to easy to come up with possible sollutions in the comfort of your chair infront of the computer, but alltogether a very different story when you are effectively BLIND and have a noisy, uncomfortable oxygenmask strapped to your face, that adds to your stress levels and impedes communication and vision further.

ARNSpoty

4th Sep 2010, 07:52

Metars:
OMDB 031700Z 22004KT 8000 NSC 35/29 Q1000 NOSIG
OMDB 031600Z 24004KT 8000 NSC 36/27 Q1000 NOSIG
OMDB 031500Z 32006KT 290V030 8000 NSC 35/28 Q0999 NOSIG
OMDB 031400Z 30010KT 8080 NSC 36/26 Q0999 NOSIG
OMDB 031300Z 31011KT 290V350 8000 NSC 37/27 Q0999 NOSIG
OMDB 031200Z 30012KT 8000 NSC 37/27 Q1000 NOSIG

nitpicker330

4th Sep 2010, 08:08

Pulling the Smoke Handle does not depressurize the Aircraft!! I've pulled it all the way out in flight and it didn't effect the Cabin Alt one little bit!! The hole is just too small and the outflow valves much bigger anyway.

Flightmech

4th Sep 2010, 08:09

Halfnut,

This one hasn't been confirmed as a main deck cargo fire just yet. Avionics smoke could also be a cause. I know the avionics compartment is one deck lower but theres plenty of components in the flight deck that could produce smoke.

outhouse

4th Sep 2010, 08:35

Daysleeper

4th Sep 2010, 08:57

Perhaps people should read the rather comprehensive "SMOKE, FIRE AND FUMES IN TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT" report by the RAeS and GAPAN.
PDF here (http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/safita.pdf) . Full of useful information.

(quite a large PDF by the way)

As for opening windows and hatches...

In cases of continuous smoke, no manufacture suggests opening a window, because it can cause the fire to spread. Several serious in-flight fires show that the flight crews opened the window without improving the visibility significantly and, in some cases it was made worse. An open window creates high wind noise, which prevents effective communication between crewmembers. The high noise level prevents checklist accomplishment and also prevents a crewmember from assisting the flying pilot during the landing with callouts (which may be vital in limited visibility of a smoke filled flight deck).

GlueBall

4th Sep 2010, 09:17

As for HAZMAT, Dubai is not always honest in what they load vs what they show on the NOTOC. Time will tell.

At FDX, UPS, DHL . . .the hazmat/dangerous goods danger is not always known where INDIVIDUAL non-aviation customers [shippers] send their "stuff." It's just as when you ship a personal package and forget to declare that you've included a hazardous substance, and did not package it properly. The carrier cannot physically open and inspect every parcel that's made it past the x-ray, explosives detectors and sniffing dogs routine.

The crews are exposed to potential danger, because for the most part, they are at the mercy of shippers' honesty in declaring what's inside their parcels.
I think that's why FDX is one outfit that's serious about main deck fire suppression.

nitpicker330

4th Sep 2010, 09:31

To open the escape hatch in the roof you'd need to be fully depressurized and have the packs off. I doubt very much that would work and if it could Boeing would have directed it in the QRH NNC.

excon

4th Sep 2010, 09:44

there is indeed a hatch in the roof, problem is, it's a plug type, inward opening fit, and unless the aircraft was nearly fully depressurized, no way could they open it.

captains_log

4th Sep 2010, 09:57

??? Even at the low altitude they were flying?

BEXIL160

4th Sep 2010, 10:14

I seem to recall a (successful) emergency landing in Scandinavia in the 1980s on an MD80 (?) after a serious smoke in the cockpit incident.

Biggest problems were communications between the two crew on masks, but also the density of the smoke. FO found it very difficult to read the checklist even with the aid of torch and holding it close up. At one point he dropped it, which didn't help.

Another issue was smoke particles sticking to the PFD making it very difficult to see. The Capt had to keep wiping the particles off, using his hands but still had to use a torch.

Somewhere in SAS there's a good video reconstruction of this and an interview with the crew.

This was in daytime, so you can see the density of the smoke alone can be a real hazard.

BEX

Gulf News

4th Sep 2010, 10:44

UPS 747 Crash site, Dubai - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109383705032406713188.00048f5ee16442d76f4fb&ll=25.098502,55.360107&spn=0.025455,0.033088&t=h&z=15&iwloc=00048f5ee1751c843582e)

A DSO resident and EK colleague plotted the approximate coordinates of the crash site on Google earth (I hope he doesn't mind me using it). The area where the aircraft crashed is a military encampment. If you zoom in a little and look a few hundred meters to the north west you can make out a series of isolated buildings joined by sealed roadworks. If I am not mistaken these are munitions storage bunkers.Whilst not wanting to detract from the severity of this accident, if the aircraft had landed on top of these the results could have been even more spectacular.

A very lucky day for all except the two brave souls on the 747.

crazy_bird

4th Sep 2010, 10:45

today's big headline is the newspaper is that both pilots are dead...
they both were americans, it was a UPS b747F flying to germany, it was carrying mainly electronics and toys,
according to eye witnesses investigators are saying that an engine fire is suspected, but thats not confirmed....apparently at the crash site, more than anything there was a very very strong smell of burning rubber...
people also say that the pilots had control till the last minute, as the plane was going to crash at a residential area, but at the last minute they managed to turn it and crashed around a pass road of the emirates road motorway...

Mansfield

4th Sep 2010, 10:47

I used to use that SAS video when conducting initial CRM training. It is excellent. They had the advantage of a flight attendant, on his own initiative, opening the cockpit door and discharging a fire extinguisher into the source of the fire, which as I recall was electrical center behind the captain's seat. Both crewmembers did have some very good observations regarding the environment in the cockpit.

SEA&ski

4th Sep 2010, 10:59

@117. Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) is just one of the byproducts of nitric acid reacting with organic materials. Higher order oxides are also produced, and these compounds are nasty and irritating to the airways and eyes. (Think of the brown stuff in smog.)

Ranger One

4th Sep 2010, 11:03

Just a thought... if restricted visibility in smoke is such a serious issue (which it seems to be, based on reports from crews who've had to cope with it), thermal imaging goggles might be the way to go? I've seen thermal imagers used by firefighters in training scenarios, and been allowed a squint through them myself, and they CAN see right through the thickest smoke. Bloody amazing.

parabellum

4th Sep 2010, 11:04

confirmed....apparently at the crash site, more than anything there was a very very strong smell of burning rubber...

sixteen great big tyres, when burning, will creat a very strong smell of burning rubber.

Lon More

4th Sep 2010, 11:17

.the hazmat/dangerous goods danger is not always known where INDIVIDUAL non-aviation customers [shippers] send their "stuff."

In the past I have ordered substances, classed as HAZMAT by the shippers. I paid for surface shipping yet somewhere along the line somebody "did me a favour" and dispatched them by air.

I wasn't happy and complained to the shipper who seemed totally unconcerned. I then forwarded the info to the carrier who scknowledged receipt of the complaint but AFAIK did nothing further.

I no longer use either supplier or shipper.

nitpicker330

4th Sep 2010, 11:17

It's been reported that the smoke in the Cockpit was so thick that they couldn't read their instruments or change frequencies on the RTP's, so what makes you think they could therefore see outside the windows to avoid a built up area?

I know from Flight Tests that the smoke can get so bad as to make it near impossible to read your flight instruments, overhead panel switches or centre console area.( Boeing smoke removal certification Flt tests of the B744 BCF done in HK with CX )

buggaluggs

4th Sep 2010, 11:37

Very sad outcome obviously, I regularly operate 744F's through DXB so this event is far too close to home! I can't help but think if they'd managed to intercept the LOC and G/S on the first approach and autolanded they'd have lived to tell the tale. :sad: Smoke in the cockpit is every aviators nightmare, the only solution I've seen is this, evasworldwide dot com . As usual the equipment is available, the difficulty is convincing the bean counters to spend the money!

Buggs

EK380

4th Sep 2010, 11:41

Gulf News,

I'm a EK pilot as well, who saw the crash unfolding last night...
Earlier today I went out there and tried finding the wreckage. I was at the spot your friend David defined and saw nothing...We even walked for a while.

Strangely enough we did not see any police, firebrigade, etc... No signs of smoke anymore neither.

Since I could not find anything after my 2 hrs search, I suspect it is inside the military camp.

Sqwak7700

4th Sep 2010, 11:51

sixteen great big tyres, when burning, will creat a very strong smell of burning rubber.

18 technically, but I know what you mean. ;)

Deeday

4th Sep 2010, 11:55

A 747-400 cockpit escape hatch:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/7/6/7/0968767.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas/Boeing-747-438/0968767/M/&sid=19042f36c0bcecf00c5f090f65ad9d68)

Judging by its position, the external pressure on the fuselage at the hatch location should be considerably lower than the static (atmospheric) pressure, so even with the cabin depressurised, air should still be sucked out of the cockpit, as long as it's pumped in from somewhere else (packs or ram air intake, if there's any).

Guy D'ageradar

4th Sep 2010, 12:00

np330 - spot on.

I am still trying to figure out how they managed to navigate that far, while being unable to change freq. due to lack of visibility. If the comms were not visible, I would suggest that little else was - particularly the view out front.

For anyone to suggest the avoidance of a built up area visually under such conditions seems somewhat preposterous!

Guy.

grimmrad

4th Sep 2010, 13:19

A bit strange that we don't have any (edit/update: ok, now a few) pictures yet. Maybe because on military site...? I am mentioning not for sensationalism but since these can be informative for the experts with respect to extend of damage, flap settings, engines etc. (see recent LH accident).

EK380

4th Sep 2010, 13:28

Spend some time looking at the available photos and google earth and it was very clear to me that the wreckage is within the Army camp. Not visible due to the surrounding walls.

These brand new pictures now confirm my thoughts...

Dubai plane crash: Two crew die after cargo jet explodes into an 'almighty ball of flame' after takeoff | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1308970/Dubai-plane-crash-Two-crew-die-cargo-jet-explodes-almighty-ball-flame-takeoff.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

wmuflyguy

4th Sep 2010, 13:28

That escape hatch looks like a plug type door, your not getting that open in flight (the higher inside pressure pushes it into the door jam).

Plus with the smoke you would have to get up out of your seat and find it and that isn't even likely

Timothy Claypole

4th Sep 2010, 13:35

It ain't hard to find, you could do it with your eyes closed. How you'd get there with an Eros oxygen mask on is another matter. With the aircraft depressurised you might be able to open the hatch but whether it helps or not depends on where the smoke's coming from. If it's in the cabin then you've got effectively unlimited smoke to be drawn into the flight deck. Bad times. If it's from the flight deck then I can't imagine there's anything in there that can generate a volume of smoke greater than the volume of air being sucked out of that hatch so it might be beneficial. If all else had failed I'd be inclined to give it a try.

starvingcfi

4th Sep 2010, 13:53

UPS Cargo Plane Crashes Near Dubai - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469830201125788.html)

atakacs

4th Sep 2010, 14:23

From pictures it is pretty obvious that they crashed within the perimeter of the military camp and that some buildings where significantly damaged.

From what we can see from the relatively limited debris field it would seem that they hit in not such a shallow angle as previously thought. In any case a very nasty story which could have been much worse :(

DCBoeBus

4th Sep 2010, 14:38

Thanks to the many eye- and ear-witness reports here. The company is not releasing the names yet, as far as I know. And as there were only the crew, you can imagine it has not made much of a ripple back in the US except here in Louisville where UPS has its worldport. :sad:

And thank you for the kind thoughts as well.

Former Whale driver,
Now AirBus

deSitter

4th Sep 2010, 14:57

There have been enough of these incidents to start thinking about it from a serious engineering standpoint. The plane is going down if the pilots can't see, so the number 1 problem is to create visibility in the cockpit - you can't rely on open windows or port for that - the best way is to create a pressure differential between cockpit and cabin, meaning somehow in freighters the cockpit itself has to be inside its own pressure vessel - that would not be too hard to implement with the proper bulkheads and vents. In a dire emergency one should be able to isolate the cockpit and generate enough pressure in it to force the smoke out into the lower pressure environment of the cargo cabin. A variation on the RAT could be used to generate pressure for the cockpit while the rest of the plane is at ambient atmospheric pressure. After some googling, it appears that even in submarines this is not exactly a solved problem. Time for the engineers to sharpen their pencils.

-drl

Checkboard

4th Sep 2010, 15:13

Actually the best way is to fill a clear plastic bag with a clear gas, which can then be pressed against both the instrument faces and the windows:

EVAS - Emergency Vision Assurance System (http://www.evasworldwide.com/index.php?p=what_is_evas)

6000PIC

4th Sep 2010, 15:32

This accident should raise everyone`s awareness of the dangers that exist in the skies today. I`m eager to hear what BrowntailWhale has to say about this tragedy , as he often has good input regarding UPS Ops and the cargo business in general. Let`s hope we hear from him soon.

It comes as no suprise to me that the big 4 , FedEx , UPS , DHL and TNT all consistently report billions in annual profits , yet no one can say 100 % exactly what is being carried on board their cargo aircraft around the world.

There will be no sharpening of engineers`pencils unless and until these operators show a willingness to address hazmat / dangerous goods , known and unknown cargo , fire suppression systems and the financial costs they`ll incur to remedy such a blatant example of " turning a blind eye. "

These guys are heroes for helping to avoid an even larger tragedy.

ph-ndr

4th Sep 2010, 15:37

I've seen thermal imagers used by firefighters in training scenarios, and been allowed a squint through them myself, and they CAN see right through the thickest smoke. Bloody amazing.

Just bear in mind you would likely have nil outside visibility with a thermal solution; the window pane would be heated to some extent and be presented as a blank surface of a given colour.

-A

atakacs

4th Sep 2010, 15:38

These guys are heroes for helping to avoid an even larger tragedy

Here we come again... How on earth can you come up with such a statement at this point ? Maybe so, but there is absolutely no way to know.

Pitch Up Authority

4th Sep 2010, 15:38

I have my doubts that a UPS crew would be familiar with the position of a military field in the UAE. They probably know the big ones Dubai, Abu etc .... While they were fighting for their lives. The only thing on their mind was to return DXB and land.

Started dumping fuel immediately to reduce weight is an option but not necessary on the B 747 going from DXB to FRA even at max payload. DXB runways are long enough to go for an overweight.

Having said so, if there is a real fire going on you have no chance. Smoke .. maybe .... but Fire ... no way. I doubth if there is any engineering solution for this except to blow out the front windows, but that's an assumption.

It shows once more that briefing and being prepared for an immediate return is not a silly thing to do. This is ofte perceived as .... Well ... Ok .... But ... It happens

But if you can not even stay in your seat because of the heat etc .....

It is too early to tell but it shows that a close inspection of the cargo before departure is essential. However we all know how it goes. Doors closed at last minute, briefing, ATC etc ...... of we go

I feel very sorry for the crew

MrSandman

4th Sep 2010, 15:51

Minhad is 09/27 rwy direction. They would have been approaching it at nearly an exactly perpendicular track where they came from after being too high at Dubai. There is nothing at all around the runway there so it would stand out if the runway lights were on. If anything, the theory that they put it down where they did on purpose sounds correct as at night, that area would have been the start of the blackness beyond the built up area.

This is a pretty good map of the area. If you scroll out on the scale and look notrth, it is nearly a straight line through the E311 intersection to DXB.

Dubai Minhad Airport Map | United Arab Emirates Airports (http://www.maplandia.com/united-arab-emirates/airports/dubai-minhad-airport/)

Pitch Up Authority

4th Sep 2010, 15:59

Nice to know Mr Sandman. But the 747 falls like a brick if you drop the gear .... but we can only gues as to the energy state of the 747 at that time. I believe circumstances were such that simply staying in your seat was already horrific

Helitele

4th Sep 2010, 16:03

Thermal Imaging cameras can't see through glass so you would not be able to see out of the windows or anything displayed on any of the instruments.

Ivanbogus

4th Sep 2010, 16:11

Was this a 747F or a 747BCF? Are there any differances regarding the fire supression system?

Guy D'ageradar

4th Sep 2010, 16:24

Mr Sandman,

I would love to go with the theory that they put it down where they did deliberately - and it may yet come to be proved so.

I repeat, though, that this is somewhat unlikely, seeing as they couldn't, in the 30 mins from Bahrain FIR to OMDB, see enough to attempt a frequency change.

I have no doubt that these guys did an amazing job to get as far as they did - but I really don't think that anything visual was ever on the cards.

Guy.

Puppeteer

4th Sep 2010, 16:31

It was a 747F delivered by Boeing in 2007 if indeed it was N571UP.

I have a question for the 747 drivers out there though. How much undiluted oxygen is there? Could there have been a problem after flying for 25-30 minutes?

I still find it strange that they elected to go to DXB. Both AUH and DWC would seem closer as well as DOH.

Tragic event nontheless..

three eighty

4th Sep 2010, 16:35

I would love to go with the theory that they put it down where they did deliberately - and it may yet come to be proved so.

As would I especailly as the aircraft passed over my villa at a few hundred feet just before crashing but sadly, and with no disrespect to the crew, I think it was luck more than anything else that it ended up where it did.

Gear Down and Locked

4th Sep 2010, 16:47

Puppeteer,

plenty of oxy to fly for a couple of hours with the masks on.

GD

Gulfcapt

4th Sep 2010, 16:54

A horrible accident...I can't imagine how horrible those last few minutes were for the crew...

I have seen EVAS mentioned a couple of times in this thread. The solution to smoke in the cockpit has been around for years and it works. We have it installed on our aircraft and I've practiced with it in the sim. If the jet is flyable and you are in a condition to fly, you can.
EVAS - Emergency Vision Assurance System (http://www.evasworldwide.com/)

Basically, it is a low-pressure clear bag that inflates in front of the pilot and presses up against the instrument panel and the window. Don your smoke goggles and oxygen mask, press your face against the bag and you can see through the clear air inside the bag enough to fly the jet. When not in use, it stows in a box the size of a Jepp binder next to your seat.

Time will tell whether EVAS would have made a difference here.
Best,
GC

grizzled

4th Sep 2010, 16:59

Puppeteer

The decision to return to DXB -- rather than Doha, Al Maktoum, or (especially) Abu Dhabi -- indicates that the situation as presented to the crew at that time was not such that the crew was thinking "nearest suitable". Damn damn damn.

250 kts

4th Sep 2010, 17:00

Below is an account found on an enthusiast's site. It may give some idea as to the actual timings. It was posted last night so some of the information will have been superseded by now.

This evening UPS B744F N571UP flight UPS6 en-route from DXB-Cologne crashed on approach to DXB local time at 1941. N571UP departed DXB at 18.52. At just before 19.40 it appeared overhead above the Sheraton Deira hotel at 4,000ft, this took me by surprise as aircraft don't route overhead the hotel when downwind to runway 30, they are further over towards Sharjah. I didn't think much of it at the time apart from why was it routing that way?, it was only as I carried on watching it descend towards the airport my attention turned to my SBS and I carried on watching it on there and noticed it descending very fast. I lost contact at 19.41. Again at that time I didn't think nothing of it as I didn't hear no explosion or anything. The only thing I did notice was 13 aircraft on my SBS all holding for about 10-15 mins. Never before have I seen so many holding over the sea. It was only when I recieved a text from a mate living local asking if I was ok? and asking if I had heard anything about a UPS crashing? I turned on CNN and it was breaking news. Sad news indeed.

Contrary to what the local news and CNN are reporting here is the UPS crashed on take-off. It did NOT! Aircraft are currently departing towards the hotel, if it had crashed on take-ff I might not be here now !!!!! see live data below from my SBS.

A753F0 UPS6 N571UP B744 600 14500 03/09/2010 18:52:02 A753F0
UPS6 N571UP B744 26800 1025 03/09/2010 19:16:55

On checking Basestation reporter and running off an arrivals log N571UP was last recorded at 1941 at 1,025ft . So it departed at 1852 and went down at 1941. I picked it up at 1916 descending through 26,800ft, I don't have what height it reached on leaving Dubai as my box was off for a short period.

Reports coming out of Dubai are still very sketchy and conflicting as to what caused the crash. As I saw it minutes before it went down no fire was visible from the aircraft.

Machaca

4th Sep 2010, 17:30

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/UPS6-DXBloc1.jpg

Zoom compresses distances -- from estimated impact point to burnt structures is approx 400 meters:

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/UPS6-DXBloc2.jpg

Desert185

4th Sep 2010, 17:49

Do you still have the crew on ground evacuation hatch in the roof of the flight deck on the later B 747 aircraft? Yes I know a crew member would need to leave his seat to operate, and other considerations, but it is quite a big hole. Just offering a discussion point for those better qualified than me to consider.

To answer a few questions...

The cockpit smoke removal on the 400 is essentially a remote lever to open what amounts to a sextant port. The Classics still had the sextant port (Smoke Evacuation Port), which was opened by the FE in order to follow the Cockpit Smoke/Fume Evacuation checklist. The port is only about an inch and a half (38mm) in diameter, and would not depressurize the aircraft.

WRT the overhead escape hatch...

Even depressurized with the packs off and at slow speed, there is such a low pressure area outside that hatch that opening it is next to impossible. We tried, in order to reseat the hatch due to improper closing and a deafening whistle inflight. Getting it open more than 1/2 inch requires superhuman strength that exceeded the strength of a rather large jumpseater. Doing it blind with smoke, and probably having to remove the O2 mask in order to reach the hatch, while removing an assisting crewmember from the seat during an incredibly busy time, isn't a practical matter.

There are no opening windows in the cockpit of a 747.

FWIW, I knew and previously flew with the Captain on that flight. He flew FE and FO with me on the Classics and I gave him IOE when he upgraded to Captain. I enjoyed his company and he always did a great job as a crewmember. RIP and sincere condolences to his family and friends.

Don't ask me for the crew names. Those will be released in due time.

These guys were served a plate of doom. Like Swissair @ Halifax, and short of getting the airplane on the ground immediately at the first sign of fire/smoke, I doubt that anyone could have done better. What is needed on freighters is a main deck fire suppression system. Unfortunately, when the body count gets to a high enough level, that might happen. Personally, I think it's way overdue.

Dubaieagle

4th Sep 2010, 18:06

4000 above the Sheraton Deira ! That is nowhere near the correct flight path for runway 30. (as the enthusiast says he should have been almost over Sharjah at that height for a normal approach).. does this not give more credence to reports that he was subsequently directed to Minhad since the following right turn would not have taken him on a routing for a 30 approach but an attempt at 12?.. All very sad.

Ranger One

4th Sep 2010, 18:14

Just bear in mind you would likely have nil outside visibility with a thermal solution; the window pane would be heated to some extent and be presented as a blank surface of a given colour.

You know, you're right. I'd forgotten that. In fact it's worse; when you mentioned that, I remembered being told that glass acts like a rather poor mirror to the wavelengths used by thermal imagers. I proved this by dragging out my rifle, which has an ex-military thermal night sight (shhhh! :oh: ), and I could actually see myself rather vaguely reflected in the window when trying to look through it. Certainly couldn't see through the window.

Scratch that idea.

acchaladka

4th Sep 2010, 18:15

That's amazing that an enthusiast can pick up that much data. I can see a day when a government embargo on crash information doesn't matter much anymore. I like how governments that are systematically embargoing information are systematically making safety more difficult for the rest of us.

I used to use that SAS video when conducting initial CRM trainingThanks for this. I wonder if someone will post the SAS video, I'd be interested to watch it for PPL training / interest.

Accha
[SLF, no jorno!]

overthewing

4th Sep 2010, 18:30

Looking at that photo, it seems very lucky that no-one was hurt on the ground.

Neptunus Rex

4th Sep 2010, 18:44

As there are only two or three crew on a large freighter, and given the track record of hazardous cargo being hazardous by definition, incorrectly loaded or documented, why not give the crew parachutes? (With appropriate training, of course.)
When sh*ts are trumps, a broken limb or two is far preferable to the alternative.

SpaceNeedle

4th Sep 2010, 18:50

Much as I appreciate the crews' desire to return for a safe landing pronto, I really don't think they would have opted to dump fuel with a fire onboard.

tubby linton

4th Sep 2010, 18:55

I have used Minhad a number of times and information on it is almost non-existent..There is an ILS on 27 but try finding a chart for it.The airport does not even appear in supplements from some well known chart suppliers..I would very much doubt that this crew were even aware of it's existence.

frijmagnit

4th Sep 2010, 18:55

With respect to the smoke evacuation questions, with all packs running and a window out a 744 will maintain diff (or close to it), so the smoke evac handle wont depressurise the airplane. Its too small a hole.

In the mean time, as mentioned earlier, these poor guys were served something that none of us could have done a better job with. Forget heroics and dodging populated areas, once you are in such a dire situation, you focus only on landing and survival. There is not a "professional" amongst us who can honestly say that we would do otherwise. A fire drill in the simulator does NOT equate to the scenario that (as far as we know) these guys had to deal with.

"Enthusiasts" may mine the net for data that results in a sensational post on the web, but any theorizing at this point is pointless. Every time an airplane hits the ground or water we are bombarded with expert opinions or hypothesis on what might have happened. It takes time and a thorough investigation to yield facts. In the meantime, although most of us have no immediate connection with the two guys on the flight in question you MUST stop and consider that you could very easily find yourself in such a situation, no matter what you fly. Such is the unforgiving nature of aviation.

Don't think that this can never happen to you. I pray that it never does, but if two fellow aviators lost their lives in this tragedy we should at least take away from this a caution that ops are not always normal.

I feel for their families, their colleagues and everyone else who has suffered.

PS, Before the conjecture begins as to whether ATC directed them towards Minhad, it might be beneficial to hear from an ATCO...........

justforfun

4th Sep 2010, 19:17

With respect to the smoke evacuation questions, with all packs running and 2 windows out a 744 will maintain diff (or close to it), so the smoke evac handle wont depressurise the airplane. Its too small a hole.

In the mean time, as mentioned earlier, these poor guys were served something that none of us could have done a better job with. Forget heroics and dodging populated areas, once you are in such a dire situation, you focus only on landing and survival. There is not a "professional" amongst us who can honestly say that we would do otherwise. A fire drill in the simulator does NOT equate to the scenario that (as far as we know) these guys had to deal with.

"Enthusiasts" may mine the net for data that results in a sensational post on the web, but any theorizing at this point is pointless. Every time an airplane hits the ground or water we are bombarded with expert opinions or hypothesis on what might have happened. It takes time and a thorough investigation to yield facts. In the meantime, although most of us have no immediate connection with the two guys on the flight in question you MUST stop and consider that you could very easily find yourself in such a situation, no matter what you fly. Such is the unforgiving nature of aviation.

Don't think that this can never happen to you. I pray that it never does, but if two fellow aviators lost their lives in this tragedy we should at least take away from this a caution that ops are not always normal.

I feel for their families, their colleagues and everyone else who has suffered.

PS, Before the conjecture begins as to whether ATC directed them towards Minhad, it might be beneficial to hear from an ATCO...........

Well said!

Anyone from BAH ATC???... I know you guys are reading this...

Neptunus Rex

4th Sep 2010, 19:28

SNS3Guppy
Are there not two doors just behind the flight deck on most freighters? Parachute harnesses could easily and comfortably be worn, just tighten the straps before use, with the parachute packs in quick-grab bins at the rear of the flight deck. Two big snap-hooks - takes mere seconds.

You are right, of course, the aircraft would need to be de-pressurised and relatively slow. That should not be too difficult to achieve, given the alternative. Adrenaline is amazing stuff.

wiggy

4th Sep 2010, 19:35

Even if you egressed the door ok you've got to avoid hitting wing's, engine pods, tail, etc.

Sam Asama

4th Sep 2010, 19:41

frigmagnit and justforfun

If you re-read some of the posts that first provided accurate info on the position and circumstances of the turn-around, then a couple regarding the overshoot, and even another from earlier today, you'll realise that some ATCO's that were very close to the event have contributed.

As for further contributions or details from ATCO's, as a result of how this unfolded, how long it went on for, and what was said, most feel exactly like the people at UPS right now. So you won't be hearing a lot from them for now.

Sam

Neptunus Rex

4th Sep 2010, 20:05

wiggy,
On the big jet freighters, the lower sill of the front exit door is several feet below the mainplane, and yards from the nearest engine. Just curl up into a ball and roll out, drop like a stone, then count to ten before pulling the ripcord, which is actually a large 'D' shaped handle.

wee one

4th Sep 2010, 20:16

Much as I appreciate the crews' desire to return for a safe landing pronto, I really don't think they would have opted to dump fuel with a fire onboard.

Boeing policy does not preclude jettison during any fire. Its all out there in Boeing pdf somewhere.
As for the other posters parachute theory, really, have a word with yourself.

atlast

4th Sep 2010, 20:28

The technology is available. It's all about the money. Boeing will install virtually anything you want and are willing to pay for.

blind pew

4th Sep 2010, 20:36

Actually flew with a skipper on the death ship who carried a paraglider reserve parachute in his flight bag - just in case! One of three guys in my career that I threatened to refuse to fly with.:rolleyes:

atlast

4th Sep 2010, 20:54

Very well thought out and informed post. Thank you. :D

74tweaker

4th Sep 2010, 20:55

We need to wait for the report before wondering if things like EVAS would have worked in this case. No-one knows where the fire was - we know they couldn't see well if at all - but one has to concider that, depending where the fire was, it could have burned right through the avionics wiring to the flight displays. It's very well possible that even if the smoke was cleared - they would have had no instruments anyway. What time did this happen? was it night?

For the other matter - can anyone here tell us if UPS planes are equiped with EVAS devices?

DownIn3Green

4th Sep 2010, 21:05

Valujet, everglades...have we learned nothing???

Plane's on fire, land ASAP, and I don't mean "nearest suitable"...ASAP means land on the desert below you, rather than out of control attempting to reach an airport...in the Valujet example, if the crew had done that (and I have flown with that Captain and she was "top notch") maybe the outcome would have been the same...but if only 20 out of the 100+ on board survived, well...

As for dumping fuel, if you have to manuver a heavy A/C at low altitude, especially if it's 100 tons overweight, and yoiu've never done it in an emerg situation, if you survive, you'll dump fuel next time...immediately...

superspotter

4th Sep 2010, 21:07

Just to go back to Fridjmagnit's post, the "enthusiast" mentioned (I know him) did not "mine" the internet for data but had the info at his fingertips using an SBS box on his laptop. If you want to know what an SBS box is then you could go "mine" the internet.

D'pirate

4th Sep 2010, 21:09

Should ejection seats be considered for freighters?

Halfnut

4th Sep 2010, 21:18

UPS Issues Statement on Dubai Accident | Business Wire (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100904005007/en/UPS-Issues-Statement-Dubai-Accident)

September 04, 2010 05:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time

UPS Issues Statement on Dubai Accident

ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--At the request of the families, UPS can now confirm that two of our crewmembers, Captain Doug Lampe of Louisville, Kentucky, and First Officer Matthew Bell of Sanford, Florida, lost their lives in the crash of Flight 6 yesterday, Sept. 3, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The two pilots were flying a 747-400 en route to Cologne, Germany, when it crashed near Dubai International Airport shortly after takeoff.

“This is a terrible tragedy, and all of us at UPS extend our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of both of these crewmembers,” said UPS CEO Scott Davis. “Our thoughts and prayers will continue to be with them during this difficult time.”

The UPS Family Assistance Team is working with the victims’ families to help them in their time of need.

Captain Lampe, 48, has been with UPS since 1995. First Officer Bell, 38, has been with UPS since 2006. Both crewmembers flew out of UPS’s Anchorage, Alaska domicile, or pilot base.

The aircraft, tail number N571UP, was just three years old, entering UPS service off the Boeing production line in September 2007. The airframe had flown 9977 hours, completing 1764 takeoffs and landings. It was up to date on all maintenance, having just completed a major inspection in June 2010.

UPS owns 12 747-400s, eight of which are new, and four of which have been purchased from other carriers and adapted for UPS use. The aircraft, which has a payload capacity of nearly 258,600 pounds, is used on long-range international routes, such as the regular Dubai-Cologne routing.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is dispatching an aviation investigation team to assist the General Civil Aviation Authority (GACC) of the United Arab Emirates in the crash investigation. The GCAA will take the lead on the investigation and release all information on the progress of the investigation.

NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman has designated senior air safety investigator Bill English as the U.S. accredited representative. His team will include NTSB specialists in the areas of human performance, fire, operations and systems. The team will also include technical advisors from the FAA, Boeing, UPS, GE and the Independent Pilots Association.

A UPS team has arrived in Dubai at this time and will cooperate with authorities in the investigation.

“We established an internal command center within minutes of learning of this tragedy. It will be staffed around the clock with experts from every part of our operation,” said UPS Airlines President Bob Lekites. “Safe, secure operations are our top priorities for our employees, our customers, and our public stakeholders.”

For the latest information on this incident, visit Home - UPS Pressroom (http://www.pressroom.ups.com), or call our reporter hot line at 502-320-0110.

pilotmike

4th Sep 2010, 22:45

MrSandman said:
Minhad is 09/27 rwy direction. They would have been approaching it at nearly an exactly perpendicular track where they came from after being too high at Dubai. There is nothing at all around the runway there so it would stand out if the runway lights were on.
which is wrong on many levels...

Minhad is a poorly lit runway, with approach and runway lighting that is not easily visible even at close range when prefectly aligned, with the often poor visibility there.

As he himself says, the aircraft in question was due North, perpendicular to the Minhad runway, making the runway virtually invisible given the directional lighting employed.

Further, there is a camel racing track just 2-3 km SouthEast of Minhad, which is very brightly lit with omni-directional lights, making it highly visible from a considerable distance, easily 20 or 30km. This would have appeared much, MUCH brighter than Minhad.

It is generally accepted that these unfortunate pilots couldn't see their instruments or frequency displays barely inches from their faces. Had they been able to see ANYTHING out of the window, the brightly lit straights of the camel track might have offered them some hope of a welcoming runway, and tempted them that way, rather than the poorly lit Minhad runway, which would have been virtually invisible from their position even in the best circumstances.

fireflybob

4th Sep 2010, 22:48

Plane's on fire, land ASAP, and I don't mean "nearest suitable"...ASAP means land on the desert below you, rather than out of control attempting to reach an airport...in the Valujet example, if the crew had done that (and I have flown with that Captain and she was "top notch") maybe the outcome would have been the same...but if only 20 out of the 100+ on board survived, well...

Or even consider ditching? Which is what an RAF Nimrod did years ago. I recall that the inquiry said that if they had not done so the results would have been catastrophic - all crew members survived.

Flyer1015

4th Sep 2010, 22:55

Ya'll can Monday quarterback all you want but all of us will have to wait until the final report comes out.

Fires onboard are absolute time critical emergencies. On average, given past history of accidents like Swiss Air 111, you have 15 minutes tops before an accident is nearly guaranteed at 20. A good brief for smoke or fire must include time. I brief it simply, at the first sign of smoke or fire onboard, we cancel the warning, and I start my clock. We will be on the ground in 11 minutes or less. Period.

Run your procedures and the tid bits, but the sense of urgency needs to be there from there frrom the instant you notice the smoke or fire.

Anything more than 10 to 12 minutes, you are just risking it. System failures will be minimal to none at first, but once the smoke/fire reaches the avionics or cockpit, you will have massive failures within a very short time. Swiss Air showed that very well.

I take offense to one of the previous posters regarding nearest suitable landing area and ValuJet 592. The ValuJet fire was already underway during taxi out. They even heard a loud pop (recorded on cvr too) and they wondered 'what was that?' (also on cvr). What they didn't know was that the fire was already so intense it ruptured a company tire in the cargo bin,. causing it to blow. Hence the pop noise heard by them. By the time they took off, a very bad situation became worse when the smoke creeped through the entire floor. Despite initial requests for MIA airport, they accepted any landing field/area that they could make it to. Prior to hitting the swamp, the flight control wirings and controls running through the floor were burned. They plunged with no control. For these pilots, their fire started on the ground, made worse during taxi, and their fate was sealed the second they hit V1.

Rice power

4th Sep 2010, 23:17

The concept of depressurising the a/c at altitude as the only method avail to extinguish a fire on the maindeck (apart from directing the FO to don the fire suit and grab one of the 3 X 16 lb BCF's we carry on the maindeck) is sheer folly. Ask yourself this, how many training videos have you seen of the effect to a pallett alight of depressurising the a/c? I have been asking to see one on annual refresher training since 1992 ............ still waiting.
In my humble opinion at best you will have a smouldering mass just waiting to reignite with the eventual descent into O2 rich air. Further, this hypothesis of mine does not take into account the CAO items on the same deck with ROX labels. Segregation distances are of little comfort to me.

Like flyer1015 I brief the 11 minute scenario, the look of terror on the FO's face when he realises this will entail a ditching somewhere near Shemya or the like, at night in huge fridgid seas is of interest. Tends to get them out of their comfort zone.

The discussion of parachute egress in a 744 is absurd.

lomapaseo

4th Sep 2010, 23:45

I take offense to one of the previous posters regarding nearest suitable landing area and ValuJet 592. The ValuJet fire was already underway during taxi out. They even heard a loud pop (recorded on cvr too) and they wondered 'what was that?' (also on cvr). What they didn't know was that the fire was already so intense it ruptured a company tire in the cargo bin,. causing it to blow. Hence the pop noise heard by them. By the time they took off, a very bad situation became worse when the smoke creeped through the entire floor. Despite initial requests for MIA airport, they accepted any landing field/area that they could make it to. Prior to hitting the swamp, the flight control wirings and controls running through the floor were burned. They plunged with no control. For these pilots, their fire started on the ground, made worse during taxi, and their fate was sealed the second they hit V1.

Please don't take offense at what others remember anymore than I would take offense at your seemingly wrong memory of Value Jet's CVR.

The Valujet facts are as published in the report complete with timeline etc. (even my memory today is fuzzy so I'll be happy to go with the report if used as a reference)

As I recall the CVR provided no conclusions about time line for pops relative to fire initiation be it on the ground or in-the-air. The CVR group could only determine a single audio anomaly in-the-air followed immediately by the crew resonse "whatzat? ...... dunno for shure ... are we about to lose a bus or somethin?. Which is the first inkling that they had of something amiss. Afterwards there were many CVR dropouts and returns so the quoted words are about the only reliable part of the CVR.

The thought about the intiation on the ground were deductions made in the analysis phase of the investigation and of course unknown at the time to the crew.

atlast

5th Sep 2010, 00:17

The DOT currently use $5.8 million as the VSL, Value of Statistical Life. Nothing is taken into account as far as endangerment of life when
forwarding safety proposals or concepts. Everything is backward looking
when taken into account. Sad.

USav8or

5th Sep 2010, 00:18

Knew Matt, the copilot very well. A great stick, an awesome human being, wonderful husband and a proud dad to a beautiful 4-year old little girl. Former Marine grunt and one of the kindest people I've been around. I'm sure Doug, the captain was a good guy too, both were young, 38 and 48. God bless them and their families. :(

NSEU

5th Sep 2010, 00:18

With respect to the smoke evacuation questions, with all packs running and 2 windows out a 744 will maintain diff (or close to it), so the smoke evac handle wont depressurise the airplane. Its too small a hole.

Without reading the previous comments, I disagree. The pressurization outflow valves are about the same size as cabin windows. There is no way you going to maintain pressure with holes this large.

kilomikedelta

5th Sep 2010, 00:20

What about shareholder value? Any company is required, by law, to maximize shareholder value. Insurance will cover the hull loss (unfortunately incurring premium increases) but the time to acquire another aircraft and fit it out in full livery will be a negative for the analysts. Pilots are cheap (this is a business after all and management have well paid public relations consultants to deal with the "passed away" stuff). The markets response is what's really important for senior management. Let's move forward to the next compensation committee dinner and report and hope that the compensation consulting firm is more interested in the age of the scotch than whether the cargo had anything to do with the description in the manifest (this is a business after all and - hey - accidents happen - that's what corporate lawyers are for).

WellFrackMe

5th Sep 2010, 00:54

Cockpit Crew Handling.
As we know, performing this in a simulator or in your mind while dirving the car to 7/11 WILL be completely different for a Crew Member when faced with REAL LIFE.
So this event as it unfolds is simply a shock, addrenaline rush, and requires the upmost in CRM and situational awareness.
I suspected UPS Crews are well training on Lower and Main Deck fires.
The Cockpit fire is a slightly diffferent issue that can be as with SR111 impossible to deal with or trouble shoot.
Possible that during this phase before the impact, the aircraft was simply allowed to be flown into the ground (CFIT).
I mean this was not a burnt out Landing Gear indication where both Pilots were trying to fix it, but a life and death struggle and perhaps FMA, GPWS terrain warnings were overheard, or even incapacitation played a strong contributing role here.
It this was a post Go-around, then we'll say later "Had they landed they would have had a 92% chance of evacuation".
If they were infact east of BAH or DOH and then elected to fly back to DXB, the questions will arise further towards WHY WHY WHY?
If it happened just after take off from DXB - another serario.
Maybe in this situation, this problem, for 2 Pilots - it was just too much workload?

Burger Thing

5th Sep 2010, 00:59

Ok, can I make a design suggestion?
Fit the crew smoke hoods or goggles with Wi-Fi Heads Up Display with basic flight instruments.
This crew would have appreciated that!

Was thinking about that as well. Technology is available and the military uses something in that line, too. Provided that the electrical fire hasn't taken out vital systems yet, it could be useful in a dire emergency and the installation shouldn't be too expensive either.

Massey1Bravo

5th Sep 2010, 01:06

Was thinking about that as well. Technology is available and the military uses something in that line, too. Provided that the electrical fire hasn't taken out vital systems yet, it could be useful in a dire emergency and the installation shouldn't be too expensive either.

I would've preferred something similar to EVAS, an transparent inflatable airbag is far cheaper than a HUD. Think of $30 inflatable air mattresses.

RT5rkEvj1G4

atlast

5th Sep 2010, 01:31

$14,975 for EVAS?

I think it's time for an e mail to the CEO and ask him how much his SVL of me is?

parabellum

5th Sep 2010, 01:57

I just wonder where the fire started. The door at the top of the ladder leading to the flight deck is normally kept closed and is designed to keep out smoke from the main deck cargo area, but that would be of little use if the fire was within the upper deck area, like a galley fire, or in the forward area of the main deck and burnt through the upper deck floor or back wall.

Let us hope the investigators have enough evidence left to positively identify the cause and make sure it never happens again.

Massey1Bravo

5th Sep 2010, 02:13

$14,975 for EVAS?

I think it's time for an e mail to the CEO and ask him how much his SVL of me is?

The airlines won't pay the full list price if they buy in bulk. Besides this is just a clear inflatable plastic bag with a hose and a bottle of oxygen/nitrogen, you might as well make one at home. :E

Deltabravowhiskey

5th Sep 2010, 03:13

$250 for the Gizmo and pretty box
$14,725 for the STC, paperwork and insurance

Sadly, I'd venture to guess I'm probably not too far off the mark.

lurker999

5th Sep 2010, 03:15

I'm only an SLF but how much would an inert gas suppression system cost? i'd be guessing way less then even the "cost" of 1 crew, never mind a $250M jet.

just about any decent computer room has one, and most of them would be worth way less than a 744 and the freight.

aircraft are big pressure vessels, give the pilots 15 secs to get their masks on and then fill the plane with halon and dive to the nearest airport.

Burger Thing

5th Sep 2010, 03:16

I would've preferred something similar to EVAS, an transparent inflatable airbag is far cheaper than a HUD. Think of $30 inflatable air mattresses.

One can only hope, that this accident will finally trigger the authorities to enforce operators to install a system which helps the pilots in an emergency. Whatever systems works best but please give us one.

The smoke goggles will just prevent you from having irritated eyes when you crash and die. :E

doubleu-anker

5th Sep 2010, 03:21

The poor guys were so unlucky not to have landed/hit the ground after the first approach, back into Dubai.

They obviously had enough control of the aircraft to carry out a go around. Whether they had the visibility during that maneuver, is another question of course.

Bamse01

5th Sep 2010, 03:34

...in the Valujet example, if the crew had done that (and I have flown with that Captain and she was "top notch") maybe the outcome would have been the same...but if only 20 out of the 100+ on board survived, well

top notch????

grizzled

5th Sep 2010, 03:49

d-a:

They obviously had enough control of the aircraft to carry out a go around

It's VERY early in terms of what did happen and what didn't happen, but it could be they were unable to land the aircraft, as opposed to executing a "controlled" missed approach or go around.

MountainBear

5th Sep 2010, 03:56

"aircraft are big pressure vessels, give the pilots 15 secs to get their masks on and then fill the plane with halon and dive to the nearest airport." The biggest problem you have with a cargo fire is that you have no way to ascertain what type of fire it is. Halon isn't a great choice for certain types of fire (like those involving metals) where it can make the problem worse not better. I'm no expert on fire suppression system in airplanes. But I know enough to know that like the parachute idea, if there was an easy panacea it would have been done by now.

vovachan

5th Sep 2010, 04:15

It's probably the smoke that got them, not the fire. Isolating the cockpit from the cargo hold and arresting the spread of smoke is within the realm, as is giving it an independent air supply - means of pressurization.

hoggsnortrupert

5th Sep 2010, 04:22

LURKER 999:

Well said, and a very good Question.

MOUNTAINBEAR: The reason In my opinion is that it is not cost effective! that simple:

I have never operated equipment of the mass of a 747, but I do know and remember only too frecking well now years later! how when we had a fire in the cockpit of a commuter/regional turbo prop, just how quick it all turned too ****e! we were lucky, and we could still SEE, although breathing was uncomfortable due to the acrid fumes, then I opened a window.

Having had some experience in the off shore oil/gas industry, they have for years used suppression systems as the likes of the below in the diesel powered generation rooms, and control rooms, and the like:

This I copied from Pro-Inerts Site, google it!

H/Snort.:(:(

Since its European introduction in 2003, Fike's innovative ProInert® has become widely accepted as one of the best performing, most cost-effective, and environmentally friendly inert gas fire extinguishing systems. Now that same technology is available in the United States, and other parts of the world requiring UL and FM approval.
Fike's ProInert offers all the benefits of other inert gas systems with several significant design improvements - enhancements that not only mean a superior product, but savings to your bottom line!
Most inert gas systems discharge from the nozzle into the protected space with a high surge flow rate, creating a hazardous pressure peak. These systems use pressure reducers further down the pipe network in order to mitigate safety issues, but also require both high-pressure and low-pressure piping.
Fire Suppression :: ProInert™

"Buildings" article: Understanding Gaseous Fire-Extinquishing Agents

Applications:
· Art Galleries
· Museums/Libraries
· Archive Storage
· Computer/Control Rooms
· Electronics/Data Processing
· Insurance Industry
· Military Installations
· Pharmaceutical/Medical
· Switch Rooms

The Complete Package

Since its European introduction in 2003, Fike's innovative ProInert® has become widely accepted as one of the best performing, most cost-effective, and environmentally friendly inert gas fire extinguishing systems. Now that same technology is available in the United States, and other parts of the world requiring UL and FM approval.
Fike's ProInert offers all the benefits of other inert gas systems with several significant design improvements - enhancements that not only mean a superior product, but savings to your bottom line!
Most inert gas systems discharge from the nozzle into the protected space with a high surge flow rate, creating a hazardous pressure peak. These systems use pressure reducers further down the pipe network in order to mitigate safety issues, but also require both high-pressure and low-pressure piping.

ProInert is Better

Because of its unique patented valve assembly, the ProInert agent enters the protected room within the industry required 60 seconds, but at a steady flow rate -- preventing destructive turbulence from occurring. This constant flow rate means you can use small-diameter, low pressure (and less expensive) piping from the inert gas container, all the way to the nozzle. And the necessary venting area is much smaller - reducing installation costs by as much as 60% on venting hardware.
ProInert's patented constant flow rate valve translates into a system that is not only safer for your staff and facility, but also saves you money.

BrooksPA-28

5th Sep 2010, 04:29

How is the breathing mixture (O2 plus Nitrogen etc.) achieved with these systems? I assume they don't just mix O2 with the ambient air. That would be bad way to deal with a smoky cockpit.

kenish

5th Sep 2010, 04:45

I've lurked and learned from PPRuNe for several years; this is my first contribution.

There *was* a 747 with a purpose-built crew escape system, specifically NASA's Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. It was installed during the "drop" test when the orbiter Enterprise was released off the back of the 747 over Edwards AFB.

The crew wore parachutes during the rather risky test flights. If they started an evac sequence, about 30 cabin windows along the fuselage would be blown out by squibs to cause rapid but controlled depressurization. A hatch about 30 feet behind the nose gear would be jetissoned after the pressure equalized. The route from the flight deck to the hatch was a slide/tunnel similar to the ones in kid's playgrounds.

I had a very keen interest in aviation even as a kid. My friend's dad was a bigwig on the Shuttle program and thanks to him I got a tour of the inside of the SCA and was a semi-VIP guest at 3 of the glide tests. An engineer on the SCA was nice enough to answer my zillion kid's questions, including the escape system.

About 10 years ago the SCA was on static display at one of the last Edwards airshows. I noticed the escape system was removed. The pilot said it predated him, but he knew a lot about it. He heard it always made everyone very nervous so it was disabled as soon as the test flights were finished. He also said that had anyone actually used the system they probably would have gone into #2 or #3 according to later CAD / CFD analysis.

Pointing out an actual example of 2 points already made.....Parachuting out of a transport jet is tricky and risky even with a purpose-built system. And, the safety system can impose a new set of risks.

BTW, the original SCA is a converted AA bird; the second is a JAL 747SR. Altitude is limited to FL240 when the shuttle is on top due to cold temp limits on some shuttle systems. That's why the ferry flights require a mid-continent fuel stop.

Most important of course is the UPS crew and those they left behind. The cause of the accident will hopefully help advance safety, especially for inflight fires.

RatherBeFlying

5th Sep 2010, 04:50

The Arabian Gulf would be a nice warm place to ditch. Might even be worth carrying a two man life raft that could be shoved through the crew escape hatch.

Ditching off Shemya without a survival suit gives you about 15 very unpleasant minutes more life than letting the thing crash.

grimmrad

5th Sep 2010, 05:08

Apologies, I guess it was said earlier, too late now to skim through all the posts - why did they go around? They took of, returned but went around and than crashed? So they were - almost - there but yet so far...?

Guy D'ageradar

5th Sep 2010, 06:36

why did they go around?

As I understand it, they didn't. 8500ft 250+ kts at 13dme - they overflew the airport at, I think, several thousand feet.

This flight was airborne for some 65 minutes and the emergency was declared approx 30 mins out of Dubai, in Bahrain's FIR and around 100 miles from Doha - that puts them in the middle of the Gulf - the only options therefore, were ditching or trying to make it to Doha/Abu Dhabi/Dubai/Kish island. Ditching in the gulf would be further cimplicated by the huge number of oil platforms out there. I understand then why the elected to divert - what I don't get is why not Doha - they were closer and already headed in the correct direction?

250 kts

5th Sep 2010, 08:56

The report I put on here last night (message194) would be derived from Mode S information to a portable Mode S receiver so I would think the timings and levels quoted are pretty accurate. The hotel quoted is around 1 mile from the threshold of 12R so it suggests they managed to get it down to around 4000' as they overflew the airport.

Jetjock330

5th Sep 2010, 09:33

Khaleej Times (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2010/September/theuae_September105.xml&section=theuae) today

5 September 2010, 1:09 PM The UAE General Civil Aviation Authority announced today the preliminary report on the fatal accident of Boeing 747 - 400 Cargo airplane on 3rd September 2010.
According to this report the UPS6 B744 had departed from Dubai International Airport at 14:53 UTC (6:53pm local time) headed to Koln-Bonn (Cologne) - Germany. At 15:15 UTC (7:15pm local time) information was received from Bahrain that the aircraft was returning to Dubai Airport with a smoke in the cockpit, unable to maintain altitude and requested the airport for landing.
The UAE ATC Centre issued a clearance when aircraft was approximately 40 kilometre from touchdown. The aircraft was high on the approach and was at 8500ft at 24 kilometre from touchdown. It passed the overhead the airfield very high and made a right turn. Position reports were passed the tower as well as advising that all runways were available for the aircraft to land on. The aircraft tracked south west and rapidly lost altitude. At approximately 15:42 UTC (7:42pm local time), radar contact was lost. The B744 crashed in an unpopulated area between the Emirates Road and Al Ain Highway after 50 minutes from departure and after returning back from Bahrain FIR (Flight Information Region), the report added.
The GCAA responded by launching an immediate investigation team who are currently on site collecting evidence, analyzing the initial onsite evidence, coordinating with all of the emergency services to secure the accident site, liaising with the aircraft manufacturer technical specialists and international accident investigation bodies who have been invited to assist the GCAA onsite in the UAE under the provisions of ICAO Annex 13.
The investigation team recovered the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) approximately 6 hours after the accident; the onsite GCAA investigation team is continuing the recovery effort to locate the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR), while investigating the aircraft structure, systems, engines and flight controls as part of the forensic evidence collecting and data capturing activities associated with major air accident investigation, the GCAA initial report pointed out.
A team from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will arrive to UAE today to assist the GCAA team in the crash investigation.
Coordination activities with the regional (ANS) is also continuing in the retrieval of important communications and flight planning material crucial to the successful conclusion of this investigation, the report concluded.