Urgent call for fire suppression in Main Deck holds!

[ClassCbird]

It is looking very likely that the UPS cargo aircraft that came down in DXB had a fire in the main deck hold. I am appauled that to this day, there is still no regulatory mandate for cargo aircraft to have fire suppression in their main deck holds. I would have thought that after two previous events which resulted in hull losses due to fire (FedEx 1406 and UPS 1307), the FAA would start taking this matter very seriously. What will it take for things to change?
I have appealed to the FAA to mandate fire suppression in main deck holds and I urge you all to do the same!

I salute FedEx for taking the initiative to install fire suppressant to their cargo fleet. I implore you all to press the regulators for this to be standard as soon as possible before more lives are lost. Not just to pilots but to the general public on the ground.

Why should passenger carrying aircraft be given stricter regulation over cargo aircraft?

Class E to Class C ASAP!!!

God bless you all.

[Saint]

I too applaud FedEx for their decision to install fire suppression systems in their aircraft.

Meanwhile all the worlds aviation regulators sit on their hands waiting for a freighter accident to occur where the general public are involved (i.e. a crash in a populated area involving significant loss of life). I am disgusted by the attitude of regulators and politcians (whose role is to regulate for the sake of public safety) who assume that this won't happen because it hasn't happened already. I know there is an FAA working group, but this has been meeting for nearly 20 years now.

Regardless of the outcome of the enquiry, I hope that UPS can see beyond the possibilty that if their crew did something different they may have bought themselves the extra few minutes needed for survival and see that same situation could have occurred when more than 3 hours flight time from a suitable field.

Will TNT wait until they suffer from a hull loss due to fire before acting?

I fly domestic freight. I have no fire suppression in the aircraft holds. I have detection only in the main hold. There isn't even detection in the lower cargo holds. Guess what my biggest worry is every time I get airborne?

Fire suppression systems become even more difficult to fit in "Quick Change" aircraft of which there are many in the world. I can see that the fitting of my aircraft with any system would cost several times the price of the airframe. Mandating this on such old aircraft would definately put a lot of small freight companies out of business. Even so, it is still the right thing to do.

Mandating this on new aircraft would obviously make buying new aircraft a bit more expensive. The insurance companies are the last hope for making the economic case for installing fire suppresion systems. The regulators have demonstrated very clearly that they won't act.

[galaxy flyer]

SNS3Guppy

Don't fly cargo anymore, but the C-5A (not the B-model) had 18 FE 1301 bottles that could flood the cargo and avionics areas with fire suppressant. It shouldn't be that hard to provide protection. We also had LN2 to inert the fuel tanks and flood the dry bays around the fuel tanks. They did get rid of it in the Bs, however.

GF

[Saint]

On reflection, I realise that the "cost of the accident" verses "fire suppression installation" calculation has already been done. In my naivety I thought the possibilty of a burning freight aircraft hitting a populous area may not have previously been included in the calculation. Maybe it has and the risk is acceptably small, but could and therefore will happen.

FedEx have calculators too. How have they come up with a different answer compared to ever other operator? Any Actuaries care to comment?

SNS3Guppy
I accept that a proportion of fires are uncontrollable, and some will burn themselves out, and the rest fall somewhere inbetween. I obviously accept the risk too because I still turn up for work. Thankfully hand-guns are illegal where I live so there is a reduced chance of me ending my days that way. Reducing the risk of death-by-fire in the air also appeals to my attitude to risk.

[Saint]

I will sleep well with a smile on my face thinking of your poetic illustrations of low probabilities. You seem to be an actuarial word-smith as well as a pilot.

I don't smoke and still no hand-guns allowed here, so I'll use my axe to fend off the tiger.

I doubt we will even get EVAS installed due to numbers calculated by bean counters whose cynicism may even exceed yours. The whole of aviation safety is based upon subjective probability calculations. You have made your judgement and I hear it loud and clear.

Good luck with the wife when the next CC bill arrives.

[GlueBall]

when more than 3 hours flight time from a suitable field.

. . . "the suitable field/airport" is no longer a limitation when the cockpit begins to fill with smoke. It would be an affront to common sense and survival instinct to preclude landing in a field, on a street, or to ditch. :ooh:

[742]

I think that a critically important point is being missed in these discussions.

There is a means of fighting a main deck fire, and that is to depressurize the airplane and remain at altitude until the last possible moment. In the case of the 747 the checklist results in an unpressurized airplane at FL 250 – and the checklist even calls for a climb to that altitude if necessary.

The mindset should not be to start down to the nearest airport -- the mindset should be to start toward the nearest airport but to stay at altitude for as long as possible before making like a brick for the runway. Starting down early needs to be recognized as a potentially fatal mistake.

This begs the question of how much distance it does take to get from FL250 to the runway end. It also brings up the question of what to do if there is a fire while over a large body of water. There are serious physiological issues with unpressurized flight above FL250, but they pale in comparison to a fire and/or an open water ditching. So this guy is going UP if things are not rapidly improving once depressurized at FL250.

[Graybeard]

Starve the beast of oxygen, and it dies. Engine exhaust is almost totally devoid of oxygen, and it's free for the taking. Just maybe there is a way to cool it enough and route it into all cargo bays.

It's mainly a plumbing challenge.

GB

[TheChitterneFlyer]

As an ex 'Mr Shifter' cargo F/E (forced into early retirement from flying) I was somewhat ammused by the 'fire-fighting kit' that was provided by the company for the purpose of fighting a Main Deck fire.

Given that the QRH Fire/Smoke drills are quite lengthy/complex, it was somewhat of a joke to expect a 'duty hero' to go down there armed with a smoke mask and a fire bottle whilst 'dressed' in a 'fire suit'.

I agree with SNS3Guppy; the complexities of trying to suppress a cargo fire are somewhat onerous. You could also say... futile! That being said, making a climb into 'thinner air' is also a bit of a 'pipe-dream', because despite the scientific malarky of taking away the oxygen, to suppress the fire, you'd have to outclimb the performance of the aeroplane in order to do so.

Captain to Eng... engage 'warp drive' and get us into orbit... asap!

The practicalities are somewhat limiting... don't you agree?

Given the choice of African Killer Bees or a Cargo Fire... what's the difference; open-up your duty free booze and have a final drink and a smoke before you arrive at the hard-deck.

Ooops, sorry chaps, I mustn't provide 'second-hand' smoke; have one of mine... smoking kills!

My appologies for being flippant, but if you're going to lie-awake all night (all day for cargo chaps) worrying about a cargo fire... it's time to hang-up your headset.

TCF

[Beer_n_Tabs]

SNS3Guppy

I'm a hetro man....but I think over time I could learn to love a man like you (in a purely platonic way of course).

Good posts sir :ok:

[grounded27]

You all must understand that package airlines have much less visibility over hazmat as the source of their cargo is extremely diverse. ACMI and heavylift is generally full of exposed cargo that is easy to identify.

The root cause is the shipper not declaring their cargo as hazmat, this is the issue that needs to be addressed..

[Graybeard]

Not a chemical reaction, and not a self-oxidizing fire. Further, one may not see flame, but one can still have combustion as a chemical process, producing heat, adequate to do substantial damage.

Ever seen a thermal runaway on a nicad battery?

The "fire triangle" was amended many years ago to become the fire tetrahedron, to include chemical interaction. Starving a fire of oxygen does not necessarily extinguish it right away, or at all, and may do little to stop the damage being done by the fire. Furthermore, a fire which is starved of oxygen still has heat, still has chemical interaction, and so long as fuel remains may progress in several ways.

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If starving of oxygen kills 70-90% of cargo fires, it's better than what we have now. Chemical reactions are nasty, but they won't spread if the flammables nearby have no O2.

Beyond thermal runaway, I've seen a plane where the main NiCd battery exploded. Fortunately, it was while the MD-80 was being towed empty. That's one reason there are temperature sensors on NiCd batteries. Lead-acid batteries explode, too.

GB

[742]

The fire will spread if the chemicals are oxidizers.

And if there are no oxidizers in the mix? Or a small amount of oxidizers? Or for that matter the fire has started in a different part of the load?

Things do not like to burn at altitude, and we should not ignore the one trick that we have up our sleeve. So I am following the checklist while getting pointed to the nearest airport. And then I am going to sit at altitude, unpressurized, until the last possible moment. Then, and only then, will I start down like a brick for the runway. Gear down, speed brakes out, Vle (+ a bit). Like a Baron full of Doctors.

The ability to depressurize and remain at altitude is a huge advantage that freighters have over passenger flights. It is not a great solution, but it is worth more than doing nothing. And it is certainly better than going down early.

[trashhauler]

I assume you are referring to FedEx and UPS as package flyers. How wrong you are sir. FedEx hauls pallet freight as well, and it also carries a lot of haz mat and has fire suppression systems for the haz mat. It is a matter of cost and cost is not a priority with FedEx, safety is.

[grounded27]

cost is not a priority with FedEx, safety is

Ahh horse ****, liability is the ultimate priority. Sadly mistaken to talk about any business in any other terms...

[Flightmech]

Disagree on the liability being a priority statement regarding the FSS. I think it's a good piece of business. Making your own fleet safer plus developing and owning the STC with the possibility of selling it to other carriers. They are also spending money installing EFB's and HUD/EFVS systems. No liability issues there either.

[AllDaysAreSchoolDays]

I agree with the statement that liability is not the issue! We can all be cynical about this industry, lets face it, if FedEx were investing all this time and money only because of the risk of liability then ALL the other operators would be doing the same.

Sadly, the reality is that the risk of liability is not high enough for the majority to change the status quo. It is incredibly hard to be proactive in this industry and unfortunately most companies are still very reactive.

I am behind FedEx, I think they are making a very strong statement their workforce, to their potential customers and to the rest of the industry including the regulators. I hope it works out well for them.

I have just discovered that my airline is going to have me flying the some cargo flights quite soon. I am not at all comfortable with the idea of relying on raising the cabin altitude to suppress a fire somewhere over the Pacific! Aviation has not moved on much in the last two decades! Yet the cargo we carry has! More Dangerous goods, bigger payloads (Bigger aircraft), less crew to deal with the unthinkable!

All the time we just quietly accept this situation, either because we are resigned, cynical, think it is too hard, or simply don't want to raise our heads we are doing ourselves a huge injustice!

I am going to follow ClassCBird's example and write an email or letter to my authority... It may have little impact, but if we all do it, a few people will become a lot more aware of the potential problem. Talk to you Unions, talk to your friends, talk to anybody that will listen! Lets get something better than we have now.

[ClassCbird]

Firstly, thank you to everybody who has contributed to this thread. I feel very strongly about this topic and intend to do everything in my power to get the rules changed.

I'm aware that Class D compartments no longer exist as was mandated by the FAA Airwothiness Directives in 1998 (FAR 25.857). ( Obviously this only applies to American-registered aircraft). My understanding is that Europe (EASA) followed this change in 2003 in the JAA Certification Specifications and that all aircraft registered FROM these dates will only have Class E or Class C cargo compartments.

The FAA had gone one step further to mandate all older aircraft be upgraded from Class D to Class E or C by 2001 in accordance with:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 28937, Amendment No. 25-93]
"These amendments upgrade the fire safety standards for cargo or baggage compartments in certain transport category airplanes by eliminating Class D compartments as an option for future type certification. Compartments that can no longer be designated as Class D must meet the standards for Class C or Class E compartments, as applicable. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppression standards for Class C compartments by early 2001 for use in air carrier, or most other commercial service. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used only for the carriage of cargo must also meet such standards or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments by that date for such service. These improved standards are adopted to increase protection from possible in-flight fires."

Unfortunately I have learned that Europe is still more than a decade behind this ruling and refer you to:

ToR 26.003 dated 17th Sept 2010
"3. Objective:
The objective is to improve the protection of occupants onboard large aeroplanes
operated in commercial air transportation (CAT), by removing the risk of uncontrollable fire in Class D compartments.
This improvement would be reached by upgrading, on large aeroplanes used for CAT, the existing Class D cargo compartments to the current CS-25 standards for Class C or Class E cargo compartments."

This change is only proposed and the decision is set for 2012! Far too little far too late!

I have some questions;

How does adding detection remove the risk of "uncontrollable fire in Class D compartments"?! This is not a form of control!

Are there still cargo operations within the US airspace on aircraft with no fire/smoke detection within compartments?! (i.e non US registered aircraft)

Which airlines within Europe are operating without smoke detection? (Pax or cargo)

I have written to the NTSB, the FAA and to Mr Obama about this topic and intend to take it a lot further.

Please don't let Capt Doug Lampe and FO Matthew Bell's deaths be for nothing...


Class E to Class C ASAP!!!

[ClassCbird]

Hello SNS3Guppy,

Are you talking about USA? My understanding is that the FAA Certification Standards changed from 1998 as you state.

But I also note the following ammendment to the rules which were supposed to relate to all aircraft registered from 1958 to 1998 that were not covered by these standards. My understanding of this rule means that ALL US registered transport category aircraft had to upgrade Class D compartments to Class C or E by 2001. This was as a result of AA132 and ValuJet592...
If you can show me an existing document that shows otherwise I would be very interested.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 28937, Amendment No. 25-93]
"...The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppression standards for Class C compartments by early 2001 for use in air carrier, or most other commercial service. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used only for the carriage of cargo must also meet such standards or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments by that date for such service. These improved standards are adopted to increase protection from possible in-flight fires."

Thanks

[TheWanderer]

There is a video from FedEx explaining the Onboard Automatic Fire Suppression System (http://news.van.fedex.com/firesuppressionvideo)

Does anybody know or can give an estimate how much the FedEx system actually costs?
How much time does it need to install that system in an existing airframe?

[ClassCbird]

SNS3Guppy,

You are quite right, Part 25 mainly refers to new certificates.

However, in line with the amendment I had previously quoted part 121 (Amd No. 121-269) was also amended in 1998 to reflect the removal of Class D holds. As I am sure you are aware!

Final Rule Docket No. 28937 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/a09133bddc7f4fbb8525646000609712/8bca9cc022141f0b862569) Only part 135 was finally exempted from change (Commuter/Buisness Jets). All other transport category aircraft registered after 1958 had to be upgraded to comply by 18th March 2001!

Unfortunately EASA is over a decade behind this ruling which is why some of our world colleagues are operating without fire detection. The following term of reference demonstrates the US rulings and work in progress for EASA.

ToR 26.003 (http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/tor/26/ToR%2026.003%20Issue%201.pdf)

FAR Part 25 Amdt 25-93 and FAR Part 121 Amdt 121-269 based on NPRM 97-10. These amendments provided the following upgrades:

— elimination of Class D cargo or baggage compartment as an option for future type certification of transport category aeroplanes;
— the Class D compartments in certain transport category aeroplanes already in service and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppressions standards for Class C compartments;
— the Class D compartments in certain transport category aeroplanes already in service and used only for the carriage of cargo must meet the standards for Class C compartments or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments.

I hope this clarifies that US registered aircraft MUST have fire detection.

My quest is to upgrade even further and have fire suppression installed, specifically for cargo aircraft.

Class E to Class C ASAP!

[ClassCbird]

With regards to EVAS:

I do not believe it is beneficial without fire suppression.

In the cases of UPS 1307 and FedEx 1406 there was no need for EVAS. If you look at the NTSB accident reports they did not have smoke in the flight deck until after landing and during the evacuation. Yet they still had uncontrollable fires which destroyed both hulls.

EVAS, I think is a genius idea used only in conjunction with fire suppression.

Class E to Class C ASAP!!!

[AllDaysAreSchoolDays]

Having flown SLF for some time I am not used to the idea of cargo compartments without fire suppression.

I see this topic very simplistically.

Fire, once started and if not controlled or contained will develop with a mind of its own and exponentially grow consuming all that is around it.

Survival:

1) Escape from the fire, via fire exits... (Not viable in flight on civil aircraft)
2) Extinguish the fire... (Definately my preference!)

I have heard arguments that suggest some fires are inextinguishable!

I have two points to make;

Firstly, inextinguishable fires are usually as a result of not being detected and controlled early enough. This is always the case with aircraft that have managed to land after detecting fire but not suppressing it.

Otherwise, we could have materials onboard that do not respond to the suppressant installed. In reality this is mainly class D fires (metals). A top contender being lithium batteries, because nearly all other metal sources would need to be heated externally first. Now while our Halon 1301 will not stop the heat rising within lithium batteries it will interfere with the chemical process that allows flame to persist and more imortantly spread!

This is why we call it suppressant and not extinguisher!

Suppress the fire = time

Time is my friend when my arse is on fire and I want to find somewhere to land.

I would definately like to see more time invested in finding suitable ways of installing suppressant in main deck cargo holds. Frankly, any company operating the average aircraft without suppressant in the lower holds, is just asking for trouble. These areas are easily classified as Class C compartments, because of the ability to regulate the airflow to them. Boeing have kits for all their variants, which add minimal weight and take up zero space within these holds!

boeing fire suppression upgrades (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s03txt.html)

For a typical ETOPS (ie 180mins of suppression) kit you would lose only 65kg of useable payload!

I understand that if the refit is included within a C check it is as good as cost neutral!

[AllDaysAreSchoolDays]

Guppy,

You are very defensive and not all that informative. You like to sound knowledgeable but don't back your information up with evidence for your statements and opinions.

I think you are missing the point. Fires should be given as little opportunity as is feasable to develop. I am not stating there are any miracle cures... I have stated one limitation in current fire suppressants and was not being exhaustive. More needs to be done to develop existing systems.

However current systems are more effective than you would like to suggest.

Suppression will still give you more time than a lack of suppression!

Your statements are very defeatist and argumentative as opposed to productive or constructive in nature.

My personal opinion about EVAS is that it is a great system to counter the effects of smoke in the flight deck... But it only treats the symptoms and not the cause!

By the way, many cargo outfits have fleets of aircraft with suppression in the lower holds... even in Europe! I am not completely ignorant to the Cargo sector and just accepting that this is the way we have always done things is pretty weak. :ugh:

[ClassCbird]

If I'd have had an airplane on fire, with a cockpit full of smoke, and having fought two flight deck fires in flight, I would be extremely concerned about fire risk!

I do not want this thread to become 'tit for tat'. My aim is to get people thinking and talking and in the long term help to find a solution to the lack of fire suppression in class E compartments.

I still have one question that I would like someone who flies in Europe to answer;

Which airlines in Europe, either passenger or cargo transport, are operating without smoke detection (i.e. class D)?

Class E to Class C ASAP!!!

[ClassCbird]

I know that this is a difficult and emotive topic, one with which we would like to bury our heads in the sand. However, it is important that we keep this topic going and that we raise awareness levels.

Historically and statistically, there have not been many incidents of this nature. But when they do happen they are often, if not always catastrophic. This means that while infrequent in events the risk is still high to both the collateral and to human life.
As time goes by this risk is increasing, we fly more and more dangerous goods, new experimental materials and technologies. Those goods are transported further and more frequently, because of the world economic demand to have things produced and manufactured in the cheapest places. Time is becoming a greater factor, pushing more products toward air transport rather than sea transport. The transports that we use are growing in size and flying more direct routes, often a long way from their nearest diversion field (i.e. polar routes).

All these factors and many more that I am sure I have missed are increasing the risk of fire onboard transport category aircraft!
I need all of you to point this out to all those that you feel should listen, even if they may not listen.

If another accident occurs tomorrow the world’s ‘perceived risk’ will change. I would like for us to affect this ‘perceived risk’ before another accident has to happen.

I implore you all once again, to please spend two minutes of your time to email the FAA, EASA, JAA, your local Department for Transport, your local MP, Mayor or Governor, anybody you feel necessary with just a few of your thoughts on this topic.

I appreciate the complexities of coming up with a solution, but when it becomes a requirement you will be amazed at the speed and innovative endeavours that will result. It is simply a matter of motivation. There are research programs in place for many issues that when combined, could well create the solution we would like to see (An alternative to Halon for example). Determination and motivation cause change.

In 1961, one man reached the decision to get his nation and human kind to the moon;

“We shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away, a giant rocket, more than three hundred feet tall, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented...” (J.F.K)The rest is history.

Class E to Class C ASAP!!!

[Private jet]

Cargo is not really my thing, but in my mind wouldnt it be a lot more practical /cheaper/effective to make sure that potentially combustible cargo is not loaded on the aircraft in the first place? I appreciate that there is a calculated risk with everything, but the possibility of such an occurance happening again could be minimised by all the operators without the complex and expensive process of installing on board fire suppresants, which seem to have limited effectiveness anyway. Seems to me what is needed here is not technology, but discipline to do the right thing before the aircraft even moves off the gate. Siiiiimples.....?

[grounded27]

They are also spending money installing EFB's and HUD/EFVS systems. No liability issues there either.

Sir, I dispute that. Especially HUD/EFVS is a insurance issue, it gives visability to prevent air and ground damage to aircraft. Not to mention cargo reliability/liability. To promise freight on time is a huge liability!

Can not argue that with a machine (company) this size that fire supression that protects a cargo that is a considerable portion of the aircraft's value is not a liability to deliver with the amount of flights they operate.

A payout to the surviving families of a crashed cargo aircraft is pennies on the dollar compared to the insurance savings of cargo and airframe....

[SNS3Guppy]

Cargo is not really my thing, but in my mind wouldnt it be a lot more practical /cheaper/effective to make sure that potentially combustible cargo is not loaded on the aircraft in the first place?

A big part of the utility of cargo operations is that we carry nearly anything nearly anywhere...including a wide variety of hazardous materials. Hazmat classifications place quite a few types of materials as "cargo aircraft only."

You're suggesting that a major economic industry shut down because what's carried is hazardous...when that's largely why that industry exists; cargo aircraft carry hazmat.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Guppy do you know 'Big Ernie'?;)

[SNS3Guppy]

No. Dare I ask?

[FirstStep]

SNS3Guppy--- although you are informative, educated and experienced in both flying and fighting fires, I believe "ClassC" has a few valid points.
The industry needs to change, upgrade, spend money, ect. Whatever it is, they need to sink money into it. Those with the money to upgrade will survive, those who don't, wont. You suggest a hull loss may be cheaper to the operators than upgrading, but what if the UPS 747 were to have taken out an apartment on the way down?. I'm sure the insurance industry will always be monitoring their exposure to liability, and not just the hull ( and crew ). Costs will rise on those whose "exposure" places them at higher risk.
I also fly international, cargo with limited suppression on the main deck ( none ). Unlike you, I can't say that fighting a fire on the main deck would be useless. You do paint a pretty ugly picture of what a fire will progress to, left unchecked. Why not try to fight it?. It may be "readily accessible", or it may not. You "may" have the excess crew available to accomplish the task, you may not. If your mid-way over the pond, even if "extra" crew is unavailable, you be you ass I'm gonna try. If it reaches the point of "too hot to even get near", or "can't locate source", then I'm screwed. I'll deal with that as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, use you knowledge to help us plan to deal with it, not just paint a scenario of doom.
The FedEx fire suppression system is a great start. True, it won't apply to my airline, as we have pallets on the main deck. But the suppressive "blanket" over the pallet is a great idea. The only downside I see is that the "blanket" may delay discovering the fire.

[Graybeard]

Really, falsely declared or improperly packed goods should not be allowed on the plane in the first place. I've been advocating for 100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers. We have an additional benefit here - bad stuff not getting shipped.

Today, once goods are packed by the manufacturer or shipper, there is little chance they will be opened for inspection - anywhere.

Sure, it would be ideal to do 100% inspection of goods at the port of embarcation, but that is difficult, and the exporter and exporting country don't have so much to lose.

100% inspection of imports would immensely reduce falsified shipments, as the goods could and should be destroyed upon arrival. That would kill the incentive for falsified or shoddily packaged shipments.

GB

[ClassCbird]

Guppy,

I started this thread because I wanted to raise awareness, which ultimately will add pressure for a change to FAA rulings. I am getting fed up with your constant negative and destructive comments. Your posts make up a third of this thread, and all are negative, destructive, condescending and very repetitive. Quite frankly I feel that you are trying to sabotage everybody's efforts. You seem unable to allow anybody else to have an opinion, unless they agree with you.

You are NOT entirely knowledgeable when it comes to cargo operations and I am beginning to wonder whether you are quite who you say you are? Perhaps you are just trying to provoke reactions? Or maybe I am giving you far too much credit here, but could you possibly be management for a cargo outfit? Or perhaps even have links to the FAA?

I do not understand what vested interest you have in quashing any thoughts of fire suppression. If you simply think it is unlikely to happen or change why can't you ignore the thread? Instead you are hell-bent on trying to prove everybody else wrong and insisting only you know best. Yet apart from your own experiences, you lack any specific research, scientific and regulatory knowledge!

I am looking for people that can think outside of the box and take this matter with the seriousness that it deserves.

The UPS 6 accident has had an enormous impact on the community in Dubai. We had an event here, where a minute's silence was held for Capt Doug Lampe and First Officer Matthew Bell. Among the attendees were other flight crew members who had relayed communications for UPS during their attempts to return to Dubai. You can only imagine the emotion. There were many more who witnessed the tragic event from the perceived safety and security of their own homes. Many of which have made emotional statements among the local journals and papers.

I have no doubt UPS 6 will have a lasting impression on Dubai. I cannot even begin to imagine the impact it will have had on Doug and Matt's family, friends and colleagues.

With such tragic loss of life, more should be done to reduce the risk of such events happening again. The NTSB and the FAA have a growing list of documentation on the risks of cargo flights and hazardous materials. In my opinion The FAA is stalling on the issue with little decisiveness to find ways of addressing the problem.

Whatever caused the fire on UPS 6, they clearly did not have adequate fire suppression onboard.

Two issues need addressing;

1) Tighter controls on correct shipping of dangerous goods
2) As the last line of defence, we need adequate fire suppression in all holds.

Yes, this is going to cost money! I do not feel that even one life should be traded for fire suppression.

Class E to Class C ASAP

[Sygyzy]

I'm afraid that in all of this I have to go with Guppy.

Just this weekend a 744 departed LHR with a door warning light on. He came around for an expeditious return. End of story, except it made the front page of the Sunday tabloids.

The two poor guys who lost their lives in DXB were dwarfed in the news by the parachute aircraft that crashed the following day in NZ. Not only in the news but also in the industry. The bean counters saw two deaths in a cargo a/c and nothing more. Their thoughts were pay up if necessary and move on.

There's enough difficulty in X-raying pax bags on selected flights before there will be money spent on X-raying any cargo a/c loads. This is now an instant world and folks aren't going to wait for (literally) shipping when they've been used to flying freight delivery times.

More vigilance from the crews will alleiviate some of the problem. Just as we check loadsheets carefully so should we check the load itself and know what we're carrying. Cos nobody else will give a care. And that's whether it's been loaded correctly or not or whether we reach destination or not.:sad:

S

[Pugilistic Animus]

Guppy I recently read a fascinating book about Alaska Smoke-jumpers, and their God...i.e the God of Alaska Smoke Jumpers is known as 'Big Ernie'

Supposedly if you don't honor your work then 'Big E' makes things interesting for them...to say the least:\:\:\...I know that sometimes all you guys from the different regions cooperate,...but I guess Big Ernie is limited to Alaska's Men...I don't remember the name of the book...but I sure love you posts on aerial firefighting...a subject that I much prefer to learn about from a safe distance from someone who's been there than to be there myself....:)

Love your posts:ok::ok::ok:

[AllDaysAreSchoolDays]

Sygyzy,

I hear what you are saying about the press coverage of incidents. It is both shocking and indecent that the worlds news is so imbalanced.

But with regard to economics and the lack of money in the pot, this is a lie that all airlines want us to believe, it is simple economics to spend as little as they can get away with. While I appreciate that some companies have less cash reserves or perhaps questionable financial backing, this is a constant!

Whether it be to argue their case in not raising our pay or employing enough staff for the job, Airlines are forever making decisions that they will claim are to save money. Many of which are short term savings and long term costs. The propoganda that follows these anouncements is always designed to make us fearful of losing our jobs (easily managed when you look at the relative instability of individual companies in history). But Aviation still keeps growing!


This is now an instant world and folks aren't going to wait for (literally) shipping when they've been used to flying freight delivery times.



You said it yourself! The economic demand for Air Transport is strong! If the rules were changed, do you think it would be less economical to transport goods by Air? Of course not! It would be relatively low long term cost, and easier to plan for the bean counters than the constant and much more damaging variation in Fuel prices. It would be a level playing field for all companies if fire suppression were mandated.

The airlines have coped and continue to grow in light of other restrictive regulations, including the abolition of Class D cargo compartments.

[Turborocker5000]

I couldn't agree more with ClassCBird's comments. More needs to be done about fire safety. We shouldn't be blase about this issue.

[3pointlanding]

The FedEx fire suppression system is a great start. True, it won't apply to my airline, as we have pallets on the main deck. But the suppressive "blanket" over the pallet is a great idea. The only downside I see is that the "blanket" may delay discovering the fire.

I hate to bust your bubble but FedEx carries a lot more than cans. Enter any international destination FedEx bird in addition to domestic aircraft and you will see a lot of pallet freight, including a lot of DG on pallets.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5972627)

[FirstStep]

No need to worry mate, I understand FedEx does a lot of palletised cargo as well. Great operation and apparently leading the field in trying to find answers to this problem. I was just making a point, that after watching to video, since we ONLY carry pallets, that the "drop-down-container- puncturing-device" would not apply to our operation. However, the "blanket" would be a viable option, and easy enough to install( over hazardous cargo ), that a Caveman could do it....( notice that I didn't mention Lagos or any specific country ).

[3pointlanding]

Agreed, FedEx is the leader in in-flight fire safety and have many in-fire prevention systems. Blankets above haz can, fire extinguishers systems, etc. Even on the aircraft that do not have the new system every aircraft has a fire supression system that is connected to a haz can and is hooked up only after it is inspected by the crew.
In my mind it is related to cost and FedEx is willing to spend the bucks in the prevention of in-flight fires. Not to say there will never be one, in aviation never is a word not spoken. But FedEx does and will continue their R&D for this all important problem. And for us who do not enjoy the luxury to work for a top notch airline that can afford such an expenditure, lets hope they do have the desire to adopt the work of others.

[grounded27]

In my mind it is related to cost and FedEx is willing to spend the bucks in the prevention of in-flight fires.

Right, Do you know what a STC is and how valuable it is if marketable?

One side of the coin.

Also take in mind what FedEx's insurance cost's are after recent hull losses and the insurance savings they gain by producing and operating with this system...

Guppy, respect you for being a realist on this issue.

[3pointlanding]

FedEx would not allow that cargo configuration regardless of the IATA rules And the hull loss at Narita had nothing to do with cargo.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

And what of the legal, properly-packed loads?

I recently carried a shipment which contained two pallets containing large quantities of Lithium batteries...each packed surrounded by resins, solvents, and flammable liquids, including some fairly nasty products such as MEK. Perfectly legal, yet entirely uncontrollable should they have found an ignition source.

That's incredibly bad practice.

Whoever loaded that pallet needs a word.