US Airways ETOPS 757 Smoke in Cockpit/Cabin 1100 Miles Offshore [Archive]

RobertS975

27th Sep 2010, 03:03

It happened a week ago, but this 757 PHX-OGG (Kahalui, Maui) was about midway between LAX and Hawaii when there was smoke in the cockpit/cabin. It is probably the worst nightmare, the possibility of an in-flight fire over 1100 miles from the nearest runway. The plane diverted to the nearest airport (SFO) which was about 1160 miles away.

The navigation issues sure are different nowadays than they were a few decades ago!

Featured Maps: US Airways Flight 432 Diversion (19 September 2010) - Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/featured/20100919)

FlightAware > US Airways #432 > 17-Sep-2010 > KPHX-PHOG (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA432/history/20100917/1745Z/KPHX/PHOG)

Incident: US Airways B752 over Pacific on Sep 17th 2010, smoke in cockpit (http://avherald.com/h?article=4311269d)

Airbubba

27th Sep 2010, 06:51

Looking at the FlightAware link, did they indeed do a double turnback?:confused:

Huck

27th Sep 2010, 06:59

There's no radar out there - I guess the line is drawn from position reports. Maybe one of them got screwed up - obviously they were a little distracted....

p51guy

27th Sep 2010, 07:09

Sounds like they did everything exactly as required. I had the same thing happen in a 757 but only had to fly 70 miles. They did everything right.

Starbear

27th Sep 2010, 08:53

I wasn't there and so like most have only read what is reported so far but I would be very interested to know if the crew descended as well as diverted towards an airport or at least gave serious consideration to that as an option.

There are too many unknowns for this incident but there appears to be plenty of evidence that if smoke is caused by a genuine fire and that source is not found and rectified then any crew has between 11 and 15 minutes to get the plane on a surface any surface.

Clearly this type of scenario is not related to Etops per se as normal rules require only 60 minutes from an airfield for a twin anyway, so if you have only 15 minutes avaiable there may be only one option and if you do not start an immediate descent then even that option may be denied to you (at least the cntrolled version).

Juts to stress again these comments are primarily directed at fire/smoke inflight and not this incident initself.

infrequentflyer789

27th Sep 2010, 09:45

Clearly this type of scenario is not related to Etops per se as normal rules require only 60 minutes from an airfield for a twin anyway,

Perhaps more importantly, I can't see how having two extra donks is any help if your main deck is on fire and filling the cockpit with smoke.

For some people, it does seem that just about any incident that happens to a long-haul twin is automatically the fault of ETOPS and wouldn't have happened if the a/c had been properly equipped with four donks (and a flight engineer).

FE Hoppy

27th Sep 2010, 10:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starbear
Clearly this type of scenario is not related to Etops per se as normal rules require only 60 minutes from an airfield for a twin anyway,

Perhaps more importantly, I can't see how having two extra donks is any help if your main deck is on fire and filling the cockpit with smoke.

For some people, it does seem that just about any incident that happens to a long-haul twin is automatically the fault of ETOPS and wouldn't have happened if the a/c had been properly equipped with four donks (and a flight engineer).

As a former Flight Engineer on 3 "donkers" who flew up and down the middle of the south atlantic for many years I can assure you that ETOPS was never on my mind but ditching drills and scenarios were discussed at length. Especially after a few of my old chums found themselves floating in the Morray Firth one day.
http://www.targetlock.org.uk/nimrod/ditched-r1.jpg

Starbear

27th Sep 2010, 10:25

Yes I recall that remarakble incident. It always surprises me that this smoke/fire scenario is not discussed more frequently and in more depth either in classroom/simulator or on the line. Most discussion centres around which is the nearest airport-regardless of number of engines or severity of smoke/fire.

By the way you appear to have combined a couple of quotes and attributed them to me whereas only the first couple of lines are mine. (though I don't disagree with the other sentiments expressed)

ManaAdaSystem

27th Sep 2010, 10:42

A lot of PPRUNE'ers seem to think you should put the aircraft on ground within 12-15 minutes if you have smoke on board. Good thing this crew did not ditch the aircraft, but completed the flight successfully.

In an aircraft the old saying; Where there is smoke, there is fire, isn't always correct.

Hotel Tango

27th Sep 2010, 11:15

I don't think posters were advocating that you put it down whatever over water. But an interesting question was if they commenced a descent "in case" of the eventual possibility that it is a serious fire and they have to ditch. Now that could be a bit of a dilemma on a twin as I presume it would significantly affect fuel reserves, which, upon discovering there is no fire, has now compromised fuel remaining to the nearest suitable airport.

Starbear

27th Sep 2010, 12:01

I don't think posters were advocating that you put it down whatever over water.Thank you HT , that was exactly my point and you have saved me inviting MAS to go back and read my post again. I don't recall any, never mind most ppruners advocating immediate ditching. In fact I was precisely avoiding that word because this could happen over land as well and still not be within reach of an airport and I always combined smoke/fire to try and indicate it could be both or it could be either or. Failed obviously.

So to reiterate: In some (the worst) circumstances, if you are not within shouting distance of a surface you could run out of options.

HT, you quite correctly bring in another possible problem about insufficient fuel, if you do descend and have also successfully dealt with the problem during that descent. However, if you do not give yourself the option, then all that extra fuel at altitude may be of no use to you whatever.

I don't suggest that there is an easy answer to this, because there may not be but I do strongly feel its worthy of discussion on many flights.

Question: In this particular instance, what were the US Airways crew's options if they had not succeeded in dealing with the smoke?

infrequentflyer789

27th Sep 2010, 12:37

HT, you quite correctly bring in another possible problem about insufficient fuel, if you do descend and have also successfully dealt with the problem during that descent.

Pretty sure that you are requried to have enough fuel to make your diversion airports at 10,000ft - to account for decompression events. With ETOPS that means enough fuel to make it at that level on one engine (I think).

BOAC

27th Sep 2010, 12:49

Almost - normally 2 engines at 10,000' and this is normally the most critical fuel required BUT it could be too high up with fire or excessive smoke in the cockpit - the need to ditch/force land could happen pretty quickly and it would take too long.

I guess you just have to hope the incident happens well away from any CP.:sad:

protectthehornet

27th Sep 2010, 13:54

by now I would think 757 pilots would know of the windshield heat smoke/fire situation on this plane type.

I imagine the first step is to turn off the windshield heat and do the checklist.

I also think that after Valuejet and the everglades and the Swissair Tragedy that getting to any surface IF OTHER METHODS TO DEAL WITH SMOKE/FIRE are not quickly successful is also in the back of pilots' minds.

flyera343

27th Sep 2010, 16:46

FE Hoppy..

Do you have a link associated with that story of the ditching? Thanks.

BOAC

27th Sep 2010, 16:48

SKYbrary - Reflections on the Decision to Ditch a Large Transport Aircraft (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reflections_on_the_Decision_to_Ditch_a_Large_Transport_Aircr aft)

atakacs

27th Sep 2010, 18:02

Any word of what was the cause for that smoke ?

RobertS975

27th Sep 2010, 23:34

I haven't seen anything further about the cause of the incident.

Our collective memories go back to Swissair 111 where the outcome was tragic despite having numerous suitable airports within a hundred miles. And the AC DC9 that crashed with fatalities at CVG... an inflight fire over the continental US.

So the points made about descending in case conditions deteriorated rapidly are well taken.

Admiral346

27th Sep 2010, 23:40

Pretty sure that you are requried to have enough fuel to make your diversion airports at 10,000ft - to account for decompression events. With ETOPS that means enough fuel to make it at that level on one engine (I think).

That is an ETOPS requirement - decompression AND one engine out has to be taken in consideration and the worse case goes into your fuel calculation...

Nic

crHedBngr

28th Sep 2010, 01:06

Here's an article by "The Maui News" . . . .Plane lands safely after smoke fills cockpit - Mauinews.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Visitor's Information - The Maui News (http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/540633/Plane-lands-safely-after-smoke-fills-cockpit.html?nav=10)

aterpster

28th Sep 2010, 01:13

Admiral 346:

That is an ETOPS requirement - decompression AND one engine out has to be taken in consideration and the worse case goes into your fuel calculation...

That applies to all 121 oceanic ops, at least as to decompression. No "wet footprints" allowed for ETOPS, nor L1011s or 747s, etc.

stilton

28th Sep 2010, 05:24

I wonder if it was a window heat wiring issue again ?

The 757 has had more than one instance of this :eek:

RobertS975

28th Sep 2010, 16:25

bardos

29th Sep 2010, 05:50

This from an internet forum:

We went to Maui on this flight to celebrate my husband's 65th birthday and to renew our vows of 25 years. This flight turned into a nightmare with smoke not just in the cockpit but in the whole plane, very piercing loud noise for over a hour. Luckily they decided to lower the altitude but most of us had severe problems with breathing etc. We were told that a flight would be waiting for us from Phoenix, we lost a whole day, evening, problems with getting to our hotel in early AM etc. US Airways told the media that a flight was waiting for us which did not leave until 11:15AM. The stewardess tried there best but this was one of the most scarient flights we have ever taken. We were told we would all be given a call but still have not received a call. Please advise what compensation will be given as there were many pictures taken of the smoke in the plane. I have been having severe chest pains since this flight. I can be reached at xxx-xxx-0718. We thank God that we are still alive from this flight. Please advise of calls to all passengers and compensation.
Barb Hughes

tarmac-

29th Sep 2010, 06:32

Compensation, chest pains, God

:D

PA-28-180

29th Sep 2010, 06:41

"Compensation, chest pains, God
....."

Presuming this is a tongue in cheek comment.....they probably were heaping praise on the crew after landing safely at SFO.....and shortly after arriving at their hotel, the calls from 'lawyers' began.....! :ugh:
Surprised? ....NOT!!! :mad:

LadyGrey

29th Sep 2010, 07:34

What an incredible story from that "internet forum"...

After landing at SFO, they should have hugged and kissed the crew...

And after getting "some compensation" by " I dont know who" they should forward it to the crew!

Sorry, SLF question....Would it be of any difference in this special incident, if you flew with a say 744 and descent and cut two engines off....more fuel left for getting to the next available airport?

Thank you!
Peter

Bus429

29th Sep 2010, 08:21

Piercing noise? Was the stuff really smoke? Did they have a de-compression? Did a recirc fan, equipment cooling system or pack fail?
Trying to associate noise with smoke (and rambling).

KATLPAX

29th Sep 2010, 09:17

Piercing sound = whining passengers about the unscheduled turn and long reroute to SFO, will I be compensated? My vacation! Who will pay for my taxi? Ohooo, whine and complain but forget how lucky they are to be walking around. Sh1t happens. :ugh:

trex450

29th Sep 2010, 13:13

Kapton wiring strikes again?

Ex Cargo Clown

29th Sep 2010, 13:47

Never mind Kapton, it sounds like a galley issue.

aterpster

29th Sep 2010, 13:55

There is a passenger side to any event like this.

The airlines make oceanic flying sound like a "done deal." But, it is not. Stuff like this happens. We have no idea how the crew (cabin and flight deck) interacted with the passengers during this event.

Maybe the airlines should be required to provide every oceanic passenger with a letter that they must read and sign, which explains the issues involved with oceanic flights in general and ETOPS in particular.

Why not? It's their butts that are on the line right along with the crews.

Bus429

29th Sep 2010, 17:38

Kapton not used after 1990 in 757s. Some of you may be interested in a concept known as Electrical Wiring Interconnect Systems (EWIS) which covers the spectrum of design, maintenance planning, maintenance inspection, wiring, connectors etc. Required training under Part 145 and has a lot of its root in SFAR 88.

RobertS975

30th Sep 2010, 18:34

The "piercing noise" was an alarm.

BandAide

30th Sep 2010, 20:55

I find the crew's decision to proceed to the nearest airport to be the exemplary call. They were about in the middle of the flight, and might have elected to fly to destination, but chose to go direct to the nearest airport. Good on them.

When smoke and/or fire show up, getting on the ground ASAP is the overriding factor. If you can get it on the ground in 2 hours, versus 2 hours and five minutes by continuing to destination, the right call is to choose the 2 hours option.

When you're on fire, or if you have smoke, find the best, most immediate concrete you can. If I've learned anything over the years, it is that. Seconds matter.

Bus429

30th Sep 2010, 21:08

The "piercing noise" was an alarm.

In that case, maybe it was a toilet smoke detector? Can't think of any other aural warning that would be audible in the cabin?
Anyway, I'm indulging in the speculation I usually decry.

atakacs

30th Sep 2010, 23:26

I find the crew's decision to proceed to the nearest airport to be the exemplary call. They were about in the middle of the flight, and might have elected to fly to destination, but chose to go direct to the nearest airport. Good on them.

Well to be honest I'm not so sure that it really mattered...

Either they had a real non containable fire and the only option was to ditch ASAP

...or they had some relatively minor problem in which case flying to destination or to the nearest airport did not make any material difference.

Quite frankly if your are faced with an actual fire emergency the difference between flying 180 or 240 minutes is irrelevant...

protectthehornet

30th Sep 2010, 23:50

I don't think this was an etops issue as the engines kept running.

it also gives one pauze to think about all aviation safety items. fire aboard a plane is right up there with structural failure and mid air collision.

anyone figure out what caught on fire?????

rh200

1st Oct 2010, 00:30

I know I'm not a pro and may be talking out of turn but!

Quite frankly if your are faced with an actual fire emergency the difference between flying 180 or 240 minutes is irrelevant... That would be fine if the problem was positively identified as minor. But I'm not sure an extra hour is irrelavent if you can't identify the issue. A fire emergency may not be an actual fire but just the smell of one.

Isn't it possible that you could have an issue that calms down after you unload all the non essential buses etc, but is still slowly degrading unoticed? Then isn't it possible that it could rapidly escalate, leaving you with the feeling that, maybe you wish you had taken the shorter option.

As always its up to the flight crew to determine whats safe in their particular case.

kwateow

1st Oct 2010, 21:45

Lawyers are generally a pain in the a*ss, but are not wrong when saying that flying with two out is safer on a quad than on a twin.

QED.

lear60fellow

2nd Oct 2010, 15:19

would be great that the crew could be able to share with us this experience and what happened but I imagine that company rules will not allow them. In any case we´ll wait until a NTSB report of what happened and learn from it.

Capt - Chaos

7th Oct 2010, 23:16

Lawyers are generally a pain in the a*ss, but are not wrong when saying that flying with two out is safer on a quad than on a twin.

QED.

to this, there is no doubt

wmuflyguy

10th Oct 2010, 20:18

From the Maui news article: "The cabin filled with "foul-smelling, thick smoke," and alarms blared while the crew searched frantically for the fire..."

If this is an accurate report, then one needs to wonder why the plane did not descend. If accurate, then this was a scarier incident than it seemed from the scant info on the initial reports.

What would descending accomplish? If the smoke was thick, it would bring you closer to the water you can not see. Descending would make the diversion take longer, and if you had a fire descending would increase the partial pressure of O2 to feed the fire.

The only reason I see to descend is if you thought you were in need of ditching and if you can't see out the window due to thick smoke, well it most likely won't be successful. Run the Cockpit Smoke/fire/Smoke evacuation checklist...then descend when you can see where you are going.

I'm sure they were running the qrh and if it said descend they would have.