Turkish Airlines B777 Emergency Evacuation at LTBA

[BusDriver947]

A TK B777 300 was lined up for take off last night (03/12/10 at approx 22:35z) at Istanbul's 17L, when after not having moving for a while the strobes were switched off and shortly afterwards the aircraft slides blew on the left hand side only.

Passengers and crew all safe with what looked like no major injuries.

Was informed by ATC that they had a cargo hold fire indication.

Runway blocked for some time whilst the slides were disconnected and the aircraft towed away.

Was sat in one of the aircraft back in the queue waiting for departure when this took place.

[totempole]

Boeing's unequivocal instruction is to treat all fire and smoke warnings SERIOUSLY; no second guessing, trying to be arsey smarty! You can come to grief mighty quickly if you insist on being a smart alec

[kotakota]

Excuse me Mr Unhooked , since when do ATC and 'other aircraft ' advise the Captain of an aircraft that they have a hold fire ?
Obviously you know nothing about hold fires / extinguishing etc , so . ergo , you are NOT an aviation type person ?
Read it all up on the interweb and get back to me when you are more of an expert than when you wrote this ***** .

[Payscale]

Well done to the crew. Good safe decision :) When in doubt there is no doubt..

[NigelOnDraft]

Our company policy is you evacuate for a confirmed unextinquished fire. It does not follow you require those to evacuate... as above, "if in doubt..." may apply.

NoD

[eastern wiseguy]

I trust the hold fire was confirmed by ATC


Nothing to do with us(ATC).The crew make the decision...we send the fire trucks and deal with traffic issues.


Maybe Jar-Ops(MSN Flightsim) states differently:E

[D.Lamination]

Payscale:
Be careful with evacuations: Evacs from widebody aircraft that have the main deck 5M off the ground or more can be very dangerous. You don't throw people down the slides lightly - there is a good chance that at least one of the pax will have a heart attack or go down the slide head first - they all listen to the safety briefing.........not.

Giving the order to evacuate in a widebody has (i'm guestimating here) a 70% chance of causing a death due to "misadventure".

QF in SIN did not evacuate - the pax were kept on board for an hour. No doubt the above figured in the Capts. decision. I grant you he had no cargo fire warning but, in my opinion, if on the ground you would look for postive secondary indications before popping the slides I would have thought.

my 2c worth:rolleyes:

[clipstone1]

Mr Unhooked....how would ATC see if there was a fire in the hold of an airliner? geez by the time they could see half the aircraft would have been destroyed...

[moonburn]

Looking for positive secondary indications would usually mean opening the hold, not a good idea with pax still on board, if I remember correctly, giving a fire access to vast amounts of fresh air is a bad thing.

[seckin]

actually there was no fire or smoke or any traces of it afterwards..

fire and rescue is at their position etc..

stairs could be used while other slides remain armed CC ready for full evac.

lucky one, only 30 minor injuries out of 284 on board.

[Scapa]

Excuse me Mr Unhooked , since when do ATC and 'other aircraft ' advise the Captain of an aircraft that they have a hold fire ?
Obviously you know nothing about hold fires / extinguishing etc , so . ergo , you are NOT an aviation type person ?
Read it all up on the interweb and get back to me when you are more of an expert than when you wrote this ***** .

A little harsh don't you think?

As flight crew we are paid to use all available resources to make decisions in a safety based environment, to me this means asking ATC if they see anything abnormal (good viz and pointing in the right direction dependent), speak to cabin crew, get fire services to come and use heat seeking equipment if available, use trained eyes in other aircraft, all if time allows of course.

Not knowing the circumstances of this one its difficult to say but i wouldn't evacuate immediately on the strength of a EICAS\ECAM alone, as mentioned earlier it can injure/kill people and after all if you asses you have a fire its 90s to get everyone off using half the doors.

[BusDriver947]

Interesting comments one and all.

I'm sure the decision to evacuate couldn't have been an easy one to make.

There were no fire and rescue services in attendance when the doors opened and slides blew. (News reports are different). They arrived shortly after as you'd expect.

In fact I was amazed to see how many passengers made their way across the taxiway straight towards an A340 (next in line for take off) who still had it's engines running! Other's did their own thing. Not their fault, just very confusing and easy to follow the person ahead.

In time passengers were rounded up and kept together until 3 airport buses came to collect.

I've never seen or hope to see again a real evacuation, but I assure it was very scary to watch.

[411A]

I trust the hold fire was confirmed by ATC or other aircraft etc before they decided to throw all the pax out
Ahhh, the young MS sim crowd comments...again.
PPRuNe really does need a 'professional verified' section for truly valid comments.:rolleyes:

[NigelOnDraft]

Just to add re <<get fire services to come and use heat seeking equipment if available>> - our company had a Fire Service insist on opening the hold to "check" - as noted above, about the worst thing you could do if there had been a fire - I believe they went for the evac as soon as they saw the door open despite clearly instructing the fire services not to.

NB as well, your evacuation options can get limited once the Fire Services arrive, unless you can trust/liaise with them enough to leave one side clear for instance.

NoD

[Scapa]

Agreed the options do become more limited but certainly at LHR the fire services have the ability to do a heat scan on the aircraft looking for hotspots remotely without opening holds etc.

[stepwilk]

"Ahhh, the young MS sim crowd comments...again.
PPRuNe really does need a 'professional verified' section for truly valid comments."

Well, he does know "pax" is short for passengers...

[NigelOnDraft]

but certainly at LHR the fire services have the ability to do a heat scan on the aircraft looking for hotspots remotely without opening holdsYou can be sure I was not referring to LHR :ok:

However, it was a major European capital :{

NoD

[tightcircuit]

You have to bear in mind that an etops a/c should be capable of containing a cargo hold fire for 180 minutes. That's only the theory and certification of course but nevertheless it should give you the confidence to spend a few more seconds evaluating. It is a difficult command decision but I would hold out a short while for a second indication (whatever that may be) before a rushed evacuation decision. As has been pointed out an evac can have serious if not fatal consequenses for some. Shame to kill someone for a faulty indication.

Yes I know what you will say. Shame to kill a whole load for lack of a timely evac. Like I said it's a tough command decision.

Thats a command decision however, not a "spotters" decision.

TC

[763 jock]

Why do people always try to second guess? Just read the QRH intro, it could not be clearer.

"It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done."

From 767 Cargo Fire QRH:

"WARNING: Inform ground personnel NOT to open any cargo door after landing until all passengers and crew have exited the airplane and fire fighting equipment is nearby."

Simples!

[ManaAdaSystem]

Ahh, the lessons from UPS in DXB so quickly forgotten!

If you have a cargo fire warning and do an evacuation, nobody can touch you. If you don't, and people get killed, I'd say you better burn up together with your pax.

763 jock is absolutely correct! Follow the book, that is if you do know what it says. I'm not sure a lot of you on this tread do.

[mannej]

Was Saudia 163 an example of why not to delay an evacuation in this sort of situation?

[Capot]

Yes.

For the benefit of the Flight Sim experts....

http://www.pprune.org/[IMG]http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff141/picshooter/Saudia163.jpg
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff141/picshooter/Saudia163.jpg


The charred bodies were stacked up by each exit. There was more to it than just a simple failure to order an evacuation in good time, but the image serves as a good warning.

[stealthpilot]

A lot of very strong reactions against Unhooked for simply asking if the crew sought more information before evacuating. What's the big deal if he asked whether the crew talked to ATC or people on the ground.
A cargo fire/smoke warning on the ground is a big deal no doubt, as is evacuating a 77W on a runway.
I'm sure a hundred things went through the pilots mind- not an easy decision to make.
Keep in mind 1) there was a fire or smoke alarm.
2) ETOPS a/c was on the ground.
3) Other traffic around them.

Looking back it turned out to be a false warning and 30 people got injured during the evacuation.
Unfortunately the crew never have the luxury of hindsight. I am glad there were no serious injuries, after all as long as everyone is safe then job well done.

[aterpster]

Capot:

The charred bodies were stacked up by each exit. There was more to it than just a simple failure to order an evacuation in good time, but the image serves as a good warning.

If my recollections are correct on that one, based on the information you provide it will only mislead the "sim pilot" and other pilots as well.

The captain was unaware of the fire in the cabin and just kept taxiing. Also, with two engines running there was speculation that the aircraft may have been sufficently pressurized to prevent opening of the doors from the inside.

[Capot]

Aterpster,

That's what I meant by "there's more to it...".

The image was only to illustrate what can happen; I thought that the circumstances were, for that purpose, not especially relevant. But perhaps you werre right to point out those two essential facts.

[ravfooty]

Aterpster

The captain was unaware of the fire in the cabin and just kept taxiing. Also, with two engines running there was speculation that the aircraft may have been sufficently pressurized to prevent opening of the doors from the inside.
4th Dec 2010 17:44

Not quite correct - from the CVR transcript the Captain was made aware of the fire in the cabin, having instructed the crew to fight the fire with extinguishers. His final words shortly before landing were:

18:35:57 CAM-1 Tell them, tell them to not evacuate

Aviation Safety Network > Accident investigation > CVR / FDR > Transcripts > Saudia Flight 163 - 19 AUG 1980 (http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_sv163.php)

[p7lot]

I would place a cabin fire right up there in my top ten terrors alongside EDcomp etc.
You can sim for it till the cows come home but you will never know one's reaction in a real situation until it presents itself.
Making a command decision in these circumstances falls to the skipper and the consequences thereafter are his to bear.
IMO on this occasion the decision was prudent and correct.

[ManaAdaSystem]

I can live with injured passengers due to a cargo fire warning triggered evacuation, but I'm cant even imagine the guilt I would feel if my pax get killed because I didn't evacuate after a cargo fire warning.

To me the choice is easy.

[coffeezone]

Can't agree more than with the previous reply by Mana etc!!! Much rather live with the thought I caused a few broken legs than a heap of charred bodies. Follow the Boeing checklist and FCTM.

[Admiral346]

There is also another problem with a cargo fire indication - it is not really a fire indication, it is a smoke indication. Opposed to an engine fire, that actually meassures heat by changing resistance in the fire loops, there are smoke detectors at work in the cargo compartment.
After recieving the warning, sitting on a RWY about to take off, I would not heitate the slightest bit in firing the extinguishers. But, I have been taught, the high concentration of halon in the cargobay will continue to give you the "fire warning" by triggering the smoke detectors down there.
On the 340, if I remember correctly, one bottle would fire immediatly and release all of its content in a matter of seconds, whereas the second one would slowly keep feeding more halon into the hold over the next 60 minutes (I forgot the real time it would take, but something like that).

That leaves you no way to judge if that fire is really out or not for quite some time, so if no heat detecting equipment is present immediatly, there is no other way but to evacuate the ship at once.

Nic

[MagnusP]

DLamination: I understood part of the delay in evacuating the 380 was the fact that #1 was still running and precautions had to be put in place to avoid pax mincing themselves through a Trent.

[Bergie]

So lets see now, no smoke, no fire, 30 minor injuries and pax running wildly around the airfield: and how many posters said that Unhooked was a ms pilot for hoping that they confirmed there was a fire before evacuating.

Professionals??? - hilarious

[eastern wiseguy]

Unhooked. Thank you for your insulting PM.

I am of the opinion that the CREW are the SOLE ARBITERS as to whether or not THEY WILL evacuate their aircraft. I am there to separate traffic ,offer assistance and instigate the dispatch of the emergency services. If there is plainly something wrong(smoke emanating etc) of course I will put my spoke in. The fact remains that if the crew decide to go(as it appears in this instance) THAT IS THEIR DECISION.

I will hit the red button and let the RFFS get on with it.

This "smart arse" controller of 32 years (your profile says **** all about you) understands COMPLETELY the dynamics in incidents such as this.

THE guys in the front MAKE THE DECISIONS.If they prefer to involve me in their decision well and good. I don't neccessarily expect it.

[Wizofoz]

eastern wiseguy-

Yes, crew are the final arbiters and decision makers- armed with all available information and in line with rules, regulations and manuals.

Are you aware that there is a Boeing Bulliten specifically dealing with Cargo Fire indications, laying down guidelines to confirm a fire by a second source before initiating an evacuation?

An indication in the air as per the Saudia L1011 is, of course, a land ASAP situation, and they had plent of indication that it was a real fire by the time they landed.

[eastern wiseguy]

Wiz .................thank you ....edited.

[single chime]

Wiz, which Boeing bulletin are you referring to? The one I have in my FCOM is a Co bulletin (-38r1).

[ray cosmic]

Tightcircuit: You have to bear in mind that an etops a/c should be capable of containing a cargo hold fire for 180 minutes.
...at a cabin altitude of 25000 ft, yes. not Sea Level.

[Wizofoz]

ew,

Sorry, didn't mean to get in the middle of your spat with Unhooked. He was being unfairly criticized by others for even suggesting the crew may have been a bit quick on the draw- reading your posts I don't think you were one of them.

sc,

Yes it's a CO Bulletin, but they are issued with consultation from Boeing, often on Boeing's recommendation- I'd be surprised if most B777 operators don't have the same Bulletin (or at least similar) as anomalous fire warnings are a problem with the aircraft, and it most certainly NOT Boeing philosophy to make a major action based on one indication, with the exception of Engine and APU Fire warnings (Note the Boeing Bulletin, issued for ALL types on unnecessary engine shutdowns.).

I'm not condemning the crew,they made a decision. but talking about other's incidents is an opportunity to learn- 30 minor injuries from a situation where there was no actual danger is a result that bears analysis and education.

Should we just ignore this and resolve to do the same ourselves, or see if we can't think up a better solution?

[Bergie]

ManaAdaSystem

If you have a cargo fire warning and do an evacuation, nobody can touch you. If you don't, and people get killed, I'd say you better burn up together with your pax.

Wrong, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
You would never evacuate because of a cargo hold fire without receiving confirmation by using all available resources. With a cargo fire you will receive that confirmation from the cabin crew before you can say "Jack Sparrow"

Evacuating passengers from a large jet or even a small one for that matter has many inherent dangers and the decision should not be taken lightly.

So your 'rather be safe than sorry' comment is fundamentally flawed.

Had the Turkish pilots received better training in this regard they wouldn't be looking so stupid right now. I certainly wouldn't like to face my chief pilot for cold tea on a Monday had it been me. :(

[BusyB]

Pilots might be ex-BA ex-American or others in which case I'm sure they were well trained:hmm:

[ManaAdaSystem]

I don't know what you are flying Bergie, but in my 737 the cabin crew can't see what is going on in the cargo holds any more than I can.
I can tell you for sure that I don't have to explain anything to my chief pilot when I follow Boeing and my companys procedures.

Who says the THY pilots are looking stupid? Not me.

[Bergie]

Who says the THY pilots are looking stupid? Not me.

My point exactly....:cool:

So a fire in one of your 73 holds barely 6 feet from the passengers backsides is going to go unnoticed?? I think not. It has been a while since I have flown 738's but I can assure you that the air circulates between the holds and the cabin and it wouldn't take very long for the smoke to enter the cabin.
Are you sure you are a pilot?

And pray tell what airline you fly for that says you must evacuate based on a cargo fire cockpit warning only -You gotta be kidding me right :confused::confused:

[ManaAdaSystem]

I think you need to read up on cargo hold designs, my friend, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

[Lonewolf_50]

Had the Turkish pilots received better training in this regard they wouldn't be looking so stupid right now. I certainly wouldn't like to face my chief pilot for cold tea on a Monday had it been me.
Cold chai, more likely, but perhaps their company training and procedures is what they followed. Are there any THY, or formerly employed by THY, pilots here who can share some insights on that?
I don't know what you are flying Bergie, but in my 737 the cabin crew can't see what is going on in the cargo holds any more than I can. I can tell you for sure that I don't have to explain anything to my chief pilot when I follow Boeing and my companys procedures.
Don't know enough, so I'll ask some questions. As I understand it, there are smoke sensors in the cargo hold.

If there are, why would the CC not have a light/indicator at one of the CC stations?

Did Boeing consider such a provision and deem it an overly redundant design, or a too likely source of false positive indications?

I can see both sides of that on the design decision process ...

EDIT -- Based on a few inquires already, I am curious as to what the conventional wisdom is on what constitutes a secondary indication, other than the obvious presence of smoke in the passenger cabin ...

[Bergie]

I'm getting bored with this thread. I tell you what ManaAdwhatever, if you ever get a cargo fire warning in your 737, set the parkbrake, fire the bottles, call a mayday, blow the chutes and evacuate. Because you can never be too sure can you. End of discussion - you are right. :ok:

[Wizofoz]

when I follow Boeing and my companys procedures.



Mada,

I would be very interested if you could quote which Boeing procedures state you MUST evacuate for a cargo fire warning with no other indication.

[andrasz]

Where are the good old experienced barnstormers when you need them... (strange, how they only appear on Airbus incident related threads :E)

Good airmanship includes the ability to quickly tell the difference between a real warning and a false positive. Sensor faults are an everyday occurrence, if all pilots would follow worst case scenario procedures, half of the flights would never make it accross the Atlantic (ok, that was an exaggeration...;)). In this case IF there was no other indication of fire, then I concur the evacuation was a rather costly overreaction. However early on the thread there was a comment or two, yet unconfirmed, that the cabin crew did report smelling smoke in the back (whether real or perceived is a different story...), in which case the evacuation order would have been perfectly justified.

It all boils down to an often discussed theme: some crews are capable of evaluating a situation and making a decision based on sound assessment of risks, and some take a go by the book, CYA attitude. Same happens in every profession. Can you blame the latter ? By the rules, no. Is the first course of action more professional ... ?

[NSEU]

Yes it's a CO Bulletin, but they are issued with consultation from Boeing, often on Boeing's recommendation- I'd be surprised if most B777 operators don't have the same Bulletin (or at least similar) as anomalous fire warnings are a problem with the aircraft

False 777 cargo smoke alarms are not uncommon. This problem is not unknown. At least two incidents have happened here at my local port. I can't remember, however, if they were set off with high humidity or disinsection sprays. If it doesn't make the decision to evacuate more difficult for pilots, I'd be surprised.

Were there really no other indications of fire in the Saudia incident?

[ManaAdaSystem]

Top of page two, this tread, Wiz.

What other indications are you looking for from a Class C cargo hold? Smoke?

The holds are sealed and pressurized but have no fresh air circulation.

You have no way of knowing if the indication is correct or not. It is as simple as that. Remember EK over Chennai?

What will you do if you get a cargo fire indication in the air. Just ignore it? As NSEU says, false cargo fire warnings on the 777 will only make the decision harder.
That the system is prone to false warnings does in no way mean the warning can't be real.

[Wizofoz]

Mada,

Nope, neither of those statements mandates an immediate evacuation.

Indeed, they indicate that the cargo compartments will probably contain even a real fire for sufficient time to complete a precautionary disembarkation rather than a full on evacuation.

What will you do if you get a cargo fire indication in the air.Ignore it?

If you wish to discuss this, I'm happy to. If you are going to make stupid straw-man statements, kindly go about your business safe in the knowledge you are incapable of a reasoned discussion with a colleague.

Of course I wouldn't ignore it- I'd follow the checklist which is basically activate the suppression system and land ASAP. It DOESN'T say "And then evacuate".

We had one recently- Crew landed ASAP, fire service scanned with Thermal Image- no fire- Pax disembarked expeditiously but with no "Jump and sliding",
Job done, zero injuries.

What would YOU do if, having just sprayed the holds with insecticide, you received a Cargo Fire warning on push-back?

[Wizofoz]

Were there really no other indications of fire in the Saudia incident?

NSEU,

There were PLANTY of other indications in the Saudia incident, like flames coming through the floor!

In a real fire serious enough to warrent an evacuation, there almost certainly WILL be other indications.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Wiz, I guess we interpret this statement differently:

It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done.

To me, a fire warning that continues will be covered by this.

Let discuss this from a different angle. If you are in the sim for your PC and your instructor trigger a cargo fire warning during taxi out. You check with you cabin, no sign of fire or smoke, you check with ATC, but in Dhaka they don't have any thermal imaging equipment. They can't see you through the smoke/haze anyway. You have use a couple of minutes to do this + the time it took to complete the check list. The warning still continues.

What would you do?

To answer your question: If I knew (but in RL I have never known about this, and trust me, I've flown in some odd areas of the world) they had sprayed the cargo holds and I knew that my aircraft was prone to false warnings from this treatment, I would probably call for the fire brigade and have my crew stand by for an evacuation. It's a very tricky situation since the gate manager normally walks off the minute I push, so a return to deplane is not an immediate option, and the QRH tells me to get all passengers off the aircraft before opening the cargo holds. Pulling an aircraft that could be on fire back to stand is not a very smart thing to do either. Thermal imaging, yes, if it is available, if not I would violate the QRH and have the cargo holds opened and checked by the fire brigade.

This is my answer, based on your conditions.

A normal push back on a normal day, cargo fire warning that does not go out, I would set the brake and evacuate.

[Wizofoz]

Mada,

Yes we interpret it differently. The thrust of that statement is that it was confirmed (through smoke or other means) that you had a fire in the first place, and now do not have confirmation that it has been extinguished.

WRT your scenario, with no other indication of fire, I would have the crew standing at stations, arrange a precautionary disembarkation, and be ready to evacuate at the first confirmation of an actual fire.

We have our holds sprayed regularly in Australia and Africa, and subsequent false Cargo Fire warnings have been dealt with in the manuals of three types (all Boeing) in two airlines I've worked with.

I know you are being honest and reasonable with your answers, so I would encourage you to seek clarification from Boeing through your safety department- simple question for them- does Boeing recommend an evacuation in the event of a cargo fire warning with no other indication present or available?

I have my answer, it's in black and white (well, black and blue!!) in my FCOM.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Boeing will never say yes or no to this, they let us make the decision based on information from our manuals. Information that can be interpreted this way or that, as this tread clearly demonstrates.
This way, the lawyers can fight for years after an accident, and Boeing can hide behind them.

It's a command decision, but I still think if you fail to evacuate and really have a fire, you are basically F...ed.
I'll stay (and err) on the safe side, and I can live happily with little Bertie saying "Boo Hoo, told you so", after an evaq with no fire.

I would just like to add the fact that after 20 years of flying, I have never had a cargo fire warning.

Merry Xmas!

[hetfield]

BusyB
Pilots might be ex-BA ex-AmericanWell, my impression is even between the mentioned ones, there is a difference. The US guys are very fast to evacuate, maybe it has a legal background!?

As already mentioned, beside the smoke warning, with an actual fire you should have some more valid facts like smoke inside/outside the cabin, cargo hold temperature indication, etc.

[Wizofoz]

No prob,

Where I disagree is that evacuating is the "Safe" option.

Evacuating is the "Hurt People" option.

Use it as a last resort!

Happy Hanuka!!

[Captain-Crunch]

(Note: Non-777 Dino comments follow. If these upset you, kindly skip down to the next post.)

Nothing's worse than a compartment fire since you can never be sure just how bad it is. We used to get them all the time (cargo fire lights) loading 747 holds on the ground due to dust being stirred up, condensation in the tropics etc. A few times they would recur on the taxi out and we would act very deliberately and slowly, prepare for the possibility that it was real but not evacuate until it went on for some time. As I remember, the door seal height was over 30 feet up in the air for the upper deck and it was common for those using that wicked steep slide to be seriously injured. If the wind was blowing hard like it was with Pan Am in SFO, the slides flip sideways and up into the air, and some of the pax could wind up falling to the ground as in that accident. So evac was not something you rushed into. Ask the cabin crew first if they smell smoke. Ask flights next to you and ATC if they see anything unusual like smoke. (Although this is extremely unlikely to help unless flames are already shooting out somewhere, it eats up the clock (allowing the optical light device to clear), and lets the rest of the airport know you may need assistance.) Call a fire truck first to CYA. At least they can heard the wanderers if it's a false alarm and tape up the broken ankles which are sure to occur if you evac.

On most jets I've operated, on the ground and pressurized, the Lower holds are part of the "pressure vessel" and exchange some air with the main cabin until you or the aircraft deliberately arm them into a fire/smoke mode which shuts off air flow into or out of these compartments. Now in climb, some gradually squeeze off air flow, as the aircraft differential rises in the climb, but on the ground, doesn't the 777 feed air into the lower compartments and discharge it out the ships main outflow valves? Most jets I've flown do that.

Doesn't this mean that the cabin crew might indeed smell lower hold smoke if a fire is really present downstairs? Some jets, like the 74 and the A300 a crewmember can even access the forward lower hold through the hellhole and you will know for sure (except if it's mid/aft.). So I think, Stay cool; don't rush. :cool: Cargo fire really means particles obscuring the light beam in the detector.

Right?

Livestock charters were particular susceptible to these false alarms because of the breath and commotion of the animals. As I remember, a trick we used was to go to manual and cycle the outflow valves full open to change the airflow around, and if the cargo fire lights went out, and did not re-illuminate once the cabin pressure re-stabilized in auto, we would press on. :ok:

This was not part of a checklist. This was technique and systems knowledge.

In flight fires like Saudia are different altogether and mean get the thing on the ground and evac asap. After the Air Canada MD80 lav fire disaster and Halifax, it's clear you can't guess how bad an inflight fire is, or even rely on the cabin crew's opinion, you must assume it's roaring through the overhead or lower holds unknown to the cabin crew.

At least that's what I think. :8

CC

..

[hetfield]

Cargo fire really means particles obscuring the light beam in the detector.

Does 777 have optical detectors? The scarebuses I flew had ionization type detectors.

[guclu]

As far as I heard, they called aft cabin via the interphone system. Cabin told that they smell some smoke. The warning was still on.

These two inputs at that very moment made them give the decision to evac.

Regards,