Singapore Airlines Cargo Hold Fire

[Tight Accountant]

This one caught my attention on Aviation Herald regarding a cargo hold fire on Singapore Airliners A330. It appears that it was contained, so not a significant problem.

Accident: Singapore A333 near Bangkok on Apr 22nd 2013, cargo fire (http://avherald.com/h?article=4613943a&opt=0)

Forgive my ignorance but how frequent are these events?

[CDRW]

Bloody hell - that looks like a close one!!! This sort of thing could really get ones sphincter puckering right up!
Well done to the crew!

[Mike X]

I would like to see the cargo manifest.

[flynerd]

from AVHerald...
needed more than 2 hours to control the situation :hmm:

Why such a long time? Seems they could dowse the pallet(s) and drag them out quicker than that.

[barit1]

Ahem.

If DG were to be carried externally, they could be jettisoned when things threaten to turn ugly.

I'm thinking right now of the hardpoint on some aircraft for "fifth pod" (or fourth, or third) spare engine transport. There may be other options.

Civil authorities are certain to point to hazards to persons on the ground, but we should respond with the greater hazard of an airplane accident. The UPS 747 at Dubai could easily have killed hundreds.

[Freehills]

Singapore - Dhaka. More likely to be passenger baggage than cargo. Lots of informal traders.

[flynerd]

Barit1

If DG were to be carried externally, they could be jettisoned when things threaten to turn ugly.

Good idea :ok: , but what about the dwellers at ground level? If you can't drop blocks of frozen pee on them :) , then probably should not drop firebombs either.

[Los Endos]

According to comments made on Av Herald website passengers were deplaned down normal steps. With known cargo fire/smoke on board I would have been in more of a hurry to get off. I wonder if they opened the hold door before the passengers were off.

[iceman50]

Los Endos

If there were no external signs of fire once on the ground then steps if available quickly are a much safer option for the Pax and the procedure is to get the pax off before opening any cargo doors.

[LiveryMan]

ahem.

If DG were to be carried externally, they could be jettisoned when things threaten to turn ugly.

I'm thinking right now of the hardpoint on some aircraft for "fifth pod" (or fourth, or third) spare engine transport. There may be other options.

Wouldn't that create too much of a drag penalty to be even commercially viable?

Would it not be better to have a designated Dangerous Goods hold on aircraft that is pressurised, but at the flick of a switch can be rapidly decompressed and if that doesn't sort the situation, the door can be opened and cargo ejected.?

I know, money, effort, weight, etc makes this somewhat unappealing to airlines and manufacturers. This is just a counter proposal to quoted idea.


Good idea http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif , but what about the dwellers at ground level? If you can't drop blocks of frozen pee on them http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif , then probably should not drop firebombs either.
Presumably such a procedure, and indeed my above proposed one, would involve also checking for populated areas below first!

[William73]

I believe that fire brigades have a device able to display thermal gradients of the airframe which might help in evaluating the source/location of a fire.

Nevertheless "evacuate or not" decision, is one of those grey zones for which, if nothing happend, people will say it was a good decision, but if it blowed up, then we will question your judgement.

Like mentionned, not opening the cargo door before pax/crew have disembarked, it is a normal procedure, as it depend on the cargo you carry,e.g.Radioactive, and fire brigade must be present.

I believe that detectors are not 100% unbreakable and that they are not always 100% reliable depending the load carried (cargo plane).

If you have a fire and that you evacuate, then legally nothing should happen. Despite having maybe your company questionning your decision.

If you land due to fire and that you dont evacuate based on your assumptions, you might be legally accountable in case of issues.

As written in the Boeing QRH " In all situations,the captain must assess the situations and use good judgement to determine the safest course of action".

I believe that if you base your decision on the elements you know for sure without forgetting that,e.g. if "smoke or fire cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished,the earliest possible descent,landing and evacuation must be done", you might be not too wrong.

For the flight involved, i am sure that they have taken a decision based on the elements they had at hand. Good or not, i m not here to judge. I was not there.

Last, installation of thermal cameras might be of great help in assessing the best course of action when smoke,fumes or fire might be involved.

[Mk 1]

A flaming cargo pod or ejected cargo whilst potentially fatal is probably less fatal than an entire airliner falling out of the sky. At least the crew can make a decision about when to jettison, crew won't have any control over when the flames burn through control/fuel/hydraulic lines.

[flyingchanges]

I am shocked they opened the cargo door vs piercing and injecting agent.

[ITman]

I suspect we shall never know more than already has been published from the SG CAA.

[Sober Lark]

In other parts of the world the immediate reaction would have been that such an incident could only have been a terrorist plot and they would have acted accordingly!

That aside fortunate these SQ guys were close to an alternate and not in a similar position mid ocean.

[cockney steve]

Perhaps they were distributing the "new,improved, safe,stable" redesigned 787 batteries. :}

Sorry, just couldn't resist!

[Frequent Traveller]

So as not to leave this issue into oblivion, would it not be commendable to let an International Pilot Union (acting from highest levels) direct an Enquiry officially to Thai authorities, to put them under pressure to reveal the Manifest of that burning container, to avoid this rather interesting info being sanded down under some politically obfuscating (= 'correct') veil ?

Thereafter we could share this scoop here @ PPRuNe for all purposes ?

[Eastwest Loco]

Having had several nasty incidents over the years, including one that that still gives me flaking skin and another that could have filled the entire locker of an F28 with rock hard resin, I thing the best way to ship DG is just that.

PUT THEM ON A BLOODY SHIP.

Even with DG training, you can NEVER trust the "she'll be right" bastards consigning the nasties who do not want to go down the road of costly compliance.

The worst thing about the acid spill that caused the damaged skin was that Management at TN blocked me from filling out a report in order to not upset a Corporate. That company shut down 18 months later. Good one!! VH-TFC suffered a good deal of corrosion in the incident as well..

[G&T ice n slice]

Even with DG training, you can NEVER trust the "she'll be right" bastards consigning the nasties who do not want to go down the road of costly compliance.

Hmmm - ground cargo type person since 1969.

The best way to be safe is to accept DG. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but if you accept DG what you do is to catch 99.9999% of the DG officially, and handle it correctly.

As soon as you institute a "no DG" policy THEN the bastards REALLY mess you up.

And well-trained cargo humpers get a 2nd sense about stuff... sometimes you just "know" that something is not kosher.

Amazingly, the warehouseman is your friend. If you ever have the time get your fiendly local cargo manager to give you a tour of your cargo handling facility & talk to us slightly grubby people. You have to be able to stomach some pretty vile tea or coffee though

[Typhoon650]

Looks like the container did an excellent job of containing the fire to me.

[stallspeed]

Have to agree with G&T - compliance may look costly to the beancounters, but non-compliance is more costly. Penny-wise and pound-foolish. Fixing and checking an airframe after an accident like that plus the lost revenue due to downtime is more expensive. DG that gets handled 'by the book' is ok, cuz I know EXACTLY what it contains. Also the pro's know better than to mess around with regs ( authorities in this 'ere location come down on you like a ton of bricks if you do ) - it's the rickety outfits and privates that give me the willies. I reckon that everybody involved in baggage/cargo handling has tales to tell about stuff that males your hair stand on end...

[Ex Cargo Clown]

DG done properly and checked properly is probably safer than PAX luggage.Where I worked everyone knew the "rogue" agents who'd try and slip one through under "Consol", just to save a few quid. Always got them. Then oddly enough thir next few imports would be snaggeed by customs, shame :)

[ExSp33db1rd]

When I flew for SIA the Captain was presented with a cargo advice sheet at check-in, be it a Freighter or Pax.a/c ( for those goods that were allowed on pax a/c ) so we knew what we were carrying and therefore the best way to handle it and / or adv. fire crews if there was a problem anywhere.

I doubt that has changed, at least in intent if not application.

'course, the loading staff had to rely on what the agents sending packed containers told them, I guess.

[2dPilot]

Quote:
needed more than 2 hours to control the situation
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Why such a long time? Seems they could dowse the pallet(s) and drag them out quicker than that. Maybe because the fire-fighters were not fully aware of what they were dealing with? Getting into a cargo hold with something 'smoking' doesn't seem a good plan for long life expectancy.

All passengers and crew had disembarked, so there was no continuing risk to life, except if anyone (incl. Fire-persons) subsequently entered (or get too close to) the aircraft. So they would deal with it at arms-length rather than getting up-close-and-personal with hot things and cramped spaces.

[parabellum]

Agree with 2dpilot, also, the fire suppression system was probably allowed to run it's full course, really depends on the indications, if the warning had gone out there is no rush and the cooler the better.

[nitpicker330]

ExSpeedBird:--- yes all carriers present NOTOC's to the Captain advising the location of all dangerous goods and the drill codes etc.

Required for Pax and Cargo Aircraft, nothing new at all.

From what I've read in here both the Cockpit crew AND the Fire crew did exactly as they are trained to do. Well done to all on a safe outcome. :ok:

[Cubbie]

9V-STO has never been a good registration for SQ -the A310 it used to be on years ago also had a problem..wonder if they will retire it now...:ouch:

[Ex Cargo Clown]

and the drill codes etc. nonsense, NOTOC has Name, UN number, class, ie RFL and Packing group, that's it

[stallspeed]

...and the drill codes are on the NOTOC as well - by far the most important piece of information for the flight crew - the other stuff is more important for the response teams at destination or alternate in case of emergency. Startin 2014, NOTOC needs also to be in the hand of dispatchers and/or flight controllers...

As per IATA DG-Regs do not mention drill codes as mandatory - but not including them in the NOTOC would kinda defeat the purpose of it...

[nitpicker330]

Nope WRONG.

Our company NOTOC's have the drill code letters ( eg 9L ) on them as per ICAO and the IATA recommended document standard.

Notification to Captain (NOTOC)

General Information The ANO stipulates that information provided to the Commander/PIC in respect of Dangerous Goods is in accordance with the ICAO Technical Instructions. The ICAO Technical Instructions require that “the operator of an aircraft on which Dangerous Goods are carried shall provide the Commander/PIC, as early as practical before departure of the aircraft, with accurate and legible written or printed information concerning any Dangerous Goods that are carried as cargo.” The Notification to Captain (NOTOC) used by *** is an IATA recommended document. The Notification to Captain (NOTOC), fulfils the requirements of the Air Navigation Order and ICAO Technical Instructions to notify the Commander/PIC of the carriage of Dangerous Goods or other Special Loads. The Shipping Name, Drill Code, Risk, Quantity and Location are specified on the NOTOC

[atpcliff]

What's scariest to me (other than lithium batteries) is the UNDECLARED hazmat that no one knows about, and is not marked in any way...

[Rabina]

Your airplanes have Dangerous Goods items as standard fit. Oxygen generators, fire extinguishers, fire extinguisher cartridges, corrosive batteries and radioactive magnetrons in radar avionics to name but a few. You could try putting them on ships too, but you'd be out of a job.

[LiveryMan]

Rabina, that is no comparison at all. The difference being that those items you list have been designed and tested for use in aircraft and are as safe as can be made.

Dangerous goods in cargo does not go through the same process.
Now, it should be vetted and deemed safe for flight or not, but that isn't always the case.

[givemewings]

Undeclared hazmat... like the guy who allegedly, a few years back, tried to take on a bag full of explosives onto a minign charter flight. Apparently he didn't think to declare them as DGs because he handled them every day...

Or the over-zealous mums who used to send care boxes to their kids working away and packing in a tub of Napisan and some booze and why not a couple of spare lighters...

Like you say, the only way is to open and inspect everything. If not, then you have to trust what is written on the dec. Hence, the place I worked at we opened all personal boxes for inspection and wrote up the papers ourselves.

Rabina, aircraft kit has gone through risk assessment process and is fitted in such a way as to minimise any hazards. Can't say the same for the camping stove some idiot tries to pack in his luggage or the hairdresser with a case full of hair dye and bleach....

[India Four Two]

radioactive magnetrons

Really? You are sure, Rabina?

[Enos]

Flying Changes..

I am shocked they opened the cargo door vs piercing and injecting agent.

Planes do cost money and alot of aircraft have false cargo fire warnings, the commercial pressure of open cargo door once all pax are off vs bring out the injecting agent, and pierce the dam plane would be huge.

Typhoon650..

Looks like the container did an excellent job of containing the fire to me.

No it didn't it, its just like a beer can, will burn in a fire.

I imagine the 330 has ETOPS approval, one of the certification requirements of ETOPS is fire suppression ie 180min, got to keep the fire from reigniting for 180min or so.

Alot of SOPs have you disembark the pax before opening the cargo door, the halon is still doing its thing while the people get off.

Dangerous goods on the outside of the aircraft is a good idea, flight was going to Bangladesh, have seen people sitting on top of trains in that part of the world, fire on the roof.... QRH = push forward, NEGATIVE G fires off.

[Machinbird]

Dangerous goods on the outside of the aircraft is a good idea, flight was going to Bangladesh, have seen people sitting on top of trains in that part of the world, fire on the roof.... QRH = push forward, NEGATIVE G fires off. Enos
I don't know that that method of jettison would work too well.
Most aircraft to external store collisions that I have seen involved less than 1 g flight during separation and that seems to be just what you are proposing.