CX diversion due Fire Warning.

[badairsucker]

Surprised no mention on here or CX website regarding the diversion yesterday to Winnipeg due fire warning.

[iflylow]

Looks like they learned their lessons after the previous fire warning a year or so ago...

[arse]

Hong Kong flight makes emergency landing in Winnipeg | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/548857/hong-kong-flight-makes-emergency-landing-in-winnipeg/)

[V1V2rotate]

Turns out CX sent a rescue 777 to pick up the passengers and continue on to ORD. The incident aircraft is still on the ground in YWG as far as I know.

Cathay Pacific (CX) #3332 Flight Tracker ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA3332)

[Sqwak7700]

Looks like they learned their lessons after the previous fire warning a year or so ago...


Good to see, I fear there are many here that still rationalize themselves out of making the right decision.

Glad to see everyone is safely on the ground. :ok:

[Oval3Holer]

Generally, if it's a real fire and you're not on the ground in 18 minutes, you're dead.

It seems too common that either it's not a real fire (so landing at the nearest suitable airport wouldn't have changed anything) or that it IS a real fire and the plane crashes (UPS; Asiana.) Not very often (only Air Canada 797 comes to mind and although it was on the ground 20 minutes after smoke was verified, 50% of the people on the plane died before they could evacuate) does a plane that is REALLY on fire get on the ground before it crashes.

Wonder why they would not land in Fargo (9,000 foot runway; 90 nm from turn-around point) or Grand Forks Air Force Base (12,351 foot runway; 104 nm from turn-around point) rather than flying 180nm to Winnipeg.

The only item of consideration which would pertain to this situation is crew familiarity with the airport. How important is that when you're on fire?

I wasn't there. I'm only looking for healthy debate. However, this being PPRuNe, I'm predicting that the first response to this post will be far from healthy.

[KABOY]

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

Read this and tell me it was 18 minutes.

120nm in 18 mins requires an average GS of 400kts, don't think so in an A330!

[Liam Gallagher]

Yep, you are absolutely correct on two counts.... You weren't there and secondly the first (second.. beaten by a minute) response wont be a healthy debate.

This is Pprune, the first letter standing for "professional". Why on earth would a professional (in every sense of the word) pilot get involved in such a "debate" when the people that pay their wages (the travelling public) and the Press can eavesdrop, misconstrue and misquote?

If you want a healthly debate, the next time you fly, turn to the guy next to you and ask him what he thinks. If you want to debate the issue with people pushing an agenda or whose flying experience doesn't extend beyond MS Flight Sim or watching the movie "Airplane", go right ahead, but that won't be a healthy debate either.

Edited to add. Go to the link from KABoy and join the "healthy" debate over there:E:E

[cxorcist]

I think Oval has a good point. Why not debate here? I think we can separate the wheat from the chaff. No?

I would have gone to the nearest suitable, in this case Fargo apparently, unless there was a good reason to go elsewhere (wx, runway closures, etc). All the more reason to follow along the route's suitable alternates' weather and notams. Very few people I fly with do this. Why?

[Liam Gallagher]

Why not debate it here? You have answered your own question, whilst you can make up your own mind what is wheat and what is chaff, do you think other users on this site, with very different agendas than you, can make such a distinction?

Read the comments from the "experts" on the link provided by KAboy and then read the big red writing at the bottom of this page. Do really think it is wise to discuss such a complex and sensitive subject on a public forum.

If you really want to debate this, I can think of two other private forums available to you. Why not go there and have your debate?

(PS... The final question is not rhetorical)

[Pontius]

All the more reason to follow along the route's suitable alternates' weather and notams. Very few people I fly with do this. Why?

Personally, if I've got a fire on the aircraft that cannot be contained then I don't care what the weather, NOTAMS or anything else say; I'm landing. I'd be delighted if it was on an airfield and even better on a runway but I really won't be worrying about runway closures or weather below minimums if there are flames licking around the aircraft.

Edited to add: Not a CX pilot but always interested in sensible aviation debate that might give me more tips to stick behind my ear.

[nitpicker330]

So who said it was a Fire warning that didn't go out????

Therefore the Captain is well within his rights to fly to the nearest "suitable" airport.

[main_dog]

the nearest "suitable" airport

Therein lies the problem, what constitutes "suitable"? If it's a real fire, then frankly any piece of concrete will do, weather be damned, even if it's not on your company charts or on your FMS's database. Provided you get the airframe down in 15 minutes or less you should make it out alive, even if you end up on an abandoned military airfield in the middle of Myanmar no big worry (in fact even that may be a luxury compared to your options when flying oceanic).

But what if it was a false warning, and now the airplane has to be dismantled to fly it out again? What will the CP/Company say, that you were too hasty, and should have gone to the regular enroute alternate 150 nm/25 minutes away in friendly Thailand instead of getting the airplane down in 14 minutes at the abandoned military airfield which happened to be 90nm away?

These false warnings happen far too often in my humble opinion. Indeed they seem to outnumber real warnings...

[monster330]

The Monday morning heroes, RH, HC, GL, AW, CK eat al will spend, oohhhh, a good 2-3 days in discussion, with each other, deciding that the better option was indeed the one the captain "should" have made.

With the benefit of hindsight, a hot coffees, 4-5 like minded management twats, of course the captain reacted hastily/not hastily enough.

What can you do. My TCW, get it on the ground, and walk away.

Don't forget, hull losses are anticipayed and catered for.

Same team, same dream

[Pontius]

So who said it was a Fire warning that didn't go out????

Therefore the Captain is well within his rights to fly to the nearest "suitable" airport.

To whom are you addressing your question, Nitpicker? Hopefully not me because quite obviously (seeing as I quoted it) I was commenting on Cxorcist's remark and in no way, shape or form was I talking about the Winnipeg diversion decision.

I don't second-guess the decisions of crews 'on the day' because I don't know what information they have to make their judgements. I cross my fingers and hope I don't have to cross that bridge. I am, however, interested to hear of these things so that I may engage my own grey matter and think what I might do in imagined circumstances. Likewise, if and when I do have to make my decisions, if a bunch of Internet experts don't like it then they can shove it where the sun shines not :)

[nitpicker330]

Boy some people can't read........or understand a rhetorical question!!

Read my post again please :ok:

[Dan Winterland]

As we're all professionals on this forum, I'm sure that we are all aware of the change in the ICAO ERG codes in the 2013 edition. There is a new code - Z - which is specifcally for Lithium batteries.

It says: "Aircraft cargo fire supression system may not extinguish or contain the fire. Consider landing immediately."

That's immediately. Not LAND ASAP in amber or red. Right now - in a field, in the sea, on a motorway. Just get it on the ground - now!

If I have Li batteries on the NOTOC, or even if I'm suspicious that there are unotified batteries in the hold, then I'm going to bear in mind what the experts advise.



Well done guys!

[catpac]

Everyone is safe, well done lads!

[crwkunt roll]

All the more reason to follow along the route's suitable alternates' weather and notams. Very few people I fly with do this. Why?
So you'd like to divert to an enroute airport simply chosen for the extent of it's range ring?? Planning dept don't do anything other than use the option which carries less fuel. Once you're pushing back, the planning stage is over and then ANY suitable enroute airport can be used.

[Steve the Pirate]

So you'd like to divert to an enroute airport simply chosen for the extent of it's range ring??

Er, I'm not sure that's what cxorcist meant at all. He just keeps an eye an suitable en-route ports just in case - good airmanship if you ask me.

STP

[raven11]

STP, absolutely spot on!

It drives me nuts to fly with guys who look out the window and are content to be totally oblivious and completely unprepared for a worse case scenario. I'm not saying that one should be anal and build approaches into the FMC for every airport they pass, but instead, every hour or so, take a few minutes to make sure that you've got a couple of good options sussed out.....weather, notams, MRA, etc. What's the reason not to? Exceptional pilot ability???

Waiting until the fire warning goes off to begin considering options is being caught with your pants down....

[Pucka]

sadly, all the young turks need prescriptive approaches to flying since they have zero experience and little in the way of airmanship. You can't can airmanship and open when required. Simply being aware..on a constant basis, without verbalising all the rubbish about,"suitable, notams, wx etc"..that is the mark of experience and the osmosis of airmanship that is causal to it. This constant system failure synopsis must be hammered in at the initial training phase and not as a bolt on to long haul ops..IMHO

[nitpicker330]

Comes with experience, all you RQ fellas should have a grasp by now.

[PatObrien]

Raven, maybe they just don't want to socialize with you. You should fly all your flights with CXorcist, I hear he's the only one who really monitors Enroute diverts during the flight (the RIGHT way). That way you both could get some rest back in the bunk instead of staring at the overhead in abject fear with one hand on the doorknob and the other on the handset.

Come on guys, put those short sleeves back on and fly on down here with the rest of us.

[raven11]

Obrien....

"staring at the overhead in abject fear"

Only someone who has never done anything beyond following a magenta line could have the chutzpah to make as stupid a comment as that.

Gee, do you think that if I fly for another 40 years I might get over my fear and be as brave and exceptional a "pilot" as you are? Did they teach you to be fearless at Adelaide?

I couldn't care less if someone like you socializes with me or not. Besides, what could you and I possibly talk about? Flying? I tried that with my earlier post....and look at your adolescent response.

[PatObrien]

Sarcasm: a sharp or cutting remark or taunt.

Look, I understand there may be a bit more load to carry flying with someone less capable. But after 40 years, with all that experience, be eager to pass it on to those youngsters - don't take it as an affront to your operation. Staring out the window, they probably are oblivious - so fill the void, tactfully, and they'll probably thank you for it. How much did you learn from the regular line pilots during your career? The ones that respected YOU no matter what your level of experience.

How much from the sky gods, the ones always proclaiming their way is best, with little respect for the newer types. Not much, huh.