mh148 engine fire out of YMML

[ejet3]

Malaysia Airlines MH148: Emergency landing at Melbourne Airport (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysia-airlines-plane-fire-forces-emergency-landing/story-fnizu68q-1227394802792)

[too_much]

Engine no.2 from my source apparently panick from the pax understandably given MH history.

[uncle8]

The orbits near Point Cook are neatly offset from each other. Would this be on purpose, perhaps to avoid fumes, and is it achieved automatically or a function of the wind?

[framer]

We provide air traffic control and aviation rescue firefighting services for Melbourne Airport, so basically the plane reported an engine problem, dumped their fuel and returned to land,” an Airservices Australia spokeswoman said.
That is a nice short sharp quote from Airservices. Keep that lady on.

[ACMS]

Our A330-300's don't have fuel dump, do MH's have it?

Most likely finishing off the ECAM actions, landing distance assessment and running the overweight landing checklist while holding.

If the Fire ( it was a Fire? ) was out there is no rush....

Good job fellas.:ok:

[Nemrytter]

Are there any reputable sources saying that this was a fire? The whole fire thing seems to have come from one tweet by Flightradar24, which is hardly a reliable source.

[ejet3]

Are there any reputable sources saying that this was a fire? The whole fire thing seems to have come from one tweet by Flightradar24, which is hardly a reliable source.

Yes i just listened on liveatc and you can clearly here them say they had a #2 engine fire

[Capt Claret]

WIN News Tasmania's report indicated no sign of a fire found in post landing inspection, the investigation continues.

[Hotel Tango]

More like a fire indication but lost in translation me thinks.

[atakacs]

IT was indeed a bogus fire warning. Managed professionally by all involved as far as I can tell.

[skyhighfallguy]

I can imagine that a duct leak in the nacelle could have triggered the fire alarm, and that upon reducing power the warning went out. While I have not flown this engine, it seems to work that way in other jet engines.

Wonder if they shot the bottle?

Wonder if any passenger saw any sign of fire?

[barit1]

skyhighfallguy:I can imagine that a duct leak in the nacelle could have triggered the fire alarm, and that upon reducing power the warning went out. While I have not flown this engine, it seems to work that way in other jet engines.

Compressor bleed air - regardless of the engine nameplate - will be hot enough to set off a fire warning. Hardly a desirable warning system, but so far, none better has been devised. :sad:

[skyhighfallguy]

the system used is sometimes called "THE LINDBERGH LOOP" and is substantially a thermocouple. Heat impacts bi metal creating a voltage and triggers an alarm.

so there you go.

with cameras being so small now, I would think a camera in the nacelle, at least the area protected by the fire bottles, would be a nice thing. also, for engine surges/compressor stalls, cameras aimed at engine from fuselage or outboard wing.

[AreOut]

I think cameras would definitely save that AF Concorde...and several other planes.

[Flightmech]

As barit1 said, a bleed leak can quite easy cause an OVHT or FIRE indication especially if it is HP air localised over a small area of both loops (a hot spot)

[glad rag]

and is substantially a thermocouple. Heat impacts bi metal creating a voltage and triggers an alarm.

so there you go.

suggest you head down the patent office first thing Monday morning...

[megan]

"THE LINDBERGH LOOP" and is substantially a thermocoupleBetter go back to school skyhighfallguy. :) The Lindbergh system is not a thermocouple, it's a pneumatic system.

[ACMS]

"Wonder if they fired the bottle"

Ahhhhh yes, most definalty in compliance with the ECAM they would have fired it....

Why wouldn't they?

Just because at the time you don't see any Fire doesn't mean there isn't one. ( apart from the obvious Fire inside the combustion chambers!! )

[skyhighfallguy]

yeah, you are right it is a pressure system.

anyone know which system the airbus has ?

[westhawk]

The airframers website indicates that Meggit supply the A330 engine fire detector loops.

That's another pneumatic type loop system. Similar systems have the brand names Systron-Donner, Lindbergh and Edison. (As a technical instructor, I currently teach this subject in my classroom.)

There are reports in several online news services that the fire indication was false, however I'd be hesitant to believe that until the engine, nacelle and fire detection system has been inspected and tested. A fire indication resulting from a bleed air leak is not a false warning since loop systems are overheat detectors. As previously mentioned, hot compressor bleed air leaks can cause allot of damage and/or start fires.

These loop systems are specifically designed to activate the fire/overheat alarm when they are subjected to either a localized or widespread overheat condition. In the case of a widespread or general overheat, the helium gas in the loop increases pressure as it's heated and activates a pressure switch in the responder unit, which activates the alarm. If the loop is subjected to higher temperatures, even in a localized area, hydrogen gas is released from the metallic core material, causing the pressure to rise and activate the pressure switch in the responder. If the loop then cools down, the pressure in the loop reduces, the switch opens and the alarm stops.

Most false alarms in pneumatic loop systems (and thermistor loop systems like the Kidde system for that matter) are caused by inadvertently misrouting the loop too close to heat sources like hot bleed air pipes. They are designed to be specific distances to the pipes and sometimes accidentally end up too close due to being bumped into during maintenance activities. There's really little else that can cause false alarms in pneumatic systems. (I have some experience investigating false alarms in my previous work as an A&P mechanic at a major business jet MRO)

For the bizjet types I've flown that are equipped with pneumatic fire loops, the engine fire in flight checklist calls for:

Affected engine - Idle thrust
If fire indication persists, shut down affected engine and activate fire handle/switch
If fire indication ceases, consider shutting down affected engine
If after shutting down engine and activating fire handle/switch, fire indication still persists, discharge button - PUSH
If fire indication persists after 10 seconds, fire second bottle
After fire indication ceases, Fire detection system TEST

The logic of this procedure is that at the end of the checklist, all that can be done has been done. If the system fails the test, then you don't know whether the fire still exists. You have to proceed with the assumption that you're still on fire! If after idling the engine the warning ceases, you may elect to leave the engine running at idle if deemed prudent. (after a satisfactory test the fire detection system of course)

So in this instance we do not yet know whether there was a fire, an overheat condition caused by a bleed air leak or a false alarm. The mechanics will isolate the cause through inspection and testing. If necessary, the engine can be run up and the bleed air system inspected for leaks.

Sorry it took so many words...

[lomapaseo]

"Wonder if they fired the bottle"

Ahhhhh yes, most definalty in compliance with the ECAM they would have fired it....

Why wouldn't they?

??

Because it's kind of permanent and choosing an easier way like retarding the throttle in the case of a leaking hot air duct might be the better solution. You can always fire a bottle later in the sequence as needed.

[gtseraf]

If the checklist required the bottle to be fired, the the bottle NEEDED to be fired. Messrs Boeing, Airbus et al spend a lot of time and money with some very clever scientists and test pilots certifying their aircraft and checklists.

It would be rather silly to try to second guess all their work, and do your own thing.

Could also be catastrophic if there was a REAL fire.

That's probably why!

[LeadSled]

westhawk,
Thanks for that post, despite my years in the business, I have just leaned something.
Tootle pip!!

[glad rag]

Meggitt PLC - FIRE PROTECTION AND CONTROL (http://www.meggitt.com/?OBH=108&ID=572&OP=Y)


No mention of Airbus on above pdf?


Seems Graviner must have the patents well sewn up forcing others to determine a different route...

[ACMS]

Lomapaso:----mate do you fly an A or B? We get an Engine Fire warning we follow the emergency ECAM/EICAS checklist and if it says FIRE the BOTTLE we FIRE the BOTTLE.

Air leakage detection loops detect any ambient temperature overheat in the vicinity of the hot air ducts in the fuselage, pylons and wings and are not the same as the Engine Fire loops. Different ECAM/EICAS checklist.


Oh, and as far as I'm aware you can push the Engine Fire switch back in and it resets, even if you've fired a bottle you could still run the Engine.....( assuming it wasn't stuffed and you wish to disregard the warning in the FCOM not to attempt to restart the Engine )

[VNAV PATH]

@ACMS:

On Boeing from 737 up to 787, overheat detection and fire detection are using same detector.

Only temperature triggers either OVERHEAT ENG or FIRE ENG alarm.

And never seen a procedure allowing to push back fire engine switch.. even if technically possible.

[megan]

LeadSled, a primer on fire systems should you be interested.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch17.pdf

[Managed Descent]

There is no argument about fire bottle firing. You do it and argue about it on the ground. If there is anybody here who disagrees with that then please explain how, if you survived, you would answer the barrister's question. Why, Captain Bloggs did you decide not to comply with the manufacturer's and your company's checklist during the incident?
From an old FE who put 2 bottles into number 2 for a false warning into Saigon.

[ACMS]

VNAV:- yes I remember the overheat detection on the B. A doesn't have that anyway.

Either way on a A or B if you get a Fire warning you do the checklist.

I'm pretty sure the Fire Switch action is reversible, now as to weather the fire bottle discharge around the inside of the cowling area ( not inside the core ) physically prevents the Engine lighting off? I doubt it would stop it.

I'm NOT saying any proceedure calls for it to be reset or that you would normally want to do it. I was only replying to the comment above that "it's kind of permanent"