Aer Lingus flight, EI120 Fire in luggage hold

[Obba]

Fire inside luggage hold, appears to from the luggage loader: "It was due to depart for Dublin, Ireland but passengers were forced to evacuate the plane when the fire broke out just before Hurricane Matthew hit last Thursday night.
Baggage handlers Kevin Charles and Alexix Salgado were both seriously injured in the incident – after both being engulfed in flames while they worked near the cabin hold."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834852/Fire-spreads-Aer-Lingus-passenger-jet-ground-equipment-bursts-flame-Orlando-airport-leaving-200-passengers-stranded.html#ixzz4MvvBQyVX

[readywhenreaching]

was EI-DEO A332.
Is there any way a high loader can catch fire by itself ?

[Sober Lark]

A very rapid combustion to have caught the baggage loaders so suddenly in that way. Wishing them all the best.

[sitigeltfel]

I believe a high pressure hydraulic hose on the loader ruptured, spraying oil mist that ignited. What caused the ignition must be a cause for concern!

[readywhenreaching]

Unprecedented I think. Scary.
Dont they have mandatory technical inspections for loading equipment by the FAA ?

All the best for the two injured. Here is a fundraising campaign for them https://www.gofundme.com/MCOAccident

[DaveReidUK]

Baggage handlers Kevin Charles and Alexix Salgado were both seriously injured in the incident – after both being engulfed in flames while they worked near the cabin hold."

Reportedly both have third-degree burns and one also sustained a broken leg when jumping to safety. The two loaders are employed by Swissport.

[mickjoebill]

Numerous industries have procedures in place to help protect those who work in Confined spaces.

Is the hold of a large commercial airliner considered a confined space?

[SMT Member]

Is the hold of a large commercial airliner considered a confined space?

Depends who you ask. If it's EU working regulations, then it's a yes. But they're not the authority. If you ask fire inspectors, the answer is also yes - but, then again, they're not the authority either. If you ask EASA they'll say 'not a clue, it's working or fire regulations'. And they are the authority.

In the end, I wouldn't be surprised to find an ICAO sanctioned exemption somewhere, as a result of airline lobbying.

[lomapaseo]

This an occupational safety issue and does not come under safety of flight ... yet.

Trust me, you really don't want FAA or ICAO involved in this or the barn door will be permanetly opened for agencies and states to fight who's in charge now

[sb_sfo]

readywhenreaching:
I know of no FAA inspection requirement for condition of equipment used by ground handlers. SFO has just started a random ground equipment inspection program that has forced the upgrade of some items (steam clean/leak check) used by the major ground handler here (same one as MCO). Otherwise, it's up to the local airline station manager to have some idea what equipment is being used on their aircraft, which is usually driven by the delay rate.
Since the EI "station manager" in SFO is an employee of the ticket counter handling agency (no idea if that is the case in MCO) you will get an idea of the level of scrutiny. That being said, the hydraulic system on a lower-deck loader is a nightmare, and you never know when something will let go. Generally you get a large puddle of fluid on the ramp and then the loader is dragged off the aircraft.

[jimmynes]

was EI-DEO A332.
Is there any way a high loader can catch fire by itself ?
EI-DUO A332

[surely not]

FWIW all the GHA I have had dealings with have had recorded scheduled maintenance for their ground equipment, and the service records are available for the audits by all the airlines they handle and the Airport authorities. The airlines might not have their own ground equipment qualified personnel, although some do, but their audit departments do visit the GHA's and they do check the records and also look at equipment working on their aeroplanes.

The airports will have their own vehicle maintenance departments looking after their airside ground equipment, and yes they have to audit GHA operating on their airport.

It isn't as mickey mouse as some on here seem to think.

[Fortissimo]

This an occupational safety issue and does not come under safety of flight ... yet.

Lompaseo, I think it is very much a safety of flight issue. If, as is being reported, there were passengers or crew already on board for the purposes of flight, under the ICAO definition it becomes an accident (more than 5% burns, broken bones etc), so it should turn out to be an NTSB investigation.

Agreed though, occupational safety issue as well.

Why is ground handling the only part of our industry that is not regulated?

[sb_sfo]

Fortissimo:
Short answer-$$

[readywhenreaching]

meanwhile after 9 days, EI-DUO arrived back at Dublin this morning

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ei-duo/#b5017a3

[JW411]

surely not:

"It isn't as mickey mouse as some on here seem to think"

Well, some major miracles must have taken place in the ten years since I retired for I have seen lots of bits of ground equipment which were in a shocking state. Circus Air were at least in the top ten. One night we went through 3 GPUs before we could get an engine started.

My favourite was probably the occasion when the knackered old tug just about to push back the aircraft on the neighbouring stand caught fire in splendid fashion. We had a grandstand view of the ground staff taking to their heels and the flight crew evacuating their steed at a fast lightning pace.

Luckily, I called ATC and the fire crew were there in quick time to douse the tug otherwise the whole lot would have gone up probably followed rapidly by my aircraft (which would have been empty by then).