Asiana Crash - Venting

[ottawa]

Hello;

At minute 4 of this Youtube video of the Asiana crash, something is venting from the leading edge of the left wing. Can someone explains what it is? Is it fire extinguisher bottles venting, hydraulic line failure maybe? Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHYg3gleQzA

[gearlever]

Looks like burning fuel to me.

[lomapaseo]

squib fired in pylon?

[tdracer]

My guess as well - the crew pulled the fire handles but with the piping missing (along with the rest of the engine) the halon just vented out.

[underfire]

This is a very interesting video. I am curious (and dont want to start anything) but in a structure fire, you spray into the window openings. While the doors are open, the spray is directed to the top of the fuselage, not to the interior through the openings.
Also, in regards to the equipment, noting the numerous attempts, the range of the spray seems to leave quite a bit to be desired. It appears they have to get very close to the ac to be effective.

[lomapaseo]

the crew pulled the fire handles but with the piping missing (along with the rest of the engine) the halon just vented out.
tdracer is offline Report Post


Perhaps a self trigger rather than crew?

After a crash I've never trusted those thingies until they were put to sleep.

[pattern_is_full]

@ underfire

Not a "structure" fire - it was a "large passenger vehicle" fire.

First priority is evacuation and rescue - and blasting the only exits with high-pressure foam and water will not enhance that objective. From about 5:50 on one can see firefighters entering the cabin via the doors for search and rescue (did pull 5 people out), and you don't want to trap them by blasting the doors either.

Second "first" priority is fire suppression to allow more time for search and rescue - thus the heavy equipment is focused on the active fire in the vicinity of the right wing, fuel tanks and spilled fuel. With some occasional overspray onto the cabin roof.

The larger apparatus cannot be very effective in hosing down the whole interior through a smallish doorway anyway. What you see starting about 10:00 is first the rescue crews evacuating via the slides, and then handlines being manhandled up the slides to the doors - and a handline nozzle right at the doorway can swivel around and cover the whole interior much more effectively.

But they don't put a lot of effort (or risk personnel) into saving the aircraft - it was already "junk" by the time it stopped moving. The only other reason to fight a structure fire down to the last spark - to protect surrounding structures - also doesn't apply in this case.

It's just a whole different scenario.

But - the SFO emergency services certainly came in for some criticism of training, communications, protocols for avoiding injured passengers on the ground, and (in direct connection to your question) failing to adequately use two HRETs (high-reach extendable turrets) with skin-piercing nozzles for firefighting within the cabin.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2014_Asiana_BMG-Abstract.aspx

[underfire]

Not a "structure" fire - it was a "large passenger vehicle" fire.

First priority is evacuation and rescue - and blasting the only exits with high-pressure foam and water will not enhance that objective. From about 5:50 on one can see firefighters entering the cabin via the doors for search and rescue (did pull 5 people out), and you don't want to trap them by blasting the doors either.

Second "first" priority is fire suppression to allow more time for search and rescue - thus the heavy equipment is focused on the active fire in the vicinity of the right wing, fuel tanks and spilled fuel. With some occasional overspray onto the cabin roof.

Understand. Concur, first priority is rescue, and suppression for said rescue. Priority is always life vs structure.
While it was evident the fire crew was trying, what I did not see was the ability to effectively do that, with the multiple failed attempts illustrated in the video to even get anything on the hotspot. Beginning at around 3:40, you begin to see several attempts to get suppression on the ac on the starboard side.
Unfortunately, what I also note are multiple attempts by the crew to direct the suppression, appearing to use a fire and adjust technique, rather than a focused attack.

I have been involved with control and after action assessments of structural fires, which are, unfortunately common.
My thoughts are, looking at this video, and in review of other recent aviation events such as in Dubai, that the standards for equipage of airport assets have not evolved with experience as other fire fighting standards have.