PDA

View Full Version : BA 747 cargo fire


mention1
10th Aug 2002, 11:11
A British Airways B744 returned to Sydney this afternoon with a cargo fire warning. According to passengers the cabin was "hotter than usual" and cabin staff were moving briskly around the cabin apparently trying to find the source.

The aircraft landed safely and all passengers made egress through the L1 via stairs althought the aircraft was still on the runway.

Looks like the real thing. Personally, this is my worst nightmare.

Rollingthunder
10th Aug 2002, 11:38
A fire in the cargo hold of a British Airways 747 triggered a
full-scale emergency at Australia's major airport today,
as the jet was forced to turn back less than 10 minutes
after take-off.

The drama unfolded as Flight 16 left Sydney international
airport bound for Singapore with 270 people on board.

The jumbo pilot declared a mayday, saying there was fire in the hold, as he turned the plane around.

Emergency services immediately launched a full-scale response,
closing all runways to all other traffic, and calling in police, fire
brigade and ambulance services to back up the airport's response
team.

An Airservices Australia spokesman said the 747-400 jet left the
airport just after 4pm (AEST), but was in trouble within minutes.

"At about 10 minutes past four, having literally gone about five
nautical miles north of Sydney, he (the captain) declared a mayday and sought to return to return immediately to Sydney airport," the spokesman said.

"The aircraft landed successfully at 4.25pm."

The spokesman said a fire alarm in the forward cargo hold alerted
the captain to the problem.

Fire crews on the ground at Sydney Airport have since confirmed
there was an electrical fire.

"Fire crews say there was a small electrical wiring fire in the
forward cargo hold which was extinguished by the on-board
extinguisher system.

"There's about a metre-square of fire damage," he said.

BA released a statement saying the plane turned back after a light in the cockpit indicated a problem in the forward cargo hold.

"The aircraft is now being looked at by our engineers," the
statement said.

"It appears that a light in the cockpit was illuminated due to a fault in the wiring to the fridge in the galley."

It was unclear whether passengers' luggage was damaged in the
fire.

Passengers were evacuated safely down mobile stairways after
the plane came to a halt on the tarmac.

A police spokesman said no-one was injured in the incident.

Engineers were looking at the aircraft which has been moved to
the international terminal for examination, the Airservices Australia spokesman said.

A BA spokeswoman said the airline was assessing whether the
aircraft would be able to continue its journey tonight

SMH

stagger
10th Aug 2002, 11:40
Here's how ABC have described the incident...Fire forces emergency landing in Sydney

A British Airways flight was forced to make an emergency landing at Sydney airport this afternoon, when a fire broke out on board just after it took off.

A spokesman for Airservices Australia says no-one was injured during the incident, which occurred just minutes after BA Flight 16 left Sydney for Singapore with 270 people onboard.

"At about 4:10pm, having literally gone about five nautical miles north of Sydney, (the captain) declared a Mayday and sought to return immediately to Sydney airport," the spokesman said.

Airport emergency services closed runways to all other traffic and called in police, fire brigade and ambulance services to back up the airport's response team.

The jumbo jet landed without incident and passengers were evacuated safely down mobile stairways after the plane came to a halt on the tarmac.

One of the passengers, Mike Souter, says the cabin was very warm before take-off but the pilot said the temperature would drop after take-off.

Mr Souter says passengers were informed shortly after take-off that there was a fire in the plane's hold.

"There was quite a strong smell of smoke and quite visibly the cabin crew were alarmed by the situation," he said.

Officials have confirmed an alarm in the forward cargo hold of the Boeing 747-400 alerted cockpit crew to the fire and emergency staff on the ground later said a small electrical fire had broken out.

"Fire crews say there was a small electrical wiring fire in the forward cargo hold which was extinguished by the onboard extinguisher system," the Airserives Australia spokesman said.

He added that there was "about a metre-square of fire damage."

BA said in a statement that the problem appeared to have been caused by faulty wiring to a refrigerator in one of the plane's galleys.

An airline spokeswoman says company officials are assessing whether the aircraft will be able to continue its journey.

What_does_this_button_do?
10th Aug 2002, 11:46
If it was heading back to the UK then it would be full of fuel - how can you dump the excess in less than 15 mins?

luddite
10th Aug 2002, 11:49
You'd dump fuel if you were on fire then? Stick to computers boy.

Techman
10th Aug 2002, 11:52
The drama unfolded as Flight 16 left Sydney international airport bound for Singapore with 270 people on board.

TopBunk
10th Aug 2002, 11:55
What does this button do.

On the way back to the UK - yes, but via Singapore.

At a rough guess the take off weight would have been just over 300 tonnes (175 basic weight + 30 pax + 90 fuel + maybe some cargo). Max Landing weight is 285 tonnes, so not much above and in any case when there is a possible fire you don't really care about the weight, you get in back to a suitable runway ASAP.

Sounds to me like the boys done well - congratulations.

Top Bunk
(ex BA744P2)

What_does_this_button_do?
10th Aug 2002, 11:59
a-ha!

Thanks for swift answers.

B

HotDog
10th Aug 2002, 12:53
Nothing to stop you from making an overweight landing if the emergency warrants it and a fire is one of them. The landing speed will be higher according to the weight and an overweight landing inspection will have to be carried out although no damage would be expected to be found. Well done BA.

maxy101
10th Aug 2002, 15:39
No doubt the CC will be feted as heroes whilst BA manage to minimise the role of the pilots again......:confused:

DistantRumble
10th Aug 2002, 15:54
Hi gang... there's already (!) a photo of the bird on airliners.net on the rwy with the emergency vehicles around.

According to that he made an overweight landing

Here's the link

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/260629/M/

hth

Intruder
10th Aug 2002, 17:59
Overweight landings are not "ggod," but are sometimes prudent...

Max landing wt of current 747-400s is 302,100 Kg. That weight has several saf=ety factors built in, including the repetitive stress of numerous such landing cycles.

However, the Runway Performance Manuals for the aircraft give max allowable emergency landing weights for individual airports and runways, including adjustments for temperature, wind, and rain. Those emergency landing weights are often above max takeoff gross weight.

For a fire in the forward cargo hold (or anywhere in the fuselage, for that matter), dumping fuel is not an additional safety problem, since the dump masts are near the wingtips, well away from any source of ignition.

DarkStar
10th Aug 2002, 18:35
A/c apparently landed 15 tonnes overweight. I believe the galley chiller fan unit/wiring are under investigation by the ATSB.

BlueEagle
11th Aug 2002, 00:37
Intruder, when did they increase the max landing weight for a pax -400 to 302,100kgs?

I thought it was 285,000kgs for a pax version and 302,100kgs for a freighter?:(

Additionally, if I had a fire warning I would not be bothering to dump fuel, get it back on the ground ASAP, no way of knowing how fast a fire will develop.

As fuel dumping is often done in a racetrack pattern it would technically be possible to fly back through the fuel you have dumped, not good if you have had a fire warning!

Ignition Override
11th Aug 2002, 00:53
A foreign airline's widebody jet crashed a few years ago into the ocean as the crew went through a very long emergency checklist procedure. I don't know if many airlines still require delaying an approach with a smoke or fire warning, while the crew completes a very long checklist.

If a given plane returns quickly to
an overweight landing and everyone exits in good shape under these circumstances, will Flight Operations Mgmt.
at YOUR airline strongly criticize you for not finishing the required Emergency Checklist?

Flight Safety
11th Aug 2002, 00:58
BlueEagle,

If memory serves, during the lifetime of the -400 (not including ERs) there have been 3 different landing weights available to the customer, a standard weight and 2 optional heavier weights. I'd have to do research to find out exactly what they are.

mutt
11th Aug 2002, 03:38
Why is everyone getting concerned about an overweight landing, the aircraft under the FAR's (and I presume the JAR's) is certified to be capable of landing within 15 minutes of taking off regardless of the maximum certificated landing weight.

BTW, we operate at a MLW of 295,800 kgs or so...


Mutt.

Waste Gate
11th Aug 2002, 05:25
For what it's worth, Qantas 400s have 2 different MLWs.

From memory:( :( OJA - OJR are 295T versions, OJS - OJU, NLH and the 3 ugly sisters (OEB/C/D) are 285T.

But as others have said, that would be the least of the crew's concerns with a cargo fire. Weather was fine and beaut, nice long rwy available etc etc:) :)

WG.

375ml
11th Aug 2002, 06:36
Blue eagle, fuel dump in a racetrack pattern??? You'd want at least 3 min legs and no crosswind ... aircraft aren't supposed to go through a vapour zone until 5 minutes after dump from memory?

Shadowpurser
11th Aug 2002, 08:49
If you take a look at the BASSA site one of the crew in SYD has praised the captain saying how great he was! Also said company have been great as well.

http://www.bassa.co.uk/cgi-bin/ubbc/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000258

744rules
11th Aug 2002, 09:12
I was told by an engineer that the operating landing weight is defined by maintenance. SV and EVA have same md11f but different landing weight. This results in additional and more frequent inspections for the a/c operating wiht the higher landingweight.

sidestep
11th Aug 2002, 13:38
Let's not forget swissair's episode with fuel dumping. Lesson learned. Case closed.

madmax
11th Aug 2002, 15:33
All this debate over the landing weight is academic.

If I am on fire then I am going to get the plane on the ground asap.

The BA pilots did a fine job, and should be congratulated. I know its what we are trained to do, but a bit of praise won't go amiss here.

Well done :)

*Lancer*
11th Aug 2002, 15:55
In testing the A340-600: Airbus loaded it up, took it off, and landed it using max manual braking..............

ABOVE THE MAX RAMP WEIGHT!

Of course the undercarriage was in a pitiful, smoking state, but it proved what the aircraft will do if it has to!

Lancer

Taildragger67
11th Aug 2002, 16:12
That photo at http://www.airliners.net/open.file/260629/M/

- did she stop facing ACROSS 16R/34L ?

If so, why??

(Just looks like the tarmac she's on - which runs L-R in the shot - has landing-zone markings on it and there's a set of VASIs in the foreground... )

Thanks

Carruthers
11th Aug 2002, 20:26
What does it matter what it weighed, where it stopped or what the crew had for breakfast. If you suspect you are on fire you put it down asap. This loks like a job well done.

P22
11th Aug 2002, 20:36
Taildragger67

Turning the aircraft 45 degrees allows the stairs to approach door 1L without going on the grass. Mobile staiirs have a very wide turning circle, and do not take kindly to being driven on grass.