View Full Version : Wheel fire... or not?
A gound engineer reported smoke from the MLG to the Qantas 744 after landing in Sydney (yestarday or today...).
The captain ordered an evacuation -> a chute collapsed -> passengers got injured.
Apparently there was no real fire.
The captain decided to evacuate after the smoke was reported.
My question: why didn't he ask what colour was the smoke?
If the smoke is white, it's just an overheat or fluid spillage on hot brakes.
If smoke is black, then you have a wheel fire and should evacuate.
Or not?
GlueBall
4th Jul 2003, 03:25
Where there's smoke there's not always fire. Could be a smoke machine. :ok:
cirrus01
4th Jul 2003, 03:57
Perhaps it's not politically correct to ask about colour anymore := := :=
Hand Solo
4th Jul 2003, 04:41
Why didn't the ground engineer accurately report the type of smoke and his thoughts on its origins? And why do you assume that all smoke is black or white and the Captain knows the difference? If you shout smoke then I think fire and I wouldn't necessarily want to wait for the airport fire service to come over and check it out if I thought I was about to be roasted!
PlaneTruth
4th Jul 2003, 05:48
LEM,
Another consideration is a new brake assembly.
Brakes are assembled by hand and try as they may, some amount of grease and foreign material gets into the rotor/pad assembly. Plus, the nature of the brake material is that it smokes somewhat during the initial heating cycles after installation. My airline used to post notes in the logbook to alert pilots that they might get calls from tower or other aircraft for smoky brakes. For some unknown reason this practice has been discontinued. The only clue now is long wear indicators on the brake assembly indicating fresh brakes.
Given the certification requirements of 15 minutes with tires ablaze unaided by rescue, I would be predisposed to keep everyone on board and out of harms way. Hate to have anyone killed by a speeding rescue vehicle or injured going down a slide.
PT:ok: (The Banned One)
OverRun
4th Jul 2003, 08:13
What - no brake temperature gauge on the -400?
http://www.geocities.com/profemery/aviation/braketemp.html
QAVION
4th Jul 2003, 11:43
"What - no brake temperature gauge on the -400?"
No "gauge"per se. Boeing displays this data on the Lower EICAS "synoptic" CRT screen. Being an Airbus fan, no doubt you've heard of them? There are actually two displays. A readily available one the one the pilots are familiar with and this one, a maintenance display....
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~b744er/EICASGearMaintPage.jpg
Regards.
Q.
Why didn't the ground engineer accurately report the type of smoke and his thoughts on its origins?
Because he's a ground engineer.And why do you assume that ..... the Captain knows the difference?
Because he is a Captain.
******
Apparently there's a gap in the aviation culture on this subject.
I was interested to know if you guys agree with me that the evacuation decision should be made upon the colour of the smoke (white=caution, Black=FIRE).
HotDog
4th Jul 2003, 20:50
So the ground engineer is an idiot and the captain is a genius?
Have a look at this incident at the source , on D & G Reporting Points. "Heavy Landing At Sydney".
I don't agree with white or black smoke meaning one is a fire and the other is only need for caution. Many wheels are made of magnesium, and when they start fire, they don't give off black smoke. Nor is it easy to put out. I feel that anyone who simplifies this to black smoke for fire and white smoke for caution shouldn't be around A/C. They obviously don't pay enough attention to the real cause of the problem. I think before the pilot evacuated the cabin, he should have made a more accurate assesment of the problem. But having said that, I was not there, and don't know the whole story.
northwing
6th Jul 2003, 04:21
You have to back the guy's decision in these circumstances. If the fire had got rapidly worse and he hadn't called for evacuation then he'd have been pilloried for losing someone. That said, it's an awful long way down from the top deck of a 747 and it doesn't take much of an imperfection in the way the slide deploys to cause a problem. Certifying the evacuation from the A380 is going to be a good game.
Incidentally, I think the tyres have to burn for 90 seconds rather than 15 minutes before the fire brigade are allowed to put them out on the certification accel-stop test. (However, I stand to be corrected if anyone knows better.)
Many wheels are made of magnesium, and when they start fire, they don't give off black smoke.
Well, if magnesium is burning, rubber is burning too... giving off black smoke, don't you think so rwm?
eng123
6th Jul 2003, 13:40
LEM,
What an arrogant and insulting post you made earlier about being a ground engineer.The relationship between flight crew and engineering is excellent in my airline with a mutual respect.I'm pleased there aren't too many people like you flying the aircraft that I maintain.
Flight Detent
6th Jul 2003, 16:46
My thoughts exactly, PLANETRUTH!
And I've said so, earlier!
Cheers
You are right, Eng 123, I expressed myself the wrong way.
What I meant is that if the ground engineer only reports smoke and nothing more, that's not an excuse for the captain not to take the initiative to ask for more details.
If somebody shouts smoke, the captain is supposed to take the lead in closing the communication loop.
I had in mind the Tenerife accident, in which the PanAm crew was feeling very unconfortable while backtracking, but instead of relying on minimal and difficult communications, why the hell the Captain didn't grab the mike to talk directly to the KLM Captain??
Anyway, now we know that's not exactly what happened in Sydney, so my question regarding the colour of the smoke has only a generic sense.
See you soon... LEM
eng123
7th Jul 2003, 18:48
OK,fair enough.I'm not one to hold grudges....[much] Only kidding!