Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Melbourne Airport: 737 cargo hold fire poss due to Lithium-ion battery

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Melbourne Airport: 737 cargo hold fire poss due to Lithium-ion battery

Old 26th Apr 2014, 13:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Melbourne Airport: 737 cargo hold fire poss due to Lithium-ion battery

Early reports of a fire on board a 737 whilst still on stand at Melbourne Airport this evening. All Pax appear to have been evacuated without injury and the airport fire services (ARFF) contained the fire (or smoke) to the cargo hold. Both Metro (MFB) and Country (CFA) fire services were requested but turned back en-route.

* Now reported that no passengers were evacuated.

Last edited by Skillsy; 26th Apr 2014 at 13:45. Reason: Additional information
Skillsy is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2014, 15:14
  #2 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unconfirmed reports now place the incident on a Fiji B738.
Skillsy is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2014, 21:36
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,079
Received 441 Likes on 121 Posts
If this does turn out to be a fire from a battery in a PED or in a battery that has been packed as freight, is that fact logged anywhere at a central location?
Ie is there a single point for gathering data on battery fires globally?
There have been changes to the rules regarding carrying batteries and at the same time there are a lot more battery powered devices than there was even two years ago. As an industry I'm not sure we are on top of this from a risk management perspective.
Would it be a wise move to create a website where links to incident reports involving battery fires are logged so that an accurate picture can be developed?
Framer
framer is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2014, 23:38
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It's now 0930 some 10 hours after the story broke in here.

Officially described as "a minor fire" ........one that required RFF MFB and CFA to be called!!

To my mind there is no such thing as a minor fire on board an Aircraft ever.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 00:33
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,424
Received 203 Likes on 67 Posts
I was parked next door to this when it happened, it was a Fiji Airways aircraft (737). 5 Fire Appliances turned up, as far as I could see there were NO pax on board at the time. The fireman accessed the rear hold and after quite a few minutes removed a black hard shell suit case that had quite a bit of smoke coming from it. The suitcase was placed on the tarmac away from the aircraft and sprayed with water for around 15 minutes before the smoke started to subside. Our pushback was delayed around 40 minutes waiting for the all clear from the fire authorities. Whilst this was happening PA's were being made in the terminal to try and identify the owner of the suitcase.

If this is yet Another case of a lithium ion battery going up then it just goes to show how lethal they are and perhaps the TOTAL lack of knowledge that the traveling public has about them.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 11:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,389
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
15 minutes under the hose from a fire tender before it stopped smoking??? Well those halon bottles in your hold wouldn't have been much good at cruise would they?

There have been a few examples of bags being dropped and laptop batteries being damaged and going up. As we know the only way to control a lithium battery fire is to totally immerse it in water.

Lithium battery devices in carry on only, palettes of them by land or sea only. Is it going to take another Valujet for the authorities to get their fingers out? UPS and Asiana have already lost a 744F each to these batteries
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 13:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sol, sector ZZ9 plural Z alpha
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Una Due Tfc: It's extremely unlikely the RFF guys were using Halon to put an apron fire out, so the comparison is tenuous. Halon use is very restricted these days. It's performance at putting out fires is phenomenal, but its also a greenhouse gas so it only gets used in highly critical situations.

To control a "smoking" suitcase on the apron the fire guys may even have decided not to waste their foam on it -, water alone will achieve the same result it just takes longer. It's not a "critical" situation when its on the apron away from the aircraft.

I used to do some RFF work when I was learning to fly. During a training exercise we ran timed tests to compare the time taken to put out a typical fully developed fire in a light aircraft. With water only it took about 2.5 mins, with foam it took less than 30 seconds. Obviously we didn't test Halon, but I am reliably informed the same test by a competent crew using Halon would be extinguished in less than ten seconds.
Clear_Prop is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 13:08
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'm Not sure putting lithium batteries in water is a great idea .....
Jetstream67 is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 14:05
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'm Not sure putting lithium batteries in water is a great idea .....
AFAIK that is the current recommendation.
Basil is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 14:14
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,389
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
Clear Prop

The firefighters don't use Halon, but the bottles in the cargo hold are filled with halon, my point was the fire would have at best been delayed briefly by Halon. Foam or water would put the flames out initially, but the fire will just re-light after you stop.

Immersing Lithium Ion batteries in water is the only way of controlling the situation, you can't stop the runaway but you will control the temperature and prevent nearby objects from catching fire
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 16:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: harpenden
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
lithium battery fires - the way to do it

I am in the arff and i teach flight crew fire and smoke training. Lithium battery fires are dealt with thus:

1: extinguish any flame with BCF (halon)
2: cool with water (or any other non flammable liquid)
3: do not move item unless benefits outways the risk.
4: again, cool with water, lots of it.
5: monitor, check for transferred heat.

hope that helps
avantgardeaclue is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 19:19
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The fire suppression system in the hold is a one shot, 'fire and forget' system. Initially delivers a long burst to extinguish and suppress the fire. Then it automatically fires metered bursts periodically to maintain suppression. Certified for a minimum of 195 minutes to cater for our 180 minutes EDTO.
silverhawk is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 19:41
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Maybe its due to a lack of understanding? or a deliberate media blackout? Having witnessed a 747 freighter miss my house by about 500 feet and then subsequently crash and burn, I can attest Lithium batteries scare the living out of me.
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 21:13
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lima Peru
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nitpicker330 said:
Officially described as "a minor fire" ........one that required RFF MFB and CFA to be called!!
From a safety point of view, nearby RFF services are automatically called for various reasons including:

1. It is easier and quicker to get them moving, and turn them back if they are not needed, than have to call them when it has got out of hand.

2. If the airport RFF services are being used for an aircraft, the, 'civilian,' services will provide emergency cover for the airport infrastructure, and other emergencies. Again, they can be turned back if not needed.

It is not only about dealing with the emergency presented, but about, 'what if,' something else happens.
CAndyPOB is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 21:18
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,079
Received 441 Likes on 121 Posts
Maybe its due to a lack of understanding? or a deliberate media blackout?
I think that was in response to my post saying that I can't find one reference to the incident in the media which was deleted. This incident is potentially very important to our industry and how we react to one of the biggest threats to safety we've seen. If there is a concerted effort to prevent media coverage of the event it is quite disturbing. Has anyone emailed Pane Talking? I think I'll do that now.
Can anyone point me towards any media coverage of the incident?
framer is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 21:19
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 1,023
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
avant-garde, perhaps the airlines Down under should look at containment systems... the lot I work for teach the same procedure except we follow up by using a containment device to hold the item in case of further thermal runaway.

Certain airports in Asis now pull the crew aside to repack if there are any lighters or batteries in the hold luggage; hope the same is being done for pax. I think this should be made standard world wide!
givemewings is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 22:29
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,886
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Can anyone point me towards any media coverage of the incident?
There is no media coverage, it's an open and shut case

Any confirmation that it was lithium batteries?

Remember that cheap nicads or nicads that have been improperly re-celled have caused fires through their ability to deliver enormous number of amps when shorted.

Due to the baggage restrictions on Lithium batts, nicads are making a comeback with media crews.
The luggage was described as a "black hard shell suitcase", this description does not exclude "pelican" brand style flight cases commonly used by film and TV crews.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 22:55
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe no media coverage because it occurred out of sight of most people
and the airport doesn't announce incidents to the media ?

In any case, why the need to have the media report it ?

All they will do is blow it out of all proportion with a sensationalist headline
about "Passengers saved", "Airport plane fire" et al and if they can weave
into the story "school missed by brave pilot" all will be normal !
500N is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2014, 23:24
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,886
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
In any case, why the need to have the media report it ?
If an incident is not reported the list of reasons can include a news blackout due to police or other government agency operations or heavy handed censorship by private company to protect its vested interests or the interests of others.

A burning bag pulled off a bus would make local news at least.

Note that news editors will surely know of the story by now but would seek confirmation from an official source, especially given last weeks rush to report the "hijacking".

Official sources may be hard to find on a bank holiday weekend.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2014, 03:23
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Thought and A Question

Thought: I'm no expert, but I suspect that Halon is Much more effective in a confined space (hold) than in open air, simple because it dissipates so quickly. In theory, using Halon in open air could suppress fire so briefly that no significant cooling occurs, only to have it re-ignite as soon as the Halon dissipates.

Question: If packing PEDs (specifically modern laptop) with Li-Ion batteries in hold baggage, is there any benefit in removing the battery from the device and wrapping it in insulating material to prevent any possibility of contacts shorting? Of course, those things belong in hand luggage where they can be accessed if there is a problem, but not everyone follows the ing rules or best practices.

Comments on both are most welcome. Thanks.
No Fly Zone is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.