PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   QF A330 Emergency landing Kansai (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/186715-qf-a330-emergency-landing-kansai.html)

bonvol 21st Aug 2005 00:27

QF A330 Emergency landing Kansai
 
Just heard of this but not much else. Anyone have more details?

apacau 21st Aug 2005 00:40

Not sure how trustworthy, but there is more info here

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...64-421,00.html

tobzalp 21st Aug 2005 00:42

The Ninemsn headline will be. 'Mid Air Terror as Qantas plane burns in Japan'. Mark my words.

OhForSure 21st Aug 2005 00:46

Wonder why the tower spotted smoke but there was no visible signs of smoke or fire in the a/c???

Glad to hear all are ok.

Any 330/340 drivers care to comment on how many detectors are in the hold? Are they temperature variation meters or flame/smoke sensors??? What's the go?

The_Cutest_of_Borg 21st Aug 2005 00:57

I have some small experience with the way Japanese authorities handle these sorts of events.

I hope QF and AIPA are right on to this one because the fact that people were injured during the evacuation may mean serious trouble for the operating crew.

Japanese police seem to need someone to blame any time someone gets hurt.

I hope I am wrong. On another note, can all the professional QF baiters please hold off for a respectable time please? I know you are all itching to get stuck in, but a little decorum please.

Calligula 21st Aug 2005 01:10

No doubt all the 'professionals' who infest these forums (including some of the mods)
will be onto the capt's decision and will soon be telling evryone what a clown he is

HIALS 21st Aug 2005 01:34

For what it's worth (and don't know if its relevant to this incident) - Airbus have a big problem, worldwide, with their smoke detectors.

I had a fault with my SDCU (Smoke Detection Control Unit) recently. While the engineers were changing it they commented that Airbus have a global taskforce out trying to retrofit new and improved smoke detectors in all aircraft.

He indicated the new units would have internal heating to avoid condensation triggering false warnings.

BankAngle50 21st Aug 2005 01:55

Calligula Perhaps you got up ont he wrong side of the bed.
If anybody criticizes this crew then they would clearly identifying themselves as GA/Areo club know it alls.

Sure it would be great to do a precautionary evac, but that would be the day the thing burns and you kill ½ the pax during the delayed deboard. And sure the SLB’s are supposed to be self containing in the event of cargo fire, but I wouln’t want to be the one to test that theory. Well done to the crew.:ok:

Out of interest;
A Saudi Arabian Lockheed L-1011 on a flight from Karachi to Jeddah via Riyadh reported smoke in the aft cargo compartment shortly after take off from the capital's King Khalid International Airport. The aircraft returned to the airport and landed safely, however an emergency evacuation of the aircraft was not ordered. With a delay in evacuating the passengers, fire consumed the aircraft on the ground, killing all 287 passengers and 14 crew


http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/saudi163/1.jpg

Calligula 21st Aug 2005 02:09

BA50.

You are right of course.

Kapt M - a question.

I have read of horror stories where any incident involving pax injuries in Japan is taken right 'over the top' by the Japanese police.

Are these sort of reports a beat up, or is there a real issue here.

During an evac it is almost inevitable that there will be some minor injuries.

petitfromage 21st Aug 2005 03:01

There are 3 cargo compartments in the 330. The foward, aft & bulk. (the aft and the bulk are seperated only by a net, so for the purpose of the fire detection/extinguishing system they are considered one compartment).

The forward compartment has 2 cavities, each with 2 smoke detectors. The aft/bulk has 3 cavites and 6 detectors.

Airbus use 2 types of detector...optical & ionisation. I dont know what sort QF 330s have.

There is also an optional system that, upon detecting smoke, isolates the effected compartment and turns off the extraction vans that ventilate the compartment. I do not know in QF brought this option?

There are 2 fire bottles that can be fired into either compartment. The ECAM checklist would have required the crew to fire both bottles.
The 1st bottle dischrages rapidly (60secs). The 2nd is flow metering and contniues to 'top up' the compartment for a further 280mins (4:40hrs)

The cockpit indications of a cargo fire will remain on...they cannot be extinguished as the fire bottle agent will contnue to trigger the sensors.

The crew cannot, obviously, assume the fire is out....they must assume otherwise. They can only attempt to confirm through other means if they fire indication etc was real...eg: ATC or cabin crew (sensing smoke or hot floor etc).

Hope this helps those interested in 'the system'.

KIX would be a **** of an airport to do a high speed, emergency approach into in the 330. (Due to terrain)

Its sounds like the crew did the right thing....however, as Kaptain M says, the real fun will start now that the Japanese police/system have got their fingers in the pie.

PS: as for the system itself; high humidity can set it off in error and as happened to me, so can the exhaust from the neighbouring aircrafts APU. Its very sensitive!

*Lancer* 21st Aug 2005 04:36

Just out of curiousity, what's the extinguishing agent? Not halon?

404 Titan 21st Aug 2005 04:53


There are 2 fire bottles in each compartment. The ECAM checklist would have required the crew to fire both bottles.
Just a clarification to the previous post. There are two fire bottles total for the cargo compartments that can be either discharged into the forward or aft/bulk cargo compartments. A fire extinguishing button for the forward or aft/bulk will automatically discharge both bottle into the respective compartment. Once the bottles have been discharged they are no longer available for the other compartment if god for bid you had a second cargo smoke warning in that second compartment.

Wizofoz 21st Aug 2005 05:09

Sounds like he did all the right things. I would suspect the "smoke" the tower saw was the agent from the extinguishers.

About time Japan joined the rest of the world when it comes to aircraft accident investigation!!!

swh 21st Aug 2005 09:51

HIALS,

Its not just an Airbus problem, happens with the 744 in the tropics also.

:ok:

Non Normal 21st Aug 2005 10:00

I read that 8 out of 9 people taken to hospital were female.

It just made me wonder... does anyone have any figures pertaining to the injury rate for male/female in evacuation (please provide link if possible)?

Capt Fathom 21st Aug 2005 10:18


happens with the 744 in the tropics also
Why in the tropics ? What's the difference?

swh 21st Aug 2005 10:30

High humidity, like taking a drink bottle out of the fridge, will form beads of water on the outside of the bottle. When these aircraft come in from cruise the holds are cold relative to the outside, dew forms, sets the sensor off.

travel thickness 21st Aug 2005 10:35

Swh?
 
When was the last time we heard about a jumbo being involved in a similar incident?

swh 21st Aug 2005 11:03

From Flight


The FAA has estimated from airline maintenance reports that 100-200 smoke detector false alarms occur for every actual on-board fire and flightcrews cannot verify fire sensor readings from remote compartments.

travel thickness 21st Aug 2005 11:06

and.....
 
How many of these incidents relate to jumbos?
Or are you perhaps just guessing?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01.


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