PPRuNe Forums - Fire Fighting 737 Crashed in WA

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - Fire Fighting 737 Crashed in WA (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/651213-fire-fighting-737-crashed-wa.html)

Quote:

Also given the response time of the engines would it be better to have these aircraft fitted with modified spoilers so that they can use significant power against drag, if performance is required, ditching the spoilers with 80%+ N1 would be much faster response than spooling from idle

A technique used by early jet naval aircraft, and even the later Vietnam era A-4 and A-6, approach flown with speed brakes out.

Quote:

Set drop points to overlap, and not tag

Not exactly sure the difference you imply by "tag" and "overlap" 43", fire fighters say after the first drop the successive drops have form an unbroken continuous line ie no gap in the line for the fire to breach. Retardant drops are not to directly extinguish the fire, the chemicals mixed with the water create a fire proof barrier of sufficient width that the fire hopefully can't jump.

Quote:

With what I see of tagging they try to drop right on the end of the first run with little margin, so as to not waste retardant. This then makes a very precise point you are aiming for rather than an 'area' as such, which would promote target fixation. I meant aim to overlap the last of the first run with the start of the next, you might double up 100 meters or so, but it will relax the margin for getting it wrong and trying to nose down on the target point. The other thing I'm thinking is what was the need to slow down on the second run, if the first at 130kts was fine, why do you need to slow for the second, it's the same retardant composition, or is there a body angle consideration for the 737 LAT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by helispotter (Post 11430765)

43" and others here make good observations, but this got me thinking:

The 737 has only a two person crew. How do they allocate responsibility such that they don't both become fixated on the 'drop'? Should one focus on flying and drop timing while the other should have zero interest in the actual drop and only focus on overall safety of aircraft and its crew while flying at such low altitudes? Or do such operations actually need more than a two person crew?

It's absolutely possible to do it safely with a two person crew, if you have SOPs that allow the PF to focus on the target line and the drop while the PM monitors altitude, airspeed, thrust (and AoA - if they've invested in such equipment) throughout the run. Just like in a CAT III approach, the PM should not be looking outside - ever. My spidey senses tell me that there was two sets of eyes looking outside because if the PM was doing their job, they would have recognized their low energy state and called for an abort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by megan (Post 11429811)

I see it as a replay of this near miss. The pilot stated,The 737 guys were in the same place as the RJ85, rising terrain in front of them, in the RJ case those experienced commented that the hill they missed tended to blended into the background of the still higher terrain.

I'm not suggesting that target fixation wasn't a factor, but if you look at the data traces, the 737 was in a consistent, descending, low energy state. The rising terrain they contacted was not as abrupt as the one the Neptune crew missed narrowly. IMHO, the 737 was always going to hit the ground in that energy state. The hill just made it happen a few seconds sooner.

How many of your blokes have actually put retardant on fires?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cedrik (Post 11434030)

How many of your blokes have actually put retardant on fires?

Curious to know what you'd say to refute those whose credibility you're questioning? A jet transport airplane is a jet transport airplane and energy management is energy management. It doesn't matter whether said airplane is delivering grandma to visit the new grandchild or putting mud around a fire.