Urgent call for fire suppression in Main Deck holds!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy,
You are quite right, Part 25 mainly refers to new certificates.
However, in line with the amendment I had previously quoted part 121 (Amd No. 121-269) was also amended in 1998 to reflect the removal of Class D holds. As I am sure you are aware!
Final Rule Docket No. 28937 Only part 135 was finally exempted from change (Commuter/Buisness Jets). All other transport category aircraft registered after 1958 had to be upgraded to comply by 18th March 2001!
Unfortunately EASA is over a decade behind this ruling which is why some of our world colleagues are operating without fire detection. The following term of reference demonstrates the US rulings and work in progress for EASA.
ToR 26.003
FAR Part 25 Amdt 25-93 and FAR Part 121 Amdt 121-269 based on NPRM 97-10. These amendments provided the following upgrades:
— elimination of Class D cargo or baggage compartment as an option for future type certification of transport category aeroplanes;
— the Class D compartments in certain transport category aeroplanes already in service and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppressions standards for Class C compartments;
— the Class D compartments in certain transport category aeroplanes already in service and used only for the carriage of cargo must meet the standards for Class C compartments or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments.
I hope this clarifies that US registered aircraft MUST have fire detection.
My quest is to upgrade even further and have fire suppression installed, specifically for cargo aircraft.
Class E to Class C ASAP!
You are quite right, Part 25 mainly refers to new certificates.
However, in line with the amendment I had previously quoted part 121 (Amd No. 121-269) was also amended in 1998 to reflect the removal of Class D holds. As I am sure you are aware!
Final Rule Docket No. 28937 Only part 135 was finally exempted from change (Commuter/Buisness Jets). All other transport category aircraft registered after 1958 had to be upgraded to comply by 18th March 2001!
Unfortunately EASA is over a decade behind this ruling which is why some of our world colleagues are operating without fire detection. The following term of reference demonstrates the US rulings and work in progress for EASA.
ToR 26.003
FAR Part 25 Amdt 25-93 and FAR Part 121 Amdt 121-269 based on NPRM 97-10. These amendments provided the following upgrades:
— elimination of Class D cargo or baggage compartment as an option for future type certification of transport category aeroplanes;
— the Class D compartments in certain transport category aeroplanes already in service and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppressions standards for Class C compartments;
— the Class D compartments in certain transport category aeroplanes already in service and used only for the carriage of cargo must meet the standards for Class C compartments or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments.
I hope this clarifies that US registered aircraft MUST have fire detection.
My quest is to upgrade even further and have fire suppression installed, specifically for cargo aircraft.
Class E to Class C ASAP!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVAS
With regards to EVAS:
I do not believe it is beneficial without fire suppression.
In the cases of UPS 1307 and FedEx 1406 there was no need for EVAS. If you look at the NTSB accident reports they did not have smoke in the flight deck until after landing and during the evacuation. Yet they still had uncontrollable fires which destroyed both hulls.
EVAS, I think is a genius idea used only in conjunction with fire suppression.
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
I do not believe it is beneficial without fire suppression.
In the cases of UPS 1307 and FedEx 1406 there was no need for EVAS. If you look at the NTSB accident reports they did not have smoke in the flight deck until after landing and during the evacuation. Yet they still had uncontrollable fires which destroyed both hulls.
EVAS, I think is a genius idea used only in conjunction with fire suppression.
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Detention!
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown SLF for some time I am not used to the idea of cargo compartments without fire suppression.
I see this topic very simplistically.
Fire, once started and if not controlled or contained will develop with a mind of its own and exponentially grow consuming all that is around it.
Survival:
1) Escape from the fire, via fire exits... (Not viable in flight on civil aircraft)
2) Extinguish the fire... (Definately my preference!)
I have heard arguments that suggest some fires are inextinguishable!
I have two points to make;
Firstly, inextinguishable fires are usually as a result of not being detected and controlled early enough. This is always the case with aircraft that have managed to land after detecting fire but not suppressing it.
Otherwise, we could have materials onboard that do not respond to the suppressant installed. In reality this is mainly class D fires (metals). A top contender being lithium batteries, because nearly all other metal sources would need to be heated externally first. Now while our Halon 1301 will not stop the heat rising within lithium batteries it will interfere with the chemical process that allows flame to persist and more imortantly spread!
This is why we call it suppressant and not extinguisher!
Suppress the fire = time
Time is my friend when my arse is on fire and I want to find somewhere to land.
I would definately like to see more time invested in finding suitable ways of installing suppressant in main deck cargo holds. Frankly, any company operating the average aircraft without suppressant in the lower holds, is just asking for trouble. These areas are easily classified as Class C compartments, because of the ability to regulate the airflow to them. Boeing have kits for all their variants, which add minimal weight and take up zero space within these holds!
boeing fire suppression upgrades
For a typical ETOPS (ie 180mins of suppression) kit you would lose only 65kg of useable payload!
I understand that if the refit is included within a C check it is as good as cost neutral!
I see this topic very simplistically.
Fire, once started and if not controlled or contained will develop with a mind of its own and exponentially grow consuming all that is around it.
Survival:
1) Escape from the fire, via fire exits... (Not viable in flight on civil aircraft)
2) Extinguish the fire... (Definately my preference!)
I have heard arguments that suggest some fires are inextinguishable!
I have two points to make;
Firstly, inextinguishable fires are usually as a result of not being detected and controlled early enough. This is always the case with aircraft that have managed to land after detecting fire but not suppressing it.
Otherwise, we could have materials onboard that do not respond to the suppressant installed. In reality this is mainly class D fires (metals). A top contender being lithium batteries, because nearly all other metal sources would need to be heated externally first. Now while our Halon 1301 will not stop the heat rising within lithium batteries it will interfere with the chemical process that allows flame to persist and more imortantly spread!
This is why we call it suppressant and not extinguisher!
Suppress the fire = time
Time is my friend when my arse is on fire and I want to find somewhere to land.
I would definately like to see more time invested in finding suitable ways of installing suppressant in main deck cargo holds. Frankly, any company operating the average aircraft without suppressant in the lower holds, is just asking for trouble. These areas are easily classified as Class C compartments, because of the ability to regulate the airflow to them. Boeing have kits for all their variants, which add minimal weight and take up zero space within these holds!
boeing fire suppression upgrades
For a typical ETOPS (ie 180mins of suppression) kit you would lose only 65kg of useable payload!
I understand that if the refit is included within a C check it is as good as cost neutral!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Detention!
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy,
You are very defensive and not all that informative. You like to sound knowledgeable but don't back your information up with evidence for your statements and opinions.
I think you are missing the point. Fires should be given as little opportunity as is feasable to develop. I am not stating there are any miracle cures... I have stated one limitation in current fire suppressants and was not being exhaustive. More needs to be done to develop existing systems.
However current systems are more effective than you would like to suggest.
Suppression will still give you more time than a lack of suppression!
Your statements are very defeatist and argumentative as opposed to productive or constructive in nature.
My personal opinion about EVAS is that it is a great system to counter the effects of smoke in the flight deck... But it only treats the symptoms and not the cause!
By the way, many cargo outfits have fleets of aircraft with suppression in the lower holds... even in Europe! I am not completely ignorant to the Cargo sector and just accepting that this is the way we have always done things is pretty weak.
You are very defensive and not all that informative. You like to sound knowledgeable but don't back your information up with evidence for your statements and opinions.
I think you are missing the point. Fires should be given as little opportunity as is feasable to develop. I am not stating there are any miracle cures... I have stated one limitation in current fire suppressants and was not being exhaustive. More needs to be done to develop existing systems.
However current systems are more effective than you would like to suggest.
Suppression will still give you more time than a lack of suppression!
Your statements are very defeatist and argumentative as opposed to productive or constructive in nature.
My personal opinion about EVAS is that it is a great system to counter the effects of smoke in the flight deck... But it only treats the symptoms and not the cause!
By the way, many cargo outfits have fleets of aircraft with suppression in the lower holds... even in Europe! I am not completely ignorant to the Cargo sector and just accepting that this is the way we have always done things is pretty weak.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I'd have had
, I would be extremely concerned about fire risk!
I do not want this thread to become 'tit for tat'. My aim is to get people thinking and talking and in the long term help to find a solution to the lack of fire suppression in class E compartments.
I still have one question that I would like someone who flies in Europe to answer;
Which airlines in Europe, either passenger or cargo transport, are operating without smoke detection (i.e. class D)?
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
an airplane on fire, with a cockpit full of smoke, and having fought two flight deck fires in flight
I do not want this thread to become 'tit for tat'. My aim is to get people thinking and talking and in the long term help to find a solution to the lack of fire suppression in class E compartments.
I still have one question that I would like someone who flies in Europe to answer;
Which airlines in Europe, either passenger or cargo transport, are operating without smoke detection (i.e. class D)?
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that this is a difficult and emotive topic, one with which we would like to bury our heads in the sand. However, it is important that we keep this topic going and that we raise awareness levels.
Historically and statistically, there have not been many incidents of this nature. But when they do happen they are often, if not always catastrophic. This means that while infrequent in events the risk is still high to both the collateral and to human life.
As time goes by this risk is increasing, we fly more and more dangerous goods, new experimental materials and technologies. Those goods are transported further and more frequently, because of the world economic demand to have things produced and manufactured in the cheapest places. Time is becoming a greater factor, pushing more products toward air transport rather than sea transport. The transports that we use are growing in size and flying more direct routes, often a long way from their nearest diversion field (i.e. polar routes).
All these factors and many more that I am sure I have missed are increasing the risk of fire onboard transport category aircraft!
I need all of you to point this out to all those that you feel should listen, even if they may not listen.
If another accident occurs tomorrow the world’s ‘perceived risk’ will change. I would like for us to affect this ‘perceived risk’ before another accident has to happen.
I implore you all once again, to please spend two minutes of your time to email the FAA, EASA, JAA, your local Department for Transport, your local MP, Mayor or Governor, anybody you feel necessary with just a few of your thoughts on this topic.
I appreciate the complexities of coming up with a solution, but when it becomes a requirement you will be amazed at the speed and innovative endeavours that will result. It is simply a matter of motivation. There are research programs in place for many issues that when combined, could well create the solution we would like to see (An alternative to Halon for example). Determination and motivation cause change.
In 1961, one man reached the decision to get his nation and human kind to the moon;
The rest is history.
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
Historically and statistically, there have not been many incidents of this nature. But when they do happen they are often, if not always catastrophic. This means that while infrequent in events the risk is still high to both the collateral and to human life.
As time goes by this risk is increasing, we fly more and more dangerous goods, new experimental materials and technologies. Those goods are transported further and more frequently, because of the world economic demand to have things produced and manufactured in the cheapest places. Time is becoming a greater factor, pushing more products toward air transport rather than sea transport. The transports that we use are growing in size and flying more direct routes, often a long way from their nearest diversion field (i.e. polar routes).
All these factors and many more that I am sure I have missed are increasing the risk of fire onboard transport category aircraft!
I need all of you to point this out to all those that you feel should listen, even if they may not listen.
If another accident occurs tomorrow the world’s ‘perceived risk’ will change. I would like for us to affect this ‘perceived risk’ before another accident has to happen.
I implore you all once again, to please spend two minutes of your time to email the FAA, EASA, JAA, your local Department for Transport, your local MP, Mayor or Governor, anybody you feel necessary with just a few of your thoughts on this topic.
I appreciate the complexities of coming up with a solution, but when it becomes a requirement you will be amazed at the speed and innovative endeavours that will result. It is simply a matter of motivation. There are research programs in place for many issues that when combined, could well create the solution we would like to see (An alternative to Halon for example). Determination and motivation cause change.
In 1961, one man reached the decision to get his nation and human kind to the moon;
“We shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away, a giant rocket, more than three hundred feet tall, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented...” (J.F.K)
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
Cargo is not really my thing, but in my mind wouldnt it be a lot more practical /cheaper/effective to make sure that potentially combustible cargo is not loaded on the aircraft in the first place? I appreciate that there is a calculated risk with everything, but the possibility of such an occurance happening again could be minimised by all the operators without the complex and expensive process of installing on board fire suppresants, which seem to have limited effectiveness anyway. Seems to me what is needed here is not technology, but discipline to do the right thing before the aircraft even moves off the gate. Siiiiimples.....?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightmech
They are also spending money installing EFB's and HUD/EFVS systems. No liability issues there either.
Can not argue that with a machine (company) this size that fire supression that protects a cargo that is a considerable portion of the aircraft's value is not a liability to deliver with the amount of flights they operate.
A payout to the surviving families of a crashed cargo aircraft is pennies on the dollar compared to the insurance savings of cargo and airframe....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo is not really my thing, but in my mind wouldnt it be a lot more practical /cheaper/effective to make sure that potentially combustible cargo is not loaded on the aircraft in the first place?
You're suggesting that a major economic industry shut down because what's carried is hazardous...when that's largely why that industry exists; cargo aircraft carry hazmat.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FedEx Pallet blanket.
SNS3Guppy--- although you are informative, educated and experienced in both flying and fighting fires, I believe "ClassC" has a few valid points.
The industry needs to change, upgrade, spend money, ect. Whatever it is, they need to sink money into it. Those with the money to upgrade will survive, those who don't, wont. You suggest a hull loss may be cheaper to the operators than upgrading, but what if the UPS 747 were to have taken out an apartment on the way down?. I'm sure the insurance industry will always be monitoring their exposure to liability, and not just the hull ( and crew ). Costs will rise on those whose "exposure" places them at higher risk.
I also fly international, cargo with limited suppression on the main deck ( none ). Unlike you, I can't say that fighting a fire on the main deck would be useless. You do paint a pretty ugly picture of what a fire will progress to, left unchecked. Why not try to fight it?. It may be "readily accessible", or it may not. You "may" have the excess crew available to accomplish the task, you may not. If your mid-way over the pond, even if "extra" crew is unavailable, you be you ass I'm gonna try. If it reaches the point of "too hot to even get near", or "can't locate source", then I'm screwed. I'll deal with that as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, use you knowledge to help us plan to deal with it, not just paint a scenario of doom.
The FedEx fire suppression system is a great start. True, it won't apply to my airline, as we have pallets on the main deck. But the suppressive "blanket" over the pallet is a great idea. The only downside I see is that the "blanket" may delay discovering the fire.
The industry needs to change, upgrade, spend money, ect. Whatever it is, they need to sink money into it. Those with the money to upgrade will survive, those who don't, wont. You suggest a hull loss may be cheaper to the operators than upgrading, but what if the UPS 747 were to have taken out an apartment on the way down?. I'm sure the insurance industry will always be monitoring their exposure to liability, and not just the hull ( and crew ). Costs will rise on those whose "exposure" places them at higher risk.
I also fly international, cargo with limited suppression on the main deck ( none ). Unlike you, I can't say that fighting a fire on the main deck would be useless. You do paint a pretty ugly picture of what a fire will progress to, left unchecked. Why not try to fight it?. It may be "readily accessible", or it may not. You "may" have the excess crew available to accomplish the task, you may not. If your mid-way over the pond, even if "extra" crew is unavailable, you be you ass I'm gonna try. If it reaches the point of "too hot to even get near", or "can't locate source", then I'm screwed. I'll deal with that as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, use you knowledge to help us plan to deal with it, not just paint a scenario of doom.
The FedEx fire suppression system is a great start. True, it won't apply to my airline, as we have pallets on the main deck. But the suppressive "blanket" over the pallet is a great idea. The only downside I see is that the "blanket" may delay discovering the fire.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% Inspection
Really, falsely declared or improperly packed goods should not be allowed on the plane in the first place. I've been advocating for 100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers. We have an additional benefit here - bad stuff not getting shipped.
Today, once goods are packed by the manufacturer or shipper, there is little chance they will be opened for inspection - anywhere.
Sure, it would be ideal to do 100% inspection of goods at the port of embarcation, but that is difficult, and the exporter and exporting country don't have so much to lose.
100% inspection of imports would immensely reduce falsified shipments, as the goods could and should be destroyed upon arrival. That would kill the incentive for falsified or shoddily packaged shipments.
GB
Today, once goods are packed by the manufacturer or shipper, there is little chance they will be opened for inspection - anywhere.
Sure, it would be ideal to do 100% inspection of goods at the port of embarcation, but that is difficult, and the exporter and exporting country don't have so much to lose.
100% inspection of imports would immensely reduce falsified shipments, as the goods could and should be destroyed upon arrival. That would kill the incentive for falsified or shoddily packaged shipments.
GB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy,
I started this thread because I wanted to raise awareness, which ultimately will add pressure for a change to FAA rulings. I am getting fed up with your constant negative and destructive comments. Your posts make up a third of this thread, and all are negative, destructive, condescending and very repetitive. Quite frankly I feel that you are trying to sabotage everybody's efforts. You seem unable to allow anybody else to have an opinion, unless they agree with you.
You are NOT entirely knowledgeable when it comes to cargo operations and I am beginning to wonder whether you are quite who you say you are? Perhaps you are just trying to provoke reactions? Or maybe I am giving you far too much credit here, but could you possibly be management for a cargo outfit? Or perhaps even have links to the FAA?
I do not understand what vested interest you have in quashing any thoughts of fire suppression. If you simply think it is unlikely to happen or change why can't you ignore the thread? Instead you are hell-bent on trying to prove everybody else wrong and insisting only you know best. Yet apart from your own experiences, you lack any specific research, scientific and regulatory knowledge!
I am looking for people that can think outside of the box and take this matter with the seriousness that it deserves.
The UPS 6 accident has had an enormous impact on the community in Dubai. We had an event here, where a minute's silence was held for Capt Doug Lampe and First Officer Matthew Bell. Among the attendees were other flight crew members who had relayed communications for UPS during their attempts to return to Dubai. You can only imagine the emotion. There were many more who witnessed the tragic event from the perceived safety and security of their own homes. Many of which have made emotional statements among the local journals and papers.
I have no doubt UPS 6 will have a lasting impression on Dubai. I cannot even begin to imagine the impact it will have had on Doug and Matt's family, friends and colleagues.
With such tragic loss of life, more should be done to reduce the risk of such events happening again. The NTSB and the FAA have a growing list of documentation on the risks of cargo flights and hazardous materials. In my opinion The FAA is stalling on the issue with little decisiveness to find ways of addressing the problem.
Whatever caused the fire on UPS 6, they clearly did not have adequate fire suppression onboard.
Two issues need addressing;
1) Tighter controls on correct shipping of dangerous goods
2) As the last line of defence, we need adequate fire suppression in all holds.
Yes, this is going to cost money! I do not feel that even one life should be traded for fire suppression.
Class E to Class C ASAP
I started this thread because I wanted to raise awareness, which ultimately will add pressure for a change to FAA rulings. I am getting fed up with your constant negative and destructive comments. Your posts make up a third of this thread, and all are negative, destructive, condescending and very repetitive. Quite frankly I feel that you are trying to sabotage everybody's efforts. You seem unable to allow anybody else to have an opinion, unless they agree with you.
You are NOT entirely knowledgeable when it comes to cargo operations and I am beginning to wonder whether you are quite who you say you are? Perhaps you are just trying to provoke reactions? Or maybe I am giving you far too much credit here, but could you possibly be management for a cargo outfit? Or perhaps even have links to the FAA?
I do not understand what vested interest you have in quashing any thoughts of fire suppression. If you simply think it is unlikely to happen or change why can't you ignore the thread? Instead you are hell-bent on trying to prove everybody else wrong and insisting only you know best. Yet apart from your own experiences, you lack any specific research, scientific and regulatory knowledge!
I am looking for people that can think outside of the box and take this matter with the seriousness that it deserves.
The UPS 6 accident has had an enormous impact on the community in Dubai. We had an event here, where a minute's silence was held for Capt Doug Lampe and First Officer Matthew Bell. Among the attendees were other flight crew members who had relayed communications for UPS during their attempts to return to Dubai. You can only imagine the emotion. There were many more who witnessed the tragic event from the perceived safety and security of their own homes. Many of which have made emotional statements among the local journals and papers.
I have no doubt UPS 6 will have a lasting impression on Dubai. I cannot even begin to imagine the impact it will have had on Doug and Matt's family, friends and colleagues.
With such tragic loss of life, more should be done to reduce the risk of such events happening again. The NTSB and the FAA have a growing list of documentation on the risks of cargo flights and hazardous materials. In my opinion The FAA is stalling on the issue with little decisiveness to find ways of addressing the problem.
Whatever caused the fire on UPS 6, they clearly did not have adequate fire suppression onboard.
Two issues need addressing;
1) Tighter controls on correct shipping of dangerous goods
2) As the last line of defence, we need adequate fire suppression in all holds.
Yes, this is going to cost money! I do not feel that even one life should be traded for fire suppression.
Class E to Class C ASAP
Graybeard,ClassCbird
I'm afraid that in all of this I have to go with Guppy.
Just this weekend a 744 departed LHR with a door warning light on. He came around for an expeditious return. End of story, except it made the front page of the Sunday tabloids.
The two poor guys who lost their lives in DXB were dwarfed in the news by the parachute aircraft that crashed the following day in NZ. Not only in the news but also in the industry. The bean counters saw two deaths in a cargo a/c and nothing more. Their thoughts were pay up if necessary and move on.
There's enough difficulty in X-raying pax bags on selected flights before there will be money spent on X-raying any cargo a/c loads. This is now an instant world and folks aren't going to wait for (literally) shipping when they've been used to flying freight delivery times.
More vigilance from the crews will alleiviate some of the problem. Just as we check loadsheets carefully so should we check the load itself and know what we're carrying. Cos nobody else will give a care. And that's whether it's been loaded correctly or not or whether we reach destination or not.
S
Just this weekend a 744 departed LHR with a door warning light on. He came around for an expeditious return. End of story, except it made the front page of the Sunday tabloids.
The two poor guys who lost their lives in DXB were dwarfed in the news by the parachute aircraft that crashed the following day in NZ. Not only in the news but also in the industry. The bean counters saw two deaths in a cargo a/c and nothing more. Their thoughts were pay up if necessary and move on.
There's enough difficulty in X-raying pax bags on selected flights before there will be money spent on X-raying any cargo a/c loads. This is now an instant world and folks aren't going to wait for (literally) shipping when they've been used to flying freight delivery times.
More vigilance from the crews will alleiviate some of the problem. Just as we check loadsheets carefully so should we check the load itself and know what we're carrying. Cos nobody else will give a care. And that's whether it's been loaded correctly or not or whether we reach destination or not.
S
Guppy I recently read a fascinating book about Alaska Smoke-jumpers, and their God...i.e the God of Alaska Smoke Jumpers is known as 'Big Ernie'
Supposedly if you don't honor your work then 'Big E' makes things interesting for them...to say the least
...I know that sometimes all you guys from the different regions cooperate,...but I guess Big Ernie is limited to Alaska's Men...I don't remember the name of the book...but I sure love you posts on aerial firefighting...a subject that I much prefer to learn about from a safe distance from someone who's been there than to be there myself....
Love your posts
Supposedly if you don't honor your work then 'Big E' makes things interesting for them...to say the least
...I know that sometimes all you guys from the different regions cooperate,...but I guess Big Ernie is limited to Alaska's Men...I don't remember the name of the book...but I sure love you posts on aerial firefighting...a subject that I much prefer to learn about from a safe distance from someone who's been there than to be there myself....Love your posts
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Detention!
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Economies *£*$*%*#
Sygyzy,
I hear what you are saying about the press coverage of incidents. It is both shocking and indecent that the worlds news is so imbalanced.
But with regard to economics and the lack of money in the pot, this is a lie that all airlines want us to believe, it is simple economics to spend as little as they can get away with. While I appreciate that some companies have less cash reserves or perhaps questionable financial backing, this is a constant!
Whether it be to argue their case in not raising our pay or employing enough staff for the job, Airlines are forever making decisions that they will claim are to save money. Many of which are short term savings and long term costs. The propoganda that follows these anouncements is always designed to make us fearful of losing our jobs (easily managed when you look at the relative instability of individual companies in history). But Aviation still keeps growing!
You said it yourself! The economic demand for Air Transport is strong! If the rules were changed, do you think it would be less economical to transport goods by Air? Of course not! It would be relatively low long term cost, and easier to plan for the bean counters than the constant and much more damaging variation in Fuel prices. It would be a level playing field for all companies if fire suppression were mandated.
The airlines have coped and continue to grow in light of other restrictive regulations, including the abolition of Class D cargo compartments.
I hear what you are saying about the press coverage of incidents. It is both shocking and indecent that the worlds news is so imbalanced.
But with regard to economics and the lack of money in the pot, this is a lie that all airlines want us to believe, it is simple economics to spend as little as they can get away with. While I appreciate that some companies have less cash reserves or perhaps questionable financial backing, this is a constant!
Whether it be to argue their case in not raising our pay or employing enough staff for the job, Airlines are forever making decisions that they will claim are to save money. Many of which are short term savings and long term costs. The propoganda that follows these anouncements is always designed to make us fearful of losing our jobs (easily managed when you look at the relative instability of individual companies in history). But Aviation still keeps growing!
This is now an instant world and folks aren't going to wait for (literally) shipping when they've been used to flying freight delivery times.
The airlines have coped and continue to grow in light of other restrictive regulations, including the abolition of Class D cargo compartments.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: st louis
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FedEx fire suppression system is a great start. True, it won't apply to my airline, as we have pallets on the main deck. But the suppressive "blanket" over the pallet is a great idea. The only downside I see is that the "blanket" may delay discovering the fire.
I hate to bust your bubble but FedEx carries a lot more than cans. Enter any international destination FedEx bird in addition to domestic aircraft and you will see a lot of pallet freight, including a lot of DG on pallets.
I hate to bust your bubble but FedEx carries a lot more than cans. Enter any international destination FedEx bird in addition to domestic aircraft and you will see a lot of pallet freight, including a lot of DG on pallets.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chill.
No need to worry mate, I understand FedEx does a lot of palletised cargo as well. Great operation and apparently leading the field in trying to find answers to this problem. I was just making a point, that after watching to video, since we ONLY carry pallets, that the "drop-down-container- puncturing-device" would not apply to our operation. However, the "blanket" would be a viable option, and easy enough to install( over hazardous cargo ), that a Caveman could do it....( notice that I didn't mention Lagos or any specific country ).