Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Freight Dogs
Reload this Page >

Urgent call for fire suppression in Main Deck holds!

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Freight Dogs Finally a forum for those midnight prowler types who utilise the unglamorous parts of airports that many of us never get to see. Freight Dogs is for pilots and crew who operate mostly without SLF.

Urgent call for fire suppression in Main Deck holds!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 7th October 2010 | 17:25
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: st louis
Agreed, FedEx is the leader in in-flight fire safety and have many in-fire prevention systems. Blankets above haz can, fire extinguishers systems, etc. Even on the aircraft that do not have the new system every aircraft has a fire supression system that is connected to a haz can and is hooked up only after it is inspected by the crew.
In my mind it is related to cost and FedEx is willing to spend the bucks in the prevention of in-flight fires. Not to say there will never be one, in aviation never is a word not spoken. But FedEx does and will continue their R&D for this all important problem. And for us who do not enjoy the luxury to work for a top notch airline that can afford such an expenditure, lets hope they do have the desire to adopt the work of others.
3pointlanding is offline  
Reply
Old 10th October 2010 | 06:20
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
From: earth
In my mind it is related to cost and FedEx is willing to spend the bucks in the prevention of in-flight fires.
Right, Do you know what a STC is and how valuable it is if marketable?

One side of the coin.

Also take in mind what FedEx's insurance cost's are after recent hull losses and the insurance savings they gain by producing and operating with this system...

Guppy, respect you for being a realist on this issue.
grounded27 is offline  
Reply
Old 13th October 2010 | 13:26
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: st louis
FedEx would not allow that cargo configuration regardless of the IATA rules And the hull loss at Narita had nothing to do with cargo.

Last edited by 3pointlanding; 13th October 2010 at 13:28. Reason: Addition
3pointlanding is offline  
Reply
Old 14th October 2010 | 13:53
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
And what of the legal, properly-packed loads?

I recently carried a shipment which contained two pallets containing large quantities of Lithium batteries...each packed surrounded by resins, solvents, and flammable liquids, including some fairly nasty products such as MEK. Perfectly legal, yet entirely uncontrollable should they have found an ignition source.
That's incredibly bad practice.

Whoever loaded that pallet needs a word.
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



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

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.