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
Urgent call for fire suppression in Main Deck holds!
It is looking very likely that the UPS cargo aircraft that came down in DXB had a fire in the main deck hold. I am appauled that to this day, there is still no regulatory mandate for cargo aircraft to have fire suppression in their main deck holds. I would have thought that after two previous events which resulted in hull losses due to fire (FedEx 1406 and UPS 1307), the FAA would start taking this matter very seriously. What will it take for things to change?
I have appealed to the FAA to mandate fire suppression in main deck holds and I urge you all to do the same!
I salute FedEx for taking the initiative to install fire suppressant to their cargo fleet. I implore you all to press the regulators for this to be standard as soon as possible before more lives are lost. Not just to pilots but to the general public on the ground.
Why should passenger carrying aircraft be given stricter regulation over cargo aircraft?
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
God bless you all.
I have appealed to the FAA to mandate fire suppression in main deck holds and I urge you all to do the same!
I salute FedEx for taking the initiative to install fire suppressant to their cargo fleet. I implore you all to press the regulators for this to be standard as soon as possible before more lives are lost. Not just to pilots but to the general public on the ground.
Why should passenger carrying aircraft be given stricter regulation over cargo aircraft?
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
God bless you all.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Difficult Question
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too applaud FedEx for their decision to install fire suppression systems in their aircraft.
Meanwhile all the worlds aviation regulators sit on their hands waiting for a freighter accident to occur where the general public are involved (i.e. a crash in a populated area involving significant loss of life). I am disgusted by the attitude of regulators and politcians (whose role is to regulate for the sake of public safety) who assume that this won't happen because it hasn't happened already. I know there is an FAA working group, but this has been meeting for nearly 20 years now.
Regardless of the outcome of the enquiry, I hope that UPS can see beyond the possibilty that if their crew did something different they may have bought themselves the extra few minutes needed for survival and see that same situation could have occurred when more than 3 hours flight time from a suitable field.
Will TNT wait until they suffer from a hull loss due to fire before acting?
I fly domestic freight. I have no fire suppression in the aircraft holds. I have detection only in the main hold. There isn't even detection in the lower cargo holds. Guess what my biggest worry is every time I get airborne?
Fire suppression systems become even more difficult to fit in "Quick Change" aircraft of which there are many in the world. I can see that the fitting of my aircraft with any system would cost several times the price of the airframe. Mandating this on such old aircraft would definately put a lot of small freight companies out of business. Even so, it is still the right thing to do.
Mandating this on new aircraft would obviously make buying new aircraft a bit more expensive. The insurance companies are the last hope for making the economic case for installing fire suppresion systems. The regulators have demonstrated very clearly that they won't act.
Meanwhile all the worlds aviation regulators sit on their hands waiting for a freighter accident to occur where the general public are involved (i.e. a crash in a populated area involving significant loss of life). I am disgusted by the attitude of regulators and politcians (whose role is to regulate for the sake of public safety) who assume that this won't happen because it hasn't happened already. I know there is an FAA working group, but this has been meeting for nearly 20 years now.
Regardless of the outcome of the enquiry, I hope that UPS can see beyond the possibilty that if their crew did something different they may have bought themselves the extra few minutes needed for survival and see that same situation could have occurred when more than 3 hours flight time from a suitable field.
Will TNT wait until they suffer from a hull loss due to fire before acting?
I fly domestic freight. I have no fire suppression in the aircraft holds. I have detection only in the main hold. There isn't even detection in the lower cargo holds. Guess what my biggest worry is every time I get airborne?
Fire suppression systems become even more difficult to fit in "Quick Change" aircraft of which there are many in the world. I can see that the fitting of my aircraft with any system would cost several times the price of the airframe. Mandating this on such old aircraft would definately put a lot of small freight companies out of business. Even so, it is still the right thing to do.
Mandating this on new aircraft would obviously make buying new aircraft a bit more expensive. The insurance companies are the last hope for making the economic case for installing fire suppresion systems. The regulators have demonstrated very clearly that they won't act.
SNS3Guppy
Don't fly cargo anymore, but the C-5A (not the B-model) had 18 FE 1301 bottles that could flood the cargo and avionics areas with fire suppressant. It shouldn't be that hard to provide protection. We also had LN2 to inert the fuel tanks and flood the dry bays around the fuel tanks. They did get rid of it in the Bs, however.
GF
Don't fly cargo anymore, but the C-5A (not the B-model) had 18 FE 1301 bottles that could flood the cargo and avionics areas with fire suppressant. It shouldn't be that hard to provide protection. We also had LN2 to inert the fuel tanks and flood the dry bays around the fuel tanks. They did get rid of it in the Bs, however.
GF
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Difficult Question
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On reflection, I realise that the "cost of the accident" verses "fire suppression installation" calculation has already been done. In my naivety I thought the possibilty of a burning freight aircraft hitting a populous area may not have previously been included in the calculation. Maybe it has and the risk is acceptably small, but could and therefore will happen.
FedEx have calculators too. How have they come up with a different answer compared to ever other operator? Any Actuaries care to comment?
SNS3Guppy
I accept that a proportion of fires are uncontrollable, and some will burn themselves out, and the rest fall somewhere inbetween. I obviously accept the risk too because I still turn up for work. Thankfully hand-guns are illegal where I live so there is a reduced chance of me ending my days that way. Reducing the risk of death-by-fire in the air also appeals to my attitude to risk.
FedEx have calculators too. How have they come up with a different answer compared to ever other operator? Any Actuaries care to comment?
SNS3Guppy
I accept that a proportion of fires are uncontrollable, and some will burn themselves out, and the rest fall somewhere inbetween. I obviously accept the risk too because I still turn up for work. Thankfully hand-guns are illegal where I live so there is a reduced chance of me ending my days that way. Reducing the risk of death-by-fire in the air also appeals to my attitude to risk.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Difficult Question
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy
I will sleep well with a smile on my face thinking of your poetic illustrations of low probabilities. You seem to be an actuarial word-smith as well as a pilot.
I don't smoke and still no hand-guns allowed here, so I'll use my axe to fend off the tiger.
I doubt we will even get EVAS installed due to numbers calculated by bean counters whose cynicism may even exceed yours. The whole of aviation safety is based upon subjective probability calculations. You have made your judgement and I hear it loud and clear.
Good luck with the wife when the next CC bill arrives.
I don't smoke and still no hand-guns allowed here, so I'll use my axe to fend off the tiger.
I doubt we will even get EVAS installed due to numbers calculated by bean counters whose cynicism may even exceed yours. The whole of aviation safety is based upon subjective probability calculations. You have made your judgement and I hear it loud and clear.
Good luck with the wife when the next CC bill arrives.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when more than 3 hours flight time from a suitable field.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that a critically important point is being missed in these discussions.
There is a means of fighting a main deck fire, and that is to depressurize the airplane and remain at altitude until the last possible moment. In the case of the 747 the checklist results in an unpressurized airplane at FL 250 – and the checklist even calls for a climb to that altitude if necessary.
The mindset should not be to start down to the nearest airport -- the mindset should be to start toward the nearest airport but to stay at altitude for as long as possible before making like a brick for the runway. Starting down early needs to be recognized as a potentially fatal mistake.
This begs the question of how much distance it does take to get from FL250 to the runway end. It also brings up the question of what to do if there is a fire while over a large body of water. There are serious physiological issues with unpressurized flight above FL250, but they pale in comparison to a fire and/or an open water ditching. So this guy is going UP if things are not rapidly improving once depressurized at FL250.
There is a means of fighting a main deck fire, and that is to depressurize the airplane and remain at altitude until the last possible moment. In the case of the 747 the checklist results in an unpressurized airplane at FL 250 – and the checklist even calls for a climb to that altitude if necessary.
The mindset should not be to start down to the nearest airport -- the mindset should be to start toward the nearest airport but to stay at altitude for as long as possible before making like a brick for the runway. Starting down early needs to be recognized as a potentially fatal mistake.
This begs the question of how much distance it does take to get from FL250 to the runway end. It also brings up the question of what to do if there is a fire while over a large body of water. There are serious physiological issues with unpressurized flight above FL250, but they pale in comparison to a fire and/or an open water ditching. So this guy is going UP if things are not rapidly improving once depressurized at FL250.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starve the Beast
Starve the beast of oxygen, and it dies. Engine exhaust is almost totally devoid of oxygen, and it's free for the taking. Just maybe there is a way to cool it enough and route it into all cargo bays.
It's mainly a plumbing challenge.
GB
It's mainly a plumbing challenge.
GB
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex 'Mr Shifter' cargo F/E (forced into early retirement from flying) I was somewhat ammused by the 'fire-fighting kit' that was provided by the company for the purpose of fighting a Main Deck fire.
Given that the QRH Fire/Smoke drills are quite lengthy/complex, it was somewhat of a joke to expect a 'duty hero' to go down there armed with a smoke mask and a fire bottle whilst 'dressed' in a 'fire suit'.
I agree with SNS3Guppy; the complexities of trying to suppress a cargo fire are somewhat onerous. You could also say... futile! That being said, making a climb into 'thinner air' is also a bit of a 'pipe-dream', because despite the scientific malarky of taking away the oxygen, to suppress the fire, you'd have to outclimb the performance of the aeroplane in order to do so.
Captain to Eng... engage 'warp drive' and get us into orbit... asap!
The practicalities are somewhat limiting... don't you agree?
Given the choice of African Killer Bees or a Cargo Fire... what's the difference; open-up your duty free booze and have a final drink and a smoke before you arrive at the hard-deck.
Ooops, sorry chaps, I mustn't provide 'second-hand' smoke; have one of mine... smoking kills!
My appologies for being flippant, but if you're going to lie-awake all night (all day for cargo chaps) worrying about a cargo fire... it's time to hang-up your headset.
TCF
Given that the QRH Fire/Smoke drills are quite lengthy/complex, it was somewhat of a joke to expect a 'duty hero' to go down there armed with a smoke mask and a fire bottle whilst 'dressed' in a 'fire suit'.
I agree with SNS3Guppy; the complexities of trying to suppress a cargo fire are somewhat onerous. You could also say... futile! That being said, making a climb into 'thinner air' is also a bit of a 'pipe-dream', because despite the scientific malarky of taking away the oxygen, to suppress the fire, you'd have to outclimb the performance of the aeroplane in order to do so.
Captain to Eng... engage 'warp drive' and get us into orbit... asap!
The practicalities are somewhat limiting... don't you agree?
Given the choice of African Killer Bees or a Cargo Fire... what's the difference; open-up your duty free booze and have a final drink and a smoke before you arrive at the hard-deck.
Ooops, sorry chaps, I mustn't provide 'second-hand' smoke; have one of mine... smoking kills!
My appologies for being flippant, but if you're going to lie-awake all night (all day for cargo chaps) worrying about a cargo fire... it's time to hang-up your headset.
TCF
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You all must understand that package airlines have much less visibility over hazmat as the source of their cargo is extremely diverse. ACMI and heavylift is generally full of exposed cargo that is easy to identify.
The root cause is the shipper not declaring their cargo as hazmat, this is the issue that needs to be addressed..
The root cause is the shipper not declaring their cargo as hazmat, this is the issue that needs to be addressed..
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starve the Beast
Not a chemical reaction, and not a self-oxidizing fire. Further, one may not see flame, but one can still have combustion as a chemical process, producing heat, adequate to do substantial damage.
Ever seen a thermal runaway on a nicad battery?
The "fire triangle" was amended many years ago to become the fire tetrahedron, to include chemical interaction. Starving a fire of oxygen does not necessarily extinguish it right away, or at all, and may do little to stop the damage being done by the fire. Furthermore, a fire which is starved of oxygen still has heat, still has chemical interaction, and so long as fuel remains may progress in several ways.
Ever seen a thermal runaway on a nicad battery?
The "fire triangle" was amended many years ago to become the fire tetrahedron, to include chemical interaction. Starving a fire of oxygen does not necessarily extinguish it right away, or at all, and may do little to stop the damage being done by the fire. Furthermore, a fire which is starved of oxygen still has heat, still has chemical interaction, and so long as fuel remains may progress in several ways.
Beyond thermal runaway, I've seen a plane where the main NiCd battery exploded. Fortunately, it was while the MD-80 was being towed empty. That's one reason there are temperature sensors on NiCd batteries. Lead-acid batteries explode, too.
GB
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fire will spread if the chemicals are oxidizers.
Things do not like to burn at altitude, and we should not ignore the one trick that we have up our sleeve. So I am following the checklist while getting pointed to the nearest airport. And then I am going to sit at altitude, unpressurized, until the last possible moment. Then, and only then, will I start down like a brick for the runway. Gear down, speed brakes out, Vle (+ a bit). Like a Baron full of Doctors.
The ability to depressurize and remain at altitude is a huge advantage that freighters have over passenger flights. It is not a great solution, but it is worth more than doing nothing. And it is certainly better than going down early.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume you are referring to FedEx and UPS as package flyers. How wrong you are sir. FedEx hauls pallet freight as well, and it also carries a lot of haz mat and has fire suppression systems for the haz mat. It is a matter of cost and cost is not a priority with FedEx, safety is.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagree on the liability being a priority statement regarding the FSS. I think it's a good piece of business. Making your own fleet safer plus developing and owning the STC with the possibility of selling it to other carriers. They are also spending money installing EFB's and HUD/EFVS systems. No liability issues there either.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Detention!
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the statement that liability is not the issue! We can all be cynical about this industry, lets face it, if FedEx were investing all this time and money only because of the risk of liability then ALL the other operators would be doing the same.
Sadly, the reality is that the risk of liability is not high enough for the majority to change the status quo. It is incredibly hard to be proactive in this industry and unfortunately most companies are still very reactive.
I am behind FedEx, I think they are making a very strong statement their workforce, to their potential customers and to the rest of the industry including the regulators. I hope it works out well for them.
I have just discovered that my airline is going to have me flying the some cargo flights quite soon. I am not at all comfortable with the idea of relying on raising the cabin altitude to suppress a fire somewhere over the Pacific! Aviation has not moved on much in the last two decades! Yet the cargo we carry has! More Dangerous goods, bigger payloads (Bigger aircraft), less crew to deal with the unthinkable!
All the time we just quietly accept this situation, either because we are resigned, cynical, think it is too hard, or simply don't want to raise our heads we are doing ourselves a huge injustice!
I am going to follow ClassCBird's example and write an email or letter to my authority... It may have little impact, but if we all do it, a few people will become a lot more aware of the potential problem. Talk to you Unions, talk to your friends, talk to anybody that will listen! Lets get something better than we have now.
Sadly, the reality is that the risk of liability is not high enough for the majority to change the status quo. It is incredibly hard to be proactive in this industry and unfortunately most companies are still very reactive.
I am behind FedEx, I think they are making a very strong statement their workforce, to their potential customers and to the rest of the industry including the regulators. I hope it works out well for them.
I have just discovered that my airline is going to have me flying the some cargo flights quite soon. I am not at all comfortable with the idea of relying on raising the cabin altitude to suppress a fire somewhere over the Pacific! Aviation has not moved on much in the last two decades! Yet the cargo we carry has! More Dangerous goods, bigger payloads (Bigger aircraft), less crew to deal with the unthinkable!
All the time we just quietly accept this situation, either because we are resigned, cynical, think it is too hard, or simply don't want to raise our heads we are doing ourselves a huge injustice!
I am going to follow ClassCBird's example and write an email or letter to my authority... It may have little impact, but if we all do it, a few people will become a lot more aware of the potential problem. Talk to you Unions, talk to your friends, talk to anybody that will listen! Lets get something better than we have now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, thank you to everybody who has contributed to this thread. I feel very strongly about this topic and intend to do everything in my power to get the rules changed.
I'm aware that Class D compartments no longer exist as was mandated by the FAA Airwothiness Directives in 1998 (FAR 25.857). ( Obviously this only applies to American-registered aircraft). My understanding is that Europe (EASA) followed this change in 2003 in the JAA Certification Specifications and that all aircraft registered FROM these dates will only have Class E or Class C cargo compartments.
The FAA had gone one step further to mandate all older aircraft be upgraded from Class D to Class E or C by 2001 in accordance with:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 28937, Amendment No. 25-93]
"These amendments upgrade the fire safety standards for cargo or baggage compartments in certain transport category airplanes by eliminating Class D compartments as an option for future type certification. Compartments that can no longer be designated as Class D must meet the standards for Class C or Class E compartments, as applicable. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppression standards for Class C compartments by early 2001 for use in air carrier, or most other commercial service. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used only for the carriage of cargo must also meet such standards or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments by that date for such service. These improved standards are adopted to increase protection from possible in-flight fires."
Unfortunately I have learned that Europe is still more than a decade behind this ruling and refer you to:
ToR 26.003 dated 17th Sept 2010
"3. Objective:
The objective is to improve the protection of occupants onboard large aeroplanes
operated in commercial air transportation (CAT), by removing the risk of uncontrollable fire in Class D compartments.
This improvement would be reached by upgrading, on large aeroplanes used for CAT, the existing Class D cargo compartments to the current CS-25 standards for Class C or Class E cargo compartments."
This change is only proposed and the decision is set for 2012! Far too little far too late!
I have some questions;
How does adding detection remove the risk of "uncontrollable fire in Class D compartments"?! This is not a form of control!
Are there still cargo operations within the US airspace on aircraft with no fire/smoke detection within compartments?! (i.e non US registered aircraft)
Which airlines within Europe are operating without smoke detection? (Pax or cargo)
I have written to the NTSB, the FAA and to Mr Obama about this topic and intend to take it a lot further.
Please don't let Capt Doug Lampe and FO Matthew Bell's deaths be for nothing...
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
I'm aware that Class D compartments no longer exist as was mandated by the FAA Airwothiness Directives in 1998 (FAR 25.857). ( Obviously this only applies to American-registered aircraft). My understanding is that Europe (EASA) followed this change in 2003 in the JAA Certification Specifications and that all aircraft registered FROM these dates will only have Class E or Class C cargo compartments.
The FAA had gone one step further to mandate all older aircraft be upgraded from Class D to Class E or C by 2001 in accordance with:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 28937, Amendment No. 25-93]
"These amendments upgrade the fire safety standards for cargo or baggage compartments in certain transport category airplanes by eliminating Class D compartments as an option for future type certification. Compartments that can no longer be designated as Class D must meet the standards for Class C or Class E compartments, as applicable. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppression standards for Class C compartments by early 2001 for use in air carrier, or most other commercial service. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used only for the carriage of cargo must also meet such standards or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments by that date for such service. These improved standards are adopted to increase protection from possible in-flight fires."
Unfortunately I have learned that Europe is still more than a decade behind this ruling and refer you to:
ToR 26.003 dated 17th Sept 2010
"3. Objective:
The objective is to improve the protection of occupants onboard large aeroplanes
operated in commercial air transportation (CAT), by removing the risk of uncontrollable fire in Class D compartments.
This improvement would be reached by upgrading, on large aeroplanes used for CAT, the existing Class D cargo compartments to the current CS-25 standards for Class C or Class E cargo compartments."
This change is only proposed and the decision is set for 2012! Far too little far too late!
I have some questions;
How does adding detection remove the risk of "uncontrollable fire in Class D compartments"?! This is not a form of control!
Are there still cargo operations within the US airspace on aircraft with no fire/smoke detection within compartments?! (i.e non US registered aircraft)
Which airlines within Europe are operating without smoke detection? (Pax or cargo)
I have written to the NTSB, the FAA and to Mr Obama about this topic and intend to take it a lot further.
Please don't let Capt Doug Lampe and FO Matthew Bell's deaths be for nothing...
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello SNS3Guppy,
Are you talking about USA? My understanding is that the FAA Certification Standards changed from 1998 as you state.
But I also note the following ammendment to the rules which were supposed to relate to all aircraft registered from 1958 to 1998 that were not covered by these standards. My understanding of this rule means that ALL US registered transport category aircraft had to upgrade Class D compartments to Class C or E by 2001. This was as a result of AA132 and ValuJet592...
If you can show me an existing document that shows otherwise I would be very interested.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 28937, Amendment No. 25-93]
"...The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppression standards for Class C compartments by early 2001 for use in air carrier, or most other commercial service. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used only for the carriage of cargo must also meet such standards or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments by that date for such service. These improved standards are adopted to increase protection from possible in-flight fires."
Thanks
Are you talking about USA? My understanding is that the FAA Certification Standards changed from 1998 as you state.
But I also note the following ammendment to the rules which were supposed to relate to all aircraft registered from 1958 to 1998 that were not covered by these standards. My understanding of this rule means that ALL US registered transport category aircraft had to upgrade Class D compartments to Class C or E by 2001. This was as a result of AA132 and ValuJet592...
If you can show me an existing document that shows otherwise I would be very interested.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 28937, Amendment No. 25-93]
"...The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used in passenger service must meet the fire or smoke detection and fire suppression standards for Class C compartments by early 2001 for use in air carrier, or most other commercial service. The Class D compartments in certain transport category airplanes manufactured under existing type certificates and used only for the carriage of cargo must also meet such standards or the corresponding standards for Class E compartments by that date for such service. These improved standards are adopted to increase protection from possible in-flight fires."
Thanks
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a video from FedEx explaining the Onboard Automatic Fire Suppression System
Does anybody know or can give an estimate how much the FedEx system actually costs?
How much time does it need to install that system in an existing airframe?
Does anybody know or can give an estimate how much the FedEx system actually costs?
How much time does it need to install that system in an existing airframe?