Asiana 747F missing?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick question/s from a non expert humble apoligies if stupid ones
Both the UPS and Asiana accident so soon after take off from hot destinations. Any trend?
Would the batteries be the source of the fire or just add to it.
Why no ban surely?
God bless the crew
Both the UPS and Asiana accident so soon after take off from hot destinations. Any trend?
Would the batteries be the source of the fire or just add to it.
Why no ban surely?
God bless the crew
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Midlands
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if anyone has suggested it before but I think it should be mandated that a load supervisor be included in the min crew whenever DAC is carried. I'm sure there are other tasks they could help with, chivi-ing the loaders etc as well. There are plenty of Air Stewards/esses that would volunteer for the extra role.
Seems like the ideal solution to me...
Seems like the ideal solution to me...
Henra,
As far as I know this is a physiology thing. Somehow the body cannot handle the low pressure above 25000 ft, even while having an oxygen mask on with 100% oxygen. Above 25000ft, there would be a need for pressure suits and pressure oxygen. Anyone able to confirm this for a fact?
On the other hand I'm not sure if 25.000 ft is really a good idea. If not ditching I would say fly as high as you can. and get cool thin air in the Cargo compartment. I don't get the rational behind the 25000 ft.
N4790P
Quote:
although wasn't SAA 747 brought down years ago in the Indian Ocean by a cargo hold fire with large loss of life?
It was a 747SP Combi. There was a long government cover up with the usual conspiracy theories, eventually when apartheid ended the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission confirmed that the aircraft was carrying a secret shipment of solid fuel rocket propellant for a missile project. Interestingly this could not have been the original cause of the fire because it would have destroyed the aircraft in seconds rather than the time that they flew an attempted diversion. It is likely that a minor fire spread slowly until it reached the dangerous cargo.
Google for "Helderberg disaster" if you have a few hours to spare wading through the crackpot theories.
although wasn't SAA 747 brought down years ago in the Indian Ocean by a cargo hold fire with large loss of life?
It was a 747SP Combi. There was a long government cover up with the usual conspiracy theories, eventually when apartheid ended the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission confirmed that the aircraft was carrying a secret shipment of solid fuel rocket propellant for a missile project. Interestingly this could not have been the original cause of the fire because it would have destroyed the aircraft in seconds rather than the time that they flew an attempted diversion. It is likely that a minor fire spread slowly until it reached the dangerous cargo.
Google for "Helderberg disaster" if you have a few hours to spare wading through the crackpot theories.
I viewed the reassembled wreckage of the Helderberg in the old SAA apprentice hangar at Jan Smuts some 20 odd years ago and a very somber experience it was. More so because I had drunk more than a beer or 2 with a member of the flight crew on numerous occasions. (Hanger 5 anyone!!!)
Although the investigation left a lot to be desired and there are too many conflicts of interests to clearly establish the true cause and exactly what happened in the final moments, the reassembled fuselage clearly showed that the control cables had been torn apart as opposed to being damaged by the fire and there is no doubt that this was a very significant fire.
The heat within the cabin was so intense that the top of the reassemble fuselage which should have been white was discolored brown and the fire damage aft of the rear most galley had to be seen to be believed.
What I find surprising is that with both the UPS tragedy and now Asiana, it appears from reports that quite early on control problems were experienced, however from what we know of the Helderberg disaster, they didn’t experience any.
The CVR also gave no indications of control problems up until the point when the airframe apparently failed (IIRC Boeing disputed this).
My question therefore is – are the B744F control runs and/or protection significantly different to those on the B742? It seems odd that the 742 experience a massive 1000C+ fire for a similar if not longer timeframe than the B744Fs yet the integrity of the controls appeared to be maintained.
Last edited by ZFT; 29th Jul 2011 at 22:33.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know this is a physiology thing. Somehow the body cannot handle the low pressure above 25000 ft, even while having an oxygen mask on with 100% oxygen. Above 25000ft, there would be a need for pressure suits and pressure oxygen. Anyone able to confirm this for a fact?
Only above 60.000ft a absolute need for a constant pressure suit becomes an issue.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parachutes and ejector seats may sound great in theory, but they are not a lot of use if the emergency happens in the middle of a 10 hour overwater flight. The priority (IMHO) really needs to be on preventing the fires from occurring in the first place.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Age: 68
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it the lack of understanding about the mechanics and dynamics of such battery fires or that freight/airline company choose to ignore the facts?
We have seen videos of battery fires in our DG safety classes and it is patently clear that the festering heat remaining even when the fires are extingushed can keep reigniting when the correct conditions reappear. The thermal runaway can only be contained by sustained cooling.
We have seen videos of battery fires in our DG safety classes and it is patently clear that the festering heat remaining even when the fires are extingushed can keep reigniting when the correct conditions reappear. The thermal runaway can only be contained by sustained cooling.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: I don't really hate them...I just miss flight attendants.
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, no one cares that a "CARGO" aircraft crashed. Only 2 fatalities. That's not enough to interest the general public. But, thankfully, management always puts safety ahead of profits. 
Why can't they ship these damned batteries on boats?
Ejection seats on freighters? Get a clue. Have you ever sat in an ejection seat for a 1 hour sortie? You sure as hell do not want to fly a long-haul sector on a seat with nearly no cushion, no means of reclining and no armrests. Besides the fact that management would disarm them all permanently the first time a crew punched out and lost millions of $$$ of profits.
Why can't they ship these damned batteries on boats?
Ejection seats on freighters? Get a clue. Have you ever sat in an ejection seat for a 1 hour sortie? You sure as hell do not want to fly a long-haul sector on a seat with nearly no cushion, no means of reclining and no armrests. Besides the fact that management would disarm them all permanently the first time a crew punched out and lost millions of $$$ of profits.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lithium Ion batteries being certainly a great candidate. With the plane under water, I wonder if they will be able to establish the source of the blaze? Maybe it wasnt the li-on batteries? Are these batteries no danger if not charged? IF so that solves that problem in future.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're being creative here, how about a RPV a la Global Hawk to carry DG?
Or maybe more bizzare, a towed cargo glider with autoland after it's cut loose? It could be a blended wing-body for minimum drag; no need for a pax version which would need windows.
Or maybe more bizzare, a towed cargo glider with autoland after it's cut loose? It could be a blended wing-body for minimum drag; no need for a pax version which would need windows.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody suggested shipping Li-ion batteries in discharged state. Here's from wiki:
GB
Prolonging battery pack life
- Depletion below the low-voltage threshold (2.4 to 2.8 V/cell, depending on chemistry) results in a dead battery which does not even appear to charge because the protection circuit (a type of electronic fuse) disables it.[97] This can be reversed in many modern batteries, especially single-cell ones, by applying a charging voltage for long enough to make the cell voltage rise above the low-voltage threshold; however this behaviour varies by manufacturer.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pressure suits are not needed , oxygen masks will do just fine.
Only above 60.000ft a absolute need for a constant pressure suit becomes an issue.
Only above 60.000ft a absolute need for a constant pressure suit becomes an issue.
Reason being I flew with a test pilot who also happened to be a doctor (damn overachievers) anyway he said prolonged flight unpressurised above FL200 is not a good idea.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: California
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
As far as I know this is a physiology thing. Somehow the body cannot handle the low pressure above 25000 ft, even while having an oxygen mask on with 100% oxygen. Above 25000ft, there would be a need for pressure suits and pressure oxygen. Anyone able to confirm this for a fact?"
"Pressure suits are not needed , oxygen masks will do just fine.
Only above 60.000ft a absolute need for a constant pressure suit becomes an issue."
Wouldn't recommend going above 25,000 feet unless you have been on pure O2 for an hour to purge the body of nitrogen. If you don't, nitrogen can be released into the blood stream causing all sorts of nasty problems with your body/central nervous system.
As far as I know this is a physiology thing. Somehow the body cannot handle the low pressure above 25000 ft, even while having an oxygen mask on with 100% oxygen. Above 25000ft, there would be a need for pressure suits and pressure oxygen. Anyone able to confirm this for a fact?"
"Pressure suits are not needed , oxygen masks will do just fine.
Only above 60.000ft a absolute need for a constant pressure suit becomes an issue."
Wouldn't recommend going above 25,000 feet unless you have been on pure O2 for an hour to purge the body of nitrogen. If you don't, nitrogen can be released into the blood stream causing all sorts of nasty problems with your body/central nervous system.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my memory serves me correctly, from my military days:
I stand to be corrected.
- Oxygen (air/O2 mix in proportion increasing with altitude) above 10,000ft.
- Unpressurised flight up to 25,000ft. As an aside, British fighter types had a cockpit pressure schedule of "half altitude +2" so a fighter at 40,000ft would have a cockpit altitude of 22,000ft.
- 100% O2 from 25,000ft.
- O2 under pressure above 33,000ft.
- Only Lightning, Starfighter, U2, SR71 and Aurora pilots needed pressure suits (60,000 - 100,000ft).
I stand to be corrected.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: anytown
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's pretend we know already that Lthium batteries might be te culprit in this and the UPS crash as well. Notices about so-called 'thermal runaway' reactions on Li-batts have been circulated fairly early. The Dangerous Goods Regulations have been extensively rewritten on that subject too...
Yet, remember the cellphones of the early days ? Weighed you down and even fresh off the charging unit they barely made it through the day - in stand-by mode. Today you're usually good when you hook it up maybe twice a week. Means that manufacturers are cramming ever more oomph in ever smaller space, one wonders if the regulatory powers are able to keep on top of this fast paced development.
I have some - only some - doubts about the notion that the manufacturers getting cut some slack due to heavy lobbying, because insurance companies are sitting on the other side of the fence and they have a vested interest to keep risks at a level where they collect premiums instead of coughing up serious money. It's cheaper to pay a few more cents for packaging then settling for a whole aircraft with cargo. Also, two people died; can't really put a price tag on a human life, IMO.
No amount of money can't undo that...
So, if there is a feeling that the current regulations aren't sufficient - look them over, rework them.
Then there's smoke detectors. They detect just that - smoke. Smoke means that the contents of the package(s) has already developed eough heat to torch the packaging. So much heat actually, that it might be too late...
Thermal imaging hardware used to be heavy, cumbersome and hideously expensive. Today, a thermal imaging camera fits in the palm of your hand.
Why not install a few of these in the holds? Could tell the crew of any cargo growing a 'hot spot' long before the smoke detectors would come into play. Possibly early enough to intervene or buying you more time. Time that could make the difference between coming in or going down...
Too expensive ? Heck, then stick temperature controllers in the boxes. Pharmaceuticals, perishables, most of that stuff travels already with temperature sensing and recording devices (mainly to figure out whose butt to kick when it gets spoiled). shouldn't be too much of an engineering challenge to hook them up with some kind of alarm device...
Yet, remember the cellphones of the early days ? Weighed you down and even fresh off the charging unit they barely made it through the day - in stand-by mode. Today you're usually good when you hook it up maybe twice a week. Means that manufacturers are cramming ever more oomph in ever smaller space, one wonders if the regulatory powers are able to keep on top of this fast paced development.
I have some - only some - doubts about the notion that the manufacturers getting cut some slack due to heavy lobbying, because insurance companies are sitting on the other side of the fence and they have a vested interest to keep risks at a level where they collect premiums instead of coughing up serious money. It's cheaper to pay a few more cents for packaging then settling for a whole aircraft with cargo. Also, two people died; can't really put a price tag on a human life, IMO.
No amount of money can't undo that...
So, if there is a feeling that the current regulations aren't sufficient - look them over, rework them.
Then there's smoke detectors. They detect just that - smoke. Smoke means that the contents of the package(s) has already developed eough heat to torch the packaging. So much heat actually, that it might be too late...
Thermal imaging hardware used to be heavy, cumbersome and hideously expensive. Today, a thermal imaging camera fits in the palm of your hand.
Why not install a few of these in the holds? Could tell the crew of any cargo growing a 'hot spot' long before the smoke detectors would come into play. Possibly early enough to intervene or buying you more time. Time that could make the difference between coming in or going down...
Too expensive ? Heck, then stick temperature controllers in the boxes. Pharmaceuticals, perishables, most of that stuff travels already with temperature sensing and recording devices (mainly to figure out whose butt to kick when it gets spoiled). shouldn't be too much of an engineering challenge to hook them up with some kind of alarm device...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be irrelevant, but having myself put one of these mob. phone under a hammer (I know.. what for??? long story following an impressive phone bill by my 16 yo kid), I was surprised by the heat produced by the dammaged lit. batt.!!
Therefore, packaging might be an issue, one has to consider (summer heat on the apron in Dubai ... may be??), but also very adequate handling between factory all the way to the aircraft??? We have all seen some of the loaders operating (inluding with pax suitcases!!)
Therefore, packaging might be an issue, one has to consider (summer heat on the apron in Dubai ... may be??), but also very adequate handling between factory all the way to the aircraft??? We have all seen some of the loaders operating (inluding with pax suitcases!!)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about ...
Dayglo painted shipping containers mounted on a set of rollers on a dedicated deck area of the ship with hydraulics to push em overboard in the event of ....
Why fly them in the first place ?
Why fly them in the first place ?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look what's being printed here 
BERNAMA - Missing Asiana Airlines Pilot Took Out Huge Insurance Policies Before Crash
BERNAMA - Missing Asiana Airlines Pilot Took Out Huge Insurance Policies Before Crash